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

Continued edit-warring on Paul Ryan article

Ugh, this article already got full protection for a day just a little bit ago and all the combatants have jumped right back into the edit war after protection ended. It needs to be locked for longer and there probably needs to be a serious look at some of the editors repeatedly reverting on this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: In lieu of individual notifications, I have left a comment on the talk page linking to this discussion.

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can also take this to WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are concerns other than protection as I noted. I am concerned about the general conduct issues in question as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't take sides. If someone wants to do so after me, that's fine. Protection hits all offenders equally. And from what I can see in the article history, I'm not sure I see any reason to suppose someone deserves credit for taking "the high road". But whatever. If some admin after me feels that blocks are in order, fine. But the protection has stopped people from reverting the article, and they now need to use the talk page to discuss and establish consensus first. I should note that, on one particularly conntentious article of a similar ilk, Presidency of Barack Obama, there have been some good custodians who have worked very hard to keep the article under control. Perhaps some of them could be brought in here to restore some sanity. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just going to point out the obvious here that StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in this. His third ANI thread in as many days, must be some sort of record. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I predicted "next week"... maybe that was too optimistic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The last thread about him only closed a few hours ago. This is getting just a smidge ridiculous, and I'm tempted to propose article or topic bans for the handful of names I keep seeing come up in these threads, starting with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). This level of disruption - whether in good faith or not - is getting, well, disruptive. It's apparent that SS, and quite possibly a number of other actors in these "Wikiproject Conservatism vs the people-who-don't-seem-to-much-like-conservatives" clashes, are unable to contribute to the topic of Paul Ryan, and perhaps the American electoral season as a whole, without causing disruption.

      Historically, articles and editing related to American presidential elections go, er, what's the kind term, sort of insane in the lead-up to November of presidential election years, and I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that we should keep articles in this area on a short leash during that time. It may be that we need an arbcom case for that, or it may be that the community is capable of imposing that short leash on its own. I'm hoping it's the latter, because there's no reason we should have to rely on Arbcom to say things as obvious as "This is a hotly contentious area, with a lot of emotion on both sides, and editors who cannot be on their best behavior for the duration of their editing should look elsewhere for something to do." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have been thinking that something of that nature may be necessary as well. Also should note that I actually suggested that Still stay away from these topics for a while, but the response was unfavorable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't think you can single out StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) here. In particular, the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs) needs serious review. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't single out any pair of editors; once we've stopped them, more will show up, since this is a high-profile article about an important public figure. No, the only answer is protection, I'm afraid pbp 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, but I think it misses my point. We have a particularly problematic user who's done 6 reverts on the same article in 24+epsilon hours, and has made numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. And it's not StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs), it's Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). The record is there for anyone who wants to look. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There were more editors causing problems than that and several were brought up in the previous ANI cases. You are actually one of the other participants in the edit war yourself having restored the material in contention with a revert once before protection and again after protection. On the other side I would say Belchfire (talk · contribs) and Arzel (talk · contribs), who have had many problematic interactions with Still recently, were two of the more prolific edit-warriors. Another of the newbie editors SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) had already been blocked for 3RR over that very same material. However, that editor is apparently new and just reverted once since that block and Rtm is presumably also a new editor and thus unfamiliar with 3RR, having just been warned after the fifth revert of the day without any subsequent reverts on the article. Honestly, I don't really like listing people here, but I do not want this to become a dog-pile on Still. Lots of bad behavior to go around and there are still others I have not mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make it two months full-protection: If we're going to gold-lock this, might as well extend it 'till after the election. If 2008 is any indication, the four candidates' articles will be gold-locked in mid-to-late October anyway. pbp 03:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. Anything that comes up about Ryan between now and then is probably going to be partisan (for one side or the other) and need a great deal of care to straighten out, since the media will report just about anythting about anybody as long as it's "out there". I'd think the same would be true about the Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden articles: we're not a newspaper, and it's not going to hurt our status as an encyclopedia to be a bit out of date with the latest scandals and PR. There's plenty of time after the election's over to add whatever still seems significant then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was about to make same suggestion. 1 month protection is silly since things will be even crazier 1 month from now. If keeping article protected that long is tolerable at all, then protect til after the election (might be a day or two longer than two months). Alternative: put on PC2. Yeah there's no policy for that. Policy schmolicy, if it doesn't work it can be undone. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans and general sanctions

I'm going to take a scattershot approach here and propose a number of different remedies which I think may address some or all of the issues here. These are all possible routes, some of which may be more preferable than others, and I welcome all input into which, if any, of these options is useful to the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general statement: I could be convinced that a ban or sanction on SS247 is justified, but certainly not in the absence of a similar ban or sanction on his antagonists. It takes (at least) two to tango, and there are been a lot of repeat names popping up in those AN/I reports from the other side of the aisle as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In any event, wasn't the latest advice to open an RFC/U on SS247? Are we going for bans and sanctions before the issues with his editing have been aired out in the proper forum? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this would definitely be the appropriate forum for a discussion of whether General Sanctions are appropriate. As far as topic bans/editing-behavior issues, such things are commonly handled here, though there's no reason they could not instead be handled by an RfC if someone started one. I'm responding to this set of issues from the perspective of someone who's not involved in the topic area and has seen the same name(s) pop up repeatedly, fighting the same ways, on the same issues, all over our noticeboards, which means that I personally tend to feel ANI is an adequate venue for discussion of that issue. YMMV, and you're by no means required to agree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear: AN/I is the right place to bring up bans and sanctions (well, actually, WP:AN is, but put that aside), what I was questioning is whether we're putting the horse before the cart by talking about bans and sanctions when there's been no RFC/U, which is normally the first step in dealing with an editor's perceived behavioral problems. How many times have you read someone saying on AN/I, "Why are we dealing with this here when Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StillStanding-247 is a red-link?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs)

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

---

I see a couple possible areas that may serve as an area of topic-ban for StillStanding. Each of these should last a minimum of three months (which would put us post-election), though I would recommend an indefinite time frame, with SS allowed to appeal after 3 months. Possibilities:

Expand for options

StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to American politics and politicians, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Conservatism in the United States, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to US Presidential and Vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Paul Ryan

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1. I think SS needs to step away from American political articles entirely. I would note that my support of this sanction does not absolve any other users in the topic area of responsibility for their behavior, and that I may support similar topic bans on other users if they're proposed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1. We will then have to look at general sanctions (see below) to put some of the other re-appearing names on notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but if there is going to be a T-ban, it really needs to include all LGBT articles and all articles concerning SPLC or organizations listed as hate groups by SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of grossly inappropriate behavior at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center as well, including flat out refusal to comply with the result of a RfC, and rehashing the same argument over and over again, and serious personal attacks on other editors. I sincerely hope an administrator takes the time to look at it. I will add another ANI if necessary. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that he started 2 DRNs in quick succession at Focus on the Family, then refused to abide by the results when the DRNs failed to produce the result he was looking for. Much as he stated here [1], he's not looking to build an encyclopedia; he wants to "fix some articles". Belchfire-TALK 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a topic ban from Southern Poverty Law Center due to concerns about grossly inappropriate behavior at the TP.--Calm As Midnight 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Illegal sock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose focusing on a single editor, in preference to handling the issue in a systematic and consistent way. My survey of these articles suggests there are a dozen or so editors from across the political spectrum -- including several participants in the present thread -- who should be put on ice until 7 November 2012. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, since there has been no RFC/U, and the supports above me are among those same editors who appear to be aligned on the opposite political side from SS247. If there is a behavioral problem, the RFC/U is the proper first step to take. If, while the RFC/U is proceeding, SS247's behavior appears to an admin to be truly disruptive or tendenitious, a block would be in order, but I am strongly opposed to a community topic ban or sanction discussion used as a hammer top squealch one's political opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) To clarify in light of Boris's comment above: If admins (perhaps a triumvirate?) want to do a survey of the political editing situation and hand down blocks to a number of different editors, I have no problem with that. It's the specific focus on SS247 (without proper groundwork) to the exclusion of other editors that concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Jumping straight to an indef with a required wait of three months before appeal is woefully overdoing it and the focus on Still is, as noted by Boris above, focusing too much on one editor when there are many editors involved whose conduct is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As Boris explains above, focusing on a single editor is the wrong approach here. It is typically heavy-handed and elephant gun approaches that AN/I threads seem to reach for first, rather than exploring something simple like full protection for an extended period. These debates at these various article are going to only get more partisan and more silly, and rather than make it sound like one editor is the solitary 'problem', why not focus on the real issue at hand? Focus on solutions that don't single people out, especially when there is a larger problem to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the user continues, we can always start another an/i thread.--Calm As Midnight 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with the usual results of AN/I complaints: Wikipedia punishes the innocent and lets the editor causing the problem off the hook. Articles get frozen so that nobody can edit them, and the behavior issue is never addressed. It's nonsense, and we just wind up back here over and over. (And I note, this is only Still-24's most recent trip to the woodshed. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, he's been the subject of AN reports something like 7 times in 21 days.) Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be the ones who are causing problems to be topic-banned.--Calm As Midnight 05:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's your criteria to determine that? A sustained pattern of disruptive behavior, perhaps? Like this? [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's just up through 8/17, I'm pretty sure the list would be a little longer if I went to the trouble of making it exhaustive. (For example, it doesn't include the report just a few threads above this one.) Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about grossly inappropriate behavior on someone else's part:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

That is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Kerfuffler (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think telling someone to "GTFO with this bullshit" is disruptive? [19]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In reference to the point about singling out Still, see my comment above where I name some of the other participants. Note that it is not an exhaustive list by any measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Devil's advocate. Still's edits seem far less objectionable than the civil POV pushing from the pro Republicans. Rather than reward them, a better solution might be to fully protect the most sensitive article(s), until after the election, and for a team of 2 or 3 impartial admins to update them based on the balance of discussion on the talk pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with FeydHuxtable's idea to have the pages fully protected rather then enforce a TB.--Calm As Midnight 05:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the same sanction is applied to all the problematic combatants in this area. Dragging SS along to ANI repeatedly (sometimes on the thinnest of pretexts) and then claiming he should be topic banned "because his name is always getting brought up at ANI" would be funny if it wasn't actually borderline disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG should be kept in mind here. Black Kite (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. General sanctions applying to all users is preferable to any topic ban applied to one user. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As others have pointed out, there are many editors with problematic behaviors, from across the political spectrum - including some who have commented in this thread. A blanket sanction should probably be imposed on a whole list of people. This proposal feels too much like some edit warriors working the system to get an 'enemy' removed. FurrySings (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of General Sanctions below. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Still's editing is not more problematic, and may be less so, than that of his "opponents" in the topic area, and I will not support any sanction that favors one "side" when both have been misbehaving or when the favored side has been misbehaving more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Roscelese hit the nail on the head here. Support for sanctions against this editora is driven primarily by the political motives of editors whose behavior is more troubling than Still's. It's hard for me to assume good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Still has done nothing wrong, this is a strong case of WP:WITCHHUNT GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (Snoppose) Still is problematic, but the real issue is the "other side" who are disrupting wikipedia on a much larger scale, including a war against then SPLC across wikipedia etc (using tag teaming etc [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]). That is the real issue here. That he has been here at ANI so much is only because the conservative editors edit warring with him drag him around these venues. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban on Still Standing only. Although very tendentious, its not fair to single out one editor over the many others making reverts. I propose placing a series of articles on article probation and 1RR. Anyone breaking these rules will be blocked. But locking the page with full protection for two months is the worst idea ever. Don't punish the 90% of editors making serious edits to the article, because of the actions of the 10%. If those editors are disruptive, they will be blocked, otherwise we need the admins to stop being the nannies for the rest of us.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban, as I've said before its not the content, its the battleground mentality. If he remains working on non-political areas, I doubt anything will change. A topic ban would just be a bandaid. Support trout slap for IRWolfie and others for egging Still on to create an RfC by proxy since they didn't have the guts to do it themselves.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the RfC is a far more productive way of dealing with the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

At the point Still "started" that RfC, his behavior was such that it was (or should have been) obvious to all that his involvement in this RfC would lead to a boomerang. Shame on those who goaded Still into walking into this snare.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about. It is highly unlikely any form of boomerang would result from the RfC. I have not been goading Still and I dislike that characterization. I also note that you have been involved in almost all the articles which are mentioned in the RfC, where your primary contribution has been to revert others; and your contributions are almost solely within this topic area. You have also been blocked as much as Still and for the same reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 - StillStanding has shown he is completely incapable of constructively editing articles on American politics, particularly articles on conservatism, and this is entirely necessary to prevent further disruption. Other editors may be doing stuff as well, but StillStanding has been repeatedly doing this at dozens of different articles since he joined. I believe this is ample enough evidence that Still does not intend to change or even address his problematic editing behavior, and if that is the case than a topic ban will be inevitable anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question - would you support a similar ban on another editor (and I'm just picking one at random here) who has commented in this thread, around 60% of their articlespace edits are reverts, and who performs drive by taggings, and tag-teams? If so, does that seem fair? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Response - Seems like a trick question to me; as with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, you haven't given me a full list of his editing behavior. It depends on the user and their sum of contributions. In my experience with Still, it is apparent he is essentially a single-purpose account disrupting American political articles (I know this because that it essentially my editing behavior was at one point, but in the opposite slant). The sort of battlefield mentality that he edits with and spreads goes so far against the idea of consensus-building and compromise that a topic ban is necessary. The fact he is threatening to leave if he is topic banned proves his lack of intent to recognize and change his disruptive editing behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. Since this this isn't going to pass anyway, I'll leave it for now. I am sure the editor I refer to (and a few others) will be back at ANI soon anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you find interesting - you asked me if I wanted to topic ban a mystery editor based entirely on hearsay and I said that I'd have to see their overall behavior. I'm not sure if you are setting up an argument against me or this mystery editor, but Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics. As he has no intent of addressing, fixing, or stopping said battlefield behavior in the topic area, a topic ban is the only real solution to the issue at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• My point, really; "Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics." How many of those editors have been neutral in that editing arena? Because looking through the last few ANI reports, the number appears to be very, very small. If Still was (a) disruptive, and more importantly (b) the only disruptive influence on those articles, he would certainly have been sanctioned severely by now. As you'll see from the comments here, however, consensus is that that is not the case. In my example I gave you the pertinent edit history of one of the other main editors in this arena; you declined to comment on that whilst asking for a topic ban for Still for a far less clearly defined "crime". That was what I found interesting. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could you give me an idea as to what 'neutral' means before using it to support a claim? I don't know if you mean politically moderate or editing neutrally. However, the fact is Still has been incredibly disruptive and has been acknowledged as such by editors. The fact is he is indeed responsible for both short and long-term disruption on a wide variety of political articles, particularly American ones, and he has taken a battlefield attitude towards anyone who he suspects has political views opposite of his. This is both uncollegial and disruptive, and does not improve this encyclopedia at all. Still is undeniably being disruptive.
• As for your mystery user, please don't misrepresent my view - I am not going to support or decline a request to topic ban a user off of the hearsay of one user, and I hope as an admin you would act similarly if a similar request were to be posted on your talk page. The reason why I support a topic ban for Still is based off of personal experience and knowledge on Still and his editing history - particularly relating to his disruptive behavior and his lack of interest in acknowledging or changing it. I'm not asking for a topic ban, I'm supporting one - and while the community is clearly not ready to hand one out, I think that it will inevitably happen if Still continues his pattern of behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As others have alluded to, there is no such thing as a one-sided edit war. Several editors dogpiled on many of those articles, and I cited two whose behavior was much worse, chock full of grossly inappropriate commentary. There are a bunch of editors in this area who commit gross and repeated violations of WP:PETTIFOG, WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 4: We know he's making unconstructive edits there. But this will be irrelevant because, (a) the topic ban is destined to fail, (b) He'll probably be blocked, and (c) if my proposal below succeeds, the article will be gold-locked pbp 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Focusing on one activist editor is not what will fix the larger problem. Wikipedia needs a way to rein in all activist-type editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence has been presented to show that there is anything to merit a topic ban. TFD (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option one  WP:CIR.  In addition to the ANI threads mentioned, Still has been to Wikiquette Assistance twice within the last two weeks.  I took Still to Wikiquette Assistance after he/she called a comment of mine uncivil on his/her talk page.  Still's response to problem resolution is that he/she already knows what I think and why I think it.  [38], [39].  I asked Moonriddengirl here, "Is potential libel something that editors should ignore". 

Additional diffs:

• Admin warning on August 25, [40]. 
• Another Wikiquette discussion, accusation of personal attack
• Still recommends a blog by "Guest Commentator".  [41]

Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For most of the reasons already mentioned above. A topic ban is not the solution to a problem that is much larger than one editor. I have seen marked improvement in StillStanding's approach to collaborative editing, even in the past week, probably due to some excellent (and generous) coaching that he has received from other editors and admins. I think he has the potential to be a great contributor here once he learns how to effectively influence, negotiate and compromise. Also, there are some unclean hands in this situation: I've observed a few other editors goading him in truly shameful fashion.

As long as his interactions continue to trend positive, he should be able to remain involved, even with politically charged topics. – MrX 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This user is capable of self-restraint and showed it in the middle of a controversial article. Please don't ban a person for trying. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as overkill. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 Initially I was not going to comment on Still but because of his continued battleground attitude I feel there is no other option. I had not even suggested a topic ban on him, and he is now suggesting that I be topic banned while this discussion is ongoing! It is clear he has no intention on working collaboratively with anyone that does not share his personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see the issue with suggesting someone should be topic banned because they suggested you should be topic banned? Still also specifically says he does not endorse a topic ban against you. That is, you have misrepresented his position in it's entirety to justify a topic ban. You have unclean hands supporting this. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - StillStanding is an active editor who is very dedicated to restoring what he views as a neutral POV. Although he's a little too liberal for my taste, he's an excellent counterweight to a lot of conservative editors. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. StillStanding is an active, uncivil, POV warrior, with policy comprehension issues. However, that, without policy comprehension issues, describes most of the participants in American politics articles. I don't think adequate evidence has been presented to single out StillStanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG much? Let's see:

• PA/AGF/CIVIL? [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

• encouraging someone to edit-war? [47]

• admitting to stalking, then trying to justify it because you want to edit-war? [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

• complaint from another user about stalking? [53]

• falsely accusing another admin based on a strawman? [54]

Is that behavior expected of an admin?

In case anyone wonders why those examples are all from interactions with StillStanding-247, it's because, as far as I can tell, Arthur Rubin spends the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia arguing with StillStanding-247. —Kerfuffler 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• oppose as insufficient. This long drawn-out combat involves too many people to hang it all on just one of the offenders. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If I may bore people here with history, Sarah Palin was a massive battleground four years ago. My first action with that article was to warn an editor for edit warring after 7RR. That editor, along with the other parties to the battleground edit warring toxic environment, were not topic banned. Article probation was put in place, and worked well. That editor went on to make many fine edits to that article. Of course, that is not to say history will repeat itself - but in my experience, article probation works exceedingly well. Still is not the only editor there with strong opinions. If we topic ban him, we will be right back here regarding another editor, and another. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have come accross this editor several times and in many of his disputes, he came accross as a balancing counterweight to to editors with extreme views. Pass a Method talk 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal: General Sanctions authorized by the community

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

---

Similarly, a couple of possible ways to handle community-imposed sanctions.

Expand for list of proposals

Possible areas: Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Articles about American electoral politics, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan are placed under Community article probation [Some other group of articles or topics that I haven't thought of, feel free to suggest below] are placed under Community article probation Possible time frames: General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 3 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 3 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 6 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 6 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will remain in place indefinitely, until lifted by the community.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1 from areas and option 1 from time frames (that means "Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed" under the GS, with the GS to automatically expire after 3 months). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support options 1 and 1 per Fluffernutter. These articles are rapidly spinning out of control. Admins should enforce these sanctions on a near-zero tolerance basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in preference to a T-ban, as proposed above. Still-24's early history suggests he has potential to be a highly valuable contributor to the overall project; he just has trouble in certain topic areas. If sanctions are imposed, they should be narrowly crafted to protect Wikipedia while still allowing the user to contribute, if possible. Belchfire-TALK 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is not specifically about Still. Considering the tag teaming you are involved in here: [55][56][57][58], Edit warring to insert material [59] here: [60][61]. Unexplained removals of text which should be easy to verify: [62]. Removing content which should be easy to verify after tagging for tw weeks [63], Removing sourced content as "obvious OR": [64], I can see why you are against extending sanctions to all within this topic area. This is far far from an exhaustive list. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1 from areas and 5 from time frames, or sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election. I do not see any reason why the situation is likely to get better for future election cycles. We also should not expect topics bans to resolve this for the future - note that most of the editors in the current set of disputes joined after 2008, so probably this would be the same case for 2016. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ?? Your comments above say "seems like a good idea" for full protection. So you'd rather completely lock'em down instead of probation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Support 1/1 Thanks for that, I misread the suggested sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Request for clarification There seems to be some confusion as to whether the proposed sanctions are addressed specifically to Still24/7, or are meant to be broadly applicable to all editors. It would be helpful for the proposer to make this explicit. (My support is conditional on the latter interpretation.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is meant for everyone and anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what I had assumed as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors. (Note, now second choice to full protection below (but still supporting, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• The suggestion is for allowing stricter sanctions for misconduct on these articles, not sanctions on specific editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know, I was making it clear per the request for clarification just above my posting. Black Kite (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. About time. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1/1 is a good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support proposal 2 - 1. Political BLPs are getting all kinds of crap from partisans involved in the elections. FurrySings (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1 (though should we specify 2012 candidates? anyway, this covers biographies, campaigns, conventions without picking up a lot of articles that have had no or unrelated problems) with timeframe 1. If agenda-driven editors continue to be a problem after the election, sanctions can be re-imposed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors, without making reference to Still or any other particular editor, withour prejudice against expanding the timeframe should problems with partisan editors continue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2/5 There are plenty of congressional races which invite the same sort of problematic editing behavior. Or as Arc en Ciel suggested, sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election, since it's likely to be a recurring problem each election cycle. Mojoworker (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 at least, we should have done this a while back, it's more than merited at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support placing all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for all nations (not just the US, as the same occurs in other articles as well, though with less visibility to most editors) for a period of 3 months prior to any elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles. Collect (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• By any elections, Collect, you mean that articles about US presidential candidates would have been under protection since about November 2010, three months before the first primary elections? —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think elections in other nations have the same sort of effect on wikipedia as the US ones. IRWolfie- (talk)

Off the top of my head, I don't recall seeing much drama related to Mongolian politics, Altankhuyag seems to have generated very little wiki-controversy, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The examples most currently noted are ones aimed at Australian politics, although UK articles are also known for such edits. And no -- since the elections are at the start of November, the candidates and persons involved and articles directly relating to them per WP:BLP should be restricted as of the start of August before the actual election -- not in perpetuity. BTW, the first primary elections for the 2012 cycle were not in 2010. <g> In the case of Australia, see [65] indicating a reasonable likelihood of an election there in the near future. And of course the infamous edits on British MPs in the past as well. And the French DSK article, inter alia. And Canadian BLPs. So much for "this only applies to the US". Political BLPs are so routinely used for campaign purposes that they are a long-term major problem for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support an extension to a list of other countries as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2/1. 2/5 would be my second choice. I also like Arc de Ciel's recurring protection proposal (assuming that the articles are removed from probation) and Collect's idea has merit, although I suspect we could tailor it a bit to make it less unwieldy. The only other countries which seem to have experienced such election-period nonsense in en.wp have been the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (all populous, industrialized, English-speaking nations). I'd be willing to bet that Collect's suggestion, applied to just those four nations, would essentially accomplish the same thing with far less overhead. Just a thought. Horologium (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Support 1-4. Include all think tanks that comment on political issues in the US etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support and include all that abortion related fluff as well, SPLC, Chick fil A, FRC, and more.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and any polemics on the talk pages should also lead to topic bans or blocks etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2 / 1 - Basically 1RR type restrictions, forcing WP:BRD, a slightly slower pace that is less reactive, for all candidates in all seats at every level of govt. Under WP:IAR, I would also support full protection on the 4 big articles for P/VP, and allow modification only via the talk page/review/admin, until after the election, around Dec. 1. This isn't a news site, it is an encyclopedia, and preserving the peace and sanity justifies the protections, which at this point could arguably be described as not "preemptive". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an interesting experiment would be to sysop protect all the key election related articles; that would enforce a slower approach to the article building. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question How would this work? For example suppose Editor XYZ is being a disruptive ass on the talk page of one of these articles? Is any admin (involved?) allowed to come in and say "XYZ thou art being an disruptive ass and thou art banned from this article for X months?" then enforceable by blocks?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly how it works (as long as the admin is not involved, of course). Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1/1 Do NOT support using this as a catch-all for other stuff. That should be handled separately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 This will deal with any and all disruption, as editors will be required to be civil and follow BRD instead of disrupt. Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moderate Support of 1/1 I say moderate because the problem is really that many editors seem to think that WP should be a repository of the daily news cycle. Much of the issue here is that many editors mistakenly believe that anything that gets published in the news today is deemed the most important thing in the article and must be included or others are censoring WP because of their political bias. These sanctions will not solve this problem. I suggest we apply a time line for most everything related to political season articles. With few exceptions one week must have passed before the inclusion of new controversial material. It has been my experience over the years that WP articles, especially BLP's are overwhelmed by daily events, especially if some think that these events make the subject look bad in some way. After a few days context regarding the events are determined and the event is almost always of no consequence. If editors would simply adhear to existing WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT and admins would actually come along and enforse these guidelines these articles would not be nearly as problematic. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support; this area is going to be crappy, anyway, but this should make it a little easier to deal with the flood of POV-pushing around this time of year. I'd prefer 2/1; if we can't get consensus on that, 1/1 is OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, full protect instead: See my comment above and my proposal below pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clamp down on political campaigning on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1/Timeframe 5 Indefinitely could be 2 hours or 2 years, but it can be lifted based on when it's necessary. I agree with Sphilbrick that all issues should be addressed individually. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1-4/Timeframe 1, include sexual politics, eg LGBT rights.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you mean option 1 time frame 4, or options 1-4 without specifying a time frame please? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I understand why you want to include those, that would be a huge range of additions, and actually quite difficult to define. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Would "Same sex marriage" narrowly construed be better? While an unfortuante few come to wikipedia to spew forth a hateful agenda, there are quite a few editors who fight back. Though the cause may be noble, the latter group is no more welcome than the first if they are editing not for the encylcopedia, but rather for WP:THERAPY.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. If people come to "fight back", they will most likely dissolve away when the first group is dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is unlikley. There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle. Let the sunshine in via RS and the reader can decide. However a subset of these editors do so with prejudice and in POV fashion, which is not something we should tolerate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Options 2 and 2. Alternatively, topic ban (and tar and feather) everyone who is obviously here to push a political agenda. It would be really nice if logging in didn't mean seeing Bill O'Reily's minions battle it out with Keith Olberman's. Sædon^talk 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think admins have good sense to be able to spot POV pushing editors when they get disruptive. Most of the editors pushing POVs on this topic aren't particularly discrete. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support options 1/1. It's about time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Obama is already under article probation, and has been for about 4 years. I have supported for some time having article probation for all candidates and vp candidates during election season (post nom until after swearing in, or until no longer needed) so I would support 1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• support at least 1/1, would like to suggest 4/1 which is to say, the edit war extends over a wide range of political topics, especially including the SPLC-condemned social conservative groups and some other related topics. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 with 1RR/24h: this would be much more productive than the current full protection. In fact, given the general support for this option / opposition to protection, I think it's a travesty that the article is protected at all. I know I've gone beyond 1RR on this article but I'd be delighted to cut down to that level if it were a generalized disarmament. Homunq (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 Pass a Method talk 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Expanding on suggestion above

Place all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France for a period of 3 months prior to any major elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles.

• Support as proposer. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/question: this sounds like something which might be helpful, but to be able to !vote for sure, I'd want to see a definition of what you're calling "silly season protection". Apt as the descriptor is, it doesn't tell us what the protection would do/allow/prohibit. Also, the country list seems a bit arbitrary - is this based on experience of which countries' elections tend to go craziest or something? Why this set? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was based on input from two others above - it was said that those countries appear to have the greatest problem with Wikipedia BLPs being edited for political campaign purposes in the past. As for anyone who does not see that the problem exists (the Earth still moves), there is very little I can say. There is absolutely no doubt that it has been seen in multiple articles over a period of years, with Wikipedia being the loser as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And by "protection" I refer to protection in line with what has been widely supported above for American political articles in general directly above -- if it is unclear what the word means in that proposal, then the same unclarity applies here. If the usage there is clear, then it is similarly clear here. Collect (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd oppose this until such a time as it is demonstrated to be an issue. If for any particular nation it does become an issue, it can be highlighted at ANI and maybe dealt with at that stage. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as being very vague, and as unnecessary bureaucracy anyway. Yes, during the months prior to a major election in a larger country, a lot of tendentious edits happen on articles directly related to that election. However, I have yet to see any reason to believe why existing community procedures don't already adequately cover when things get particularly nasty. This would extend sanctions, editing restrictions and whatever else this vague proposal suggests to pages that don't necessarily need them and thus potentially turn off new editors to the community. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't find the comment that lists these particular countries - they seem exceedingly arbitrary. Never mind, I found the comment, though NZ wasn't there. They still seem arbitrary. Oppose. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal: full protection

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

---

Above, I suggested that Paul Ryan be full-protected until after the election (~2 months); a couple of editors liked the idea. A few more mentioned full protection in the sanctions section above. Since everybody last night/this morning seems to be making proposals, I'll make one too pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Expand for proposal
Paul Ryan should be fully protected for a period of ~2 months, to expire ~8 November If similar content disputes occur on Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or related articles, they should also be full-protected until ~8 November pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as an addition to the above proposal There are clearly major issues with the edit warring on the Paul Ryan article and that the cause is the US election. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and would prefer to see how the current community sanctions pan out first. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not only no, but hell no. Don't punish the 90% bacuse the 10% can't play well with others. block not lock.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, if a person made 900 solid edits, and 100 vandalism edits, he should be allowed to continue in this manner. Ridiculous! If vandalism edits were 10% of an editors edit count, he'd not only be blocked, but indeffed! Blocks and protection are supposed to be preventive. We know that there will be more vandalism and content disputes on this article, probably a lot around Halloween. We had to lock the major candidates in 2008, and it's time to look at locking them now. Under your proposal, this will turn into a giant time sink for admins, to say nothing of being a fairly unstable article. Under my proposal, consensus is achieved for every single edit, the article is stable, and admins don't have to waste their time blocking person after person pbp 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about edit warring, not vandalism, and this is about 10% of the editors, not 10% of a single editors edits. If there is disruption, block the editor, but place the article(s) on 1RR and block anyone breaching that. Not too hard to figure that out.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If it was actually 10% of editors, I'd agree with you. A quick look at the history of the article gives the lie to that statement, though. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for all 4 top candidates. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not Google news, accuracy before timeliness, and these are disrupting the regular business of building the entire encyclopedia, not just these articles, demonstrated by the fact that we are here, now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as nom getting consensus before edits at this peak time is a good thing. As long as consensus is based on policy, not vote-rigging from POV project members GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support and add Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and associated articles. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First you support placing the article(s) on probation, now you support the counter proposal to fully protect the article(s). Which is it, because they don't mesh?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one (which didn't exist earlier). I'll make it clearer above for you if you want. Black Kite (talk)

Ok, thanks. :)--JOJ ^Hutton 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Edit requests required for article changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an addition to the above proposal. The problem is widespread. Paul Ryan just happens to be the most high-profile article which it has spread to at this time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. If General Sanctions pass, they will give admins a much more extensive toolkit to curtail bad behavior on these articles, to the (hopeful) extent that editors who disrupt the environment can be easily removed. If that's in place, there's no need to lock down the article(s) under full protection. My preference is to leave the articles open for editing (they are, after all, extremely popular and attract many new editors) and just remove those editors who can't play well with others using GS. If GS fail to handle the matter - if there's extensive socking, or if every single editor who edits the article can't behave, etc, then full-protection may have to go back in place, but I prefer to leave it as something we could deploy, if we end up needing to, in the future. (Note: this non-full-protection should obviously not go into effect unless and until General Sanctions pass. Without GS, full-protection at admin discretion is appropriate). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with a slightly different rationale than JOJ: don't punish Wikipedia's readers because a few editors can't behave themselves. The hammer should fall hard on those who have created problems. But editors who are willing to engage the articles in a constructive way should not only be permitted but encouraged to improve these articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boris. While many of us lament the news-y state of election articles, stuff is undoubtedly going to happen in the next two months and we'd disservice our readers by keeping the articles so out of date. Probation should take care of the issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Maybe we do this on Election Day, if we can't keep up with everything. But constructive editors should almost always be accommodated if possible and we would do a disservice to our readers to not allow constructive editors to keep the articles in good quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Couldn't Oppose More Absolutely unnecessary to limit all improvement of articles for 2 months because of some editors who can't control themselves. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, if this is necessary the day before election day and the morning of, this could be acceptable. But this suggestion is ludicrous at best, flat-out offensive at worst. General sanctions are an infinitely better idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that being full protected ≠ not being edited pbp 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It can only be edited by admins, correct? That's less than .01% of editors. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus edit requests. It just means that each edit can be quickly checked before adding it, and enforces the requirement for consensus before the edits are made (plus eliminating simple vandalism). Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well edit requests can only be carried out by admins...there are roughly 1500 admins and 17.5 million editors, you do the math. It's just not a good idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Phightins, who says it very very well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reminds me of the story of a Zen student asking his teacher how long until I become enlightened? The teacher started with "10 years", then when he saw the student was in a hurry, "Sorry, 20 years". The student started to say that he planned to work very hard at it, when his teacher replied "30 years". The article is no longer truthful, by virtue of omission, and needs to be edited. Waiting for an election is not a solution. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it will never happen, it is probably a good idea for all political articles to be locked during the prime election period. It would still allow information to be added via talk page concensus and RfC, but it would go a long way in removing tedious "news of the day" edits which serve no historical value. OR we could establish a time frame for additions. Events less than one week old could not be added. It usually takes a few news cycles for the entire story to get out anyway, and this would eliminate many edit wars regarding something that just happened. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The articles need further changes during the election period to provide relevant, up to date information. Providing accurate, unbiased political information at the time it matters most is very difficult, but worth doing. Placing power over article content into the hands of the admin corps would further concentrate power in Wikipedia and create further incentives to ongoing efforts to banish or elevate admins based on political considerations. I no longer think that the complete political domination of Wikipedia by crass outside interests can actually be prevented, but stopping this proposal for now may delay it. Wnt (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think this edit [66] reads as a threat. The whole conversation is full of accusations without evidence and is yet more proof there is a WP:WITCHHUNT ongoing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The essay you mention says, "The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm."  The diff here and in follow-up here, and the continuing denial here, show a potential for harm to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Boris. At least for the time being. Give the general sanctions a chance to work; if they don't, we can reconsider. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any positive contributions is far outweighed by the effort involved in monitoring the political hacks who come in between now and the election. The people who really want to contribute towards a lasting encyclopedia will be here after the elections are over. FurrySings (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: No, we do not need this article to be "constantly up-to-date" - isn't one of the premises of Wikipedia that we're NOT a news ticker? What we need this article to be is unfailingly accurate, and that can be assured under the circumstances much better by talk page consensus than by a flurry of editors with axes to grind. Somehow I can live - and suspect most others can as well - with a day's delay in amending an encyclopedia article. I would be very interested in hearing the Opposers' take on how failure to include the last 24 hours' worth of news cycle "punishes" the readers more than not having to wade through a blizzard of vandalism, subtle or otherwise, aids them. Ravenswing 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per SBHB and Phightins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose: full protection does get rid of some bathwater, but it also throws out a whole lot of baby. Homunq (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The level of disruption is not unusual enough to justify this. If it were something like Stephanie Adams, maybe. Even then, I'd let ArbCom do it. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - General power of administrators to toss political hacks making disruptive edits is correct approach. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

One more proposal: indef semi-protection in addition to sanctions

I see gold-lock has failed, but is there a consensus to raise the article's protection level to semi-protected indefinitely? pbp 02:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the issues we are dealing with are with auto-confirmed editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I think that IRWolfie's right, most of the bad actors here are auto-confirmed. On the other hand, most of the good actors are too. If this isn't semiprotected, IP editors will help some with various details, but also inject some chaos that will slow resolution of the most contentious issues. So I (weakly) think that it should be semiprotected for the short term, but we should try lifting that once the RfC's worked out. Mostly, though, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Homunq (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

also, what happened above? Why no comment here about the decision to put the article on probation? Doesn't a protected article on probation make no sense? Homunq (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User page breaching wikipedia policies

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

---

User:Timeshift9's Userpage has become a political blog where he posts quite abusive comments about political opponents. The user has turned his page into a blog. This is in breach of WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. This section states 'You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia'. On his Userpage he has an excessive level of political commentary, where he has labelled Conservative Politicians 'disgusting', 'loons' and other abusive politcal commentary. I would consider myself a progressive, but would not dream of my userpage into a blog. He latest commentary today is about Tony Abbott, a senior conservative politican. 'WHEN Tony Abbott lost the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council presidency, he allegedly approached the woman who beat him and, leaning into her face, punched the wall on each side of her head... you know what's worse? That nobody is surprised by his actions. It's just pure Abbott'. I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and give an opinion. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins looking at this should also have a look at the "Neutral point of view" topic at the top of this page, where a topic ban on Australian politics is currently passing on the votes on the OP. Orderinchaos 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I took a look and I agreed that this was well beyond what is acceptable, so I deleted it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of blogging sites out there. --John (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like User:John has deleted it. I'm sure this ANI post has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian_Greens. Nothing at all. No siree! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC

• Comment I'm not going to get into a slanging match here but it has Nothing whatsoever to do with it. I haven't mentioned his user page until he went overboard now with Abbott. He went way to far. I don't dislike you or even him personally. This is about policies and their correct and fair application. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, and it would have nothing to do with the fact that you have been trying to get him banned on this very board over an unrelated dispute you're having with him? Orderinchaos 10:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nup, I don't want him banned. I just want his Userpage to follow the rules, and not be a personal abusive blog where he accuses people of being disgusting and loons. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am still looking at this matter. I took Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 into account when deleting. I am particularly scrutinizing the conduct of Welshboyau11. --John (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have now restored the UP per Orderinchaos's request. --John (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's clearly breaching policies. WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes, why? A clearer violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX you'd be hard pressed to find. If not deletion, it needs very large amounts of content removal. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't just have another MfD? There was one back in 2011 which was closed as delete and then overturned at DRV. It would seem reasonable to suggest that MfDing it means we might have a chance to see if consensus has changed since the last MfD/DRV. Personally, I'm okay with a small amount of user advocacy on user pages and I do not, for instance, get all concerned about having opinion or identity userboxes. But the simple principle of "hey, look, nothing wrong with having opinions but if you want to run a blog, Wordpress and Tumblr exist, go there" seems a pretty reasonable objection. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly a good idea. The previous MfD and DRV are irrelevant anyway because the content of the page is completely different from what it was then [67]. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If anyone wants a further admin opinion, they can have mine: the page should be summarily deleted - no discussion necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Black Kite and Tom Morris that this stuff does not belong here, but I acceded to the request from OiC to give the user a chance to defend this work and maybe amend it before outright deletion. If there is a BLP concern it needs to be instantly deleted but I am not aware of that being the case. What harm will leaving it up for 24 hours do? --John (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• None, I suppose; I simply couldn't see any way that the page doesn't violate WP:SOAP. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have now blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for continuing this dispute after he had made others aware of it and I had asked him nicely several times not to. If anyone feels I have been heavy-handed I shall be glad to reconsider. --John (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment To explain my request to John - I asked him (as the deleting admin) for a courtesy restoration to give Timeshift9 time to fix it, and notice that the community desired him to do so. I think a user in good standing with the sort of contributions Timeshift9 has to the encyclopaedia deserves that, although it isn't a free pass and if he doesn't fix it, then it ceases to be up to him (or me, for that matter). Orderinchaos 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment After looking at the page, I agree that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I suggest that it be blanked first, and that Timeshift9 be given a chance to copy the contents that he wants to keep. After Timeshift9 has had a chance to do so, it should be deleted and a new user page created. FurrySings (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly exceeds the tolerance of WP:UP. Had I stumbled across it, I would have just MfD'ed it and not given it a second thought. Blanking is another option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Final comment I feel like my initial instinct to delete was justified; I also feel like I was justified in acceding to the request to undelete. At the same time, I have no objection if another admin wants to redelete or blank it. --John (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree it should be deleted. Perhaps MfD is the way forward? Wikipedia isn't the place to host "rant time!" [68]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - I've boldly cleaned it up, which is the least drastic solution, as he will still have access to the data. I've left a note on his talk page explaining this, and that if he reverts, either myself or another admin is likely to either speedy delete or send to MfD, based on policy and a clear consensus here. He probably won't like it, but it is the least aggressive way to solve this issue. Any admin that feels it still needs to go to MfD/CSD is free to without hurting my feelings, I just felt like this was a minimal solution. If he restores, stronger delete action may be needed. Hopefully he will appreciate the mildness of this solution and just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) for an indefinite period as being the latest sockpuppet of another editor (please refer to my block rationale on their talk page). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I note that Welshboy11 has been blocked as a sock. I have had this questioned multiple times over my years at wikipedia, and it's always been decided that some level is ok, but not excessive pages and pages. I admit that it may have grown a bit bushy of late, i've taken a chainsaw to it and introduced a minimalist version which is far less than the previous one that was given the all-clear in the last time it was brought up. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the motivations of the original nominator, this page needs to be quickly sent for deletion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, if you read the above. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift9 reverted Dennis Brown's bold editing of the page; I have restored it. Not only is it a blog, it is also full of BLP violations, attacks on living people. If Timeshift reverts my restoration, the page needs to be taken to MfD. If it is deleted, and Timeshift recreates it, or starts a new page with the same problems, he should be blocked indef for disruptiveness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert. Have you read what I typed above? Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it seems Timeshift removed about 3/4 of the disputed content - see this composite diff. Orderinchaos 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You did not completely revert Dennis, so I withdraw that, but your "chainsaw" version is still not acceptable - it still has serious BLP violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Like what? Some level is ok on a userpage. 13,000 characters were removed. i readded 3,000 characters. Less than a page and very trim, more trim than the last time i was asked to scale back - i reiterate - some is allowed, notblog does not apply to userpages. If there is a specific BLP vio, then tell me the specific vio, and i'll fix it, as was said last time too. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I not only read the above, I read the page under discussion. There were unsourced negative BLP items still there alongside other entries that had no buisness there. I'll mention the possible exception (for the sourced material only) if the material is legitimately to be used in the near future for creating or updating articles here. If that is the case, the material should still not be where it is. The sourced info should, in my opinion, be moved to a subpage (to lessen visibility) and the unsourced portion must not be retained. That still only discusses the BLP issues, not the soapbox or blog problems. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that it does - can you please explain what these are? The material looks like some middle-of-the road type comments about some public figures. Can you please also explain why you also removed the first paragraph of the talk page in this edit? - it's about why Wikipedia is good, and has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP issues or political commentary. I have to say that I'm really concerned with the apparent enthusiasm some editors seem to have to remove stuff from other editors' talk pages; this should only be a last resort, and should be undertaken with great care. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been explained in significant detail on my talk page, in one of the most depressing conversations I have ever been involved in in my 7 years on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Socks and their associated mopups... sigh. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Sigh per above. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close - I've given my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) so won't comment here on the actual content. But given this has been raised elsewhere (notionally more appropriate) by an editor in far better standing (not a sock-puppet) and given the genesis of this particular notice (arguably vexatious), can we at least agree this particular case should be closed so that we avoid data redundancy? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User is mass tagging images for deletion under false and misleading rationales

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

---

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

I do not know how long this has been going on. His/her contributions section is replete with a massive amount of "deletion tagging" and warnings to users about uploaded images, with the rationale that "no source is provided". I don't know if the user is using a bot, or is actually opening up the image descriptions to confirm whether or not the image has a provided source. Some of these nominations appear valid, but quite a few appear erroneous. This first came to my attention when this public domain image: File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg was nominated for deletion as no source. Source listed is California Department of Corrections photographic records. Bulwersator then added the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6, again with the rationale that no source was given. When I asked about this, Bulwersator seems to feel that it must have an online link to verify the source. I pointed out WP:PAYWALL, but the user still thinks that only an online link can verify the source, and that we should wait for the result of the deletion discussion. I don't really trust those deletion requests. I've trusted that process in that past but many a time an admin has come through and simply deleted the image without verifying that the nomination was valid, and simply just trusted that the person nominating the image for deletion was correct. This happened to me a few times, by a now retired admin, whose name I will not mention here.

Bulwersator has also done this with several other images, File:963 AWACS.JPG, File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG, File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG, File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg, to name only a few, and his talk page is full of several requests to either stop or to explain, including by an admin, most of which is ignored.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I caught a couple of these the other day, where the source website had simply moved location, and I was able to easily find them at the Wayback machine. If this a continuing problem, then yes, something needs to be done. Eventually, the source location for every file will move on the web and you have to rely on a bit of common sense, otherwise all images would be deleted over time, making the idea of having images from other sources at WP unworkable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Appreciate that comment. What is your take on offline sources, or "Self" sources? Bulwersator seems to feel that unless there is alink that he can verify teh source from his computer, it is technically unsourced. This is troubling because it makes me wonder just how many images have been erroneously deleted under his rationale.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Verification must be possible, it isn't required that it is easy, whether it is a fact or an image. If it is easy to see that a website source has simply moved, then nominating the image for deletion is just disruptive. At the very least, you start a discussion somewhere instead of slamming it with a speedy tag. Now someone is going to have to go and look at every speedy tag he has ever done, which is going to take an insane amount of time. This is very, very disruptive to say the least. I would hope that admins rejected his tags about sources in most cases if it is just a matter of a source moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, based on the conversations on his talk page, he seems to think that every images must have a free weblink provided in the licensing, which is clearly not the case. If we required free weblinks for sources, half of WP's citations and images would disappear over night. Either he needs to learn properly about sourcing, including that paywalls and offline sources are fine for sourcing, or he needs to be topic banned from nominating images for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that there are other forms of sourcing - "own work" based on AGF, books and other publications, collections that are not digitized, confirmations by trusted person that permission exists/existed (OTRS etc) and more. It was not my intention to imply that "free weblinks" are the only allowed source Bulwersator (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I looked at this one File:963_AWACS.JPG and Bulwersator is absolutely correct - if this is a copyrighted image, the photo is a derivate work and therefore cannot be released under a free license. If it's not a copyrighted work, the uploader needs to specify that (and why) on the image page. Either way, yes, it needs to be tagged. Haven't looked at the others - will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Right, what I see is a mixture of copyrighted items and non-copyrighted ones. The uploaders appear to believe that they can take photos of things and the copyright belongs to them. They are wrong. Where copyright exists, the images must be tagged as non-free. Where they aren't, it must be clearly explained why they're free (out of copyright, never coprighted, etc. ). Bulwersator has possibly been a little too keen here, but policy-wise they are generally correct. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • The patch itself would fall under PD as a work of the US Govt. The photographer was the editor that uploaded, and he released his contribution of the "art" into the PD, whether or not it was a part of his job, which he claims it was, so it would automatically be in the PD. They are not correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my point. If it's PD, it needs a tag saying that (probably PS-US-Gov or something similar). If the uploaders don't tag as such, other editors are free to question it. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe there is a tag saying so, at least on the patch.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • It does say that in the summary. WP:BLUE comes to mind when it is a work of the US Govt. and declared as much, but in this case, he explains it adequately. And discussing is very different than speedy delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Woah, hang on - the tag and summary wasn't on it when Bulwersator nominated it - it was only added today. Thus, my point stands - it should have been tagged properly (which it is now). You can't blame an editor for questioning something that isn't tagged correctly. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Retagged image was moved to Commons. Thanks for comments and fixes Bulwersator (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Some of the images in question are photographs of 3-D works of art, e.g., File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG. A photograph of a 3-D work of art is a new work, given the photographer's options in choosing the angle, framing, etc.—that's supported by Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I don't see any reason to leave those images up for discussion, unless he can make a valid claim that the uploader is not the photographer of the works. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But the two I removed speedy tags for the other day, NASA I believe and watermarked, were just a matter of the website changing locations. This is disruptive, even if that isn't his intention. I'm tight on copyright, but his idea that every image must be freely accessible on the internet to be verified, and these, shows a real, significant problem. Again, someone is going to need to filter through his contribs to weed this out and make sure we didn't lose good images due to a simple page move of the source. That isn't enforcing copyright, that is shotgun nominating based on a misconception of copyright policy and failure to do a little due diligence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well I appreciate that you have been actively checking whether or not images nominated for deletion have been validly nominated. That hasn't always been the case in the past with other admins, and it puts my mind at ease, at least a little, to know that some admins take the time to review the images before deleting.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, my concern is that I normally do not check CSD for files. I just accidentally wandered into that area for the first time the other day, or I wouldn't have been aware of the problem. And I deal with copyright issues every day, so I'm fairly familiar with the law. My concern is that even if we catch most of them, some slip by and get deleted, and if he is making a lot of bad filings, it creates unnecessary work for admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Which is why I filed this report. My first inclination was to have the user explain to me the rationale, but was at first ignored. I of course persisted, but his answers were unacceptable. You're right, this is disruptive and causes more head aches than it solves. I can't speak for everyone, but the image that I uploaded has a source clearly listed, but his rationale is that since its not an online source, its not a valid source.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • To be fair, the problem is that in the past we have had a lot of issues with non-free files being attributed to a PD source with no real proof, whereas the onus is on the uploader to prove its free-ness. This one isn't actually a very good example, unless someone had Photoshopped a mugshot it's fairly obvious that it's a valid California mugshot, but other images aren't that easy to fix. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why tag on File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg is "false and misleading"? This file is without source (and I tried to fix it, but google image search failed to find this image on website operated by NASA, it is without any useful description and without ID of photo) Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But there you go again. Thinking that every image source must be easily found online. There is absolutely no requirement that says that verifiable information must be found online.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't require every image to be available online, but we do require better source information than just what that image currently has. There's no immediate evidence beyond the uploader's claim it came from NASA (obviously only a few entities could make that pic).
    • However, to that end, image searches are much better done by tineye.com, which comes up with this NASA IOTD page, so we can fix the source and the like. Be aware that tineye doesn't know original from copies so often you may find images that might have actually originated at WP to be duplicated to blogs. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I know how image search works, thanks for info that tineye is again useful (I stopped using it about three months ago as it was clearly worse that google) Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Source found with tineye, image copied to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • At some point, common sense has to come into play. Who the hell else COULD have done that photograph, Bulwersator? No one. You don't nominate things for deletion just because you can. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not deconstruct one, and you have to be able to determine which images really need discussion and which ones do not. Personally, I think you need to not be sending any photos to delete discussion at all because I don't think you understand the policy well enough to. It isn't personal, but we don't need a backlog of copyright discussions on images that aren't needing to be questioned. My opinion is that you are actually harming the project by creating unnecessary backlogs in an area that is already perpetually backlogged. I know you don't mean to, but you are. I would feel better if you voluntarily stayed out of image deletion for six months and learn the policy better. I would support a move to require this, as this isn't one or two issues, but a whole string of them that is causing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It was obviously made from ISS (full name: International Space Station). Images made by employees of Russian Federal Space Agency are not automatic public domain Bulwersator (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG - yes, this one was my mistake as mentioned in deletion request that I closed 20 minutes after comment by 76.65.131.248. Bulwersator (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll chime in to confirm that Bulwersator's behaviour is a problem. Per threads at WT:AST, they seem to have been indiscriminately tagging images sourced from NASA as being unsourced. As far as I can tell, they're either using a bot or using tool assistance, as they were making several nominations per minute in bursts from the 5th to the 7th (haven't done a detailed check today). They certainly aren't bothering to put in due diligence, per other comments in this thread. They have been approached by several users on their talk page about this, and as of yesterday hadn't responded to complaints (there are a couple of responses today, presumably due to this thread, but I'm getting a strong WP:IDHT impression from the tone of them). Long story short, please put the brakes on this, because it's a serious problem and the last several discussion attempts didn't seem to do much. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• This may or may not be of interest with regards to this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Statues

• File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG - I wonder why obvious derivative work (photo of statue) was kept as "The original work is the photograph, not the statue: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright" despite Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works and Freedom_of_panorama#United_States Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The same problem - File:Ogden Portrait.JPG Bulwersator (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Photo is derivative work of statue, works of art are not covered by FOP in USA (see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) (maybe statues are work of federal government or so old that copyright expired or for some other reason. But it was not mentioned in description, and still is not mentioned) Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what I'm talking about, you don't understand the policy, which is why I'm asking you to stay out of this part of Wikipedia until you do. There is no Freedom of panorama in the USA, but it doesn't apply to every building every made. And the decision is based on a consensus view of what is acceptable via policy, not our interpretation of US law as we are not lawyers. Either you learn the consensus, or you make mistakes. Generally, buildings and art before the 1970s (or 90s, depending upon statute [69]), when copyright law changed, are exempted (grandfathered) from panorama requirements, for example. Otherwise, you couldn't show pictures of old estates, homes, etc. Anything. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean to you, but your perspective is rigid and uninformed, which is why you are doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The best thing that I found is essay Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama with "In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120). For photos of works of the visual arts (sculptures and statues, but also murals) there are no similar exemptions in the U.S. copyright law.". Unfortunately I was unable to find any policy about FOP Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "your perspective is rigid and uninformed" so enwiki ignores potential copyright belonging to designers of statues, murals etc? Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You are correct that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. except for buildings (any' building, whever built), but if the subject of the photograph is itself not copyrighted – for instance, if it as created prior to 1923, or was not labelled with the proper notice for the time period that was required (until 1968, if I remember correctly) – then Freedom of Panorama does not come into it, because images of non-copyrighted artworks are legal.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is the Commons page, which explains which templates to use there, and they are WAY more rigid than we are. [70]. If you need to fix a license on a page, fix it, don't delete the photo. Ask the contributor if you think the license needs refining. If it is obvious copyright infringement, great, CSD it, otherwise, you need to choose a less destructive methods of dealing with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• We've had this issue with derivatives of 3D art in the USA before, and I can't remember what the outcome was - I've linked to this conversation at WT:NFC for more comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 3D works of art do not have freedom of panorama in the US (per commons FOP). Furthermore, the photograph of a 3d work of art, while a derivative work of the original artist, creates a second copyright for the photographer since the angle, lighting and shadows selected for the art are creative elements the photographer can select. (this is counter to, say, a scan of a 2D work of art, where the act of scanning is presumed to be slavenly accurate as to introduce no creativity, and ergo there is no copyright possible on the scan itself. Now, if the statue is out of copyright timeframe, then the only copyright is what the photographer chooses (which we hope is a free license). --MASEM (t) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I couldn't remember if that was the case (i.e. the difference between public 3D art and say, a picture of a copyrighted toy, which I knew was always derivative.). Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

So we have file that is likely to be PD but without source and without source identifiable by description, title and image search. What I am supposed to do with this? I ask, as at least part of editors seems to think that tagging with "no source" or nominating for PUF is a serious offence. Bulwersator (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• First you should try to contact the uploader since many people are simply sloppy when providing source and author data, especially for obviously old works. If you you don't get a sufficient response because of inactivity or other reasons there is still Files for deletion to dicuss the file. I'd also like to note that we don't need a working url as a source. Many images have been scanned from books by the uploader or the original weblink is broken. That's not a reason to speedily delete the file either. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, uploader is also notified during nominating file for deletion. And I really know that url is not the only form of allowed source. Bulwersator (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It's good practice to establish a helpful conversation before nominating something for deletion that can be saved. Because if that works you don't need a deletion nomination at all. If you ask me, leaving the messaging to the bot is quite impolite in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• This guy appears to be the latest entry in what could be called the Betacommand School of Deletionism. Generally, their approach is slash-and-burn, with minimal communication with the uploader and little or no effort to help otherwise. The guys who've taken that approach in the past usually end up getting booted from wikipedia. Bulwerks should try to do things better than his banished predecessors have done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assessment. In fact I'll take it a step further. Some admins have gotten into quite a bit of trouble deleting these "tagged" images. Again I won't try and open up the big can of worms by naming him, but one admin with over 50,000 edits actually retired, because he got so much grief from other users whose images he deleted, that were erroneously nominated for deletion from guys like this. It needs to end. Editors nominating images for deletion need to justify the deletion request and not just nominate the image and let the admins work it out. Like Dennis said earlier, its disruptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the sourcing template says "NASA", then spend the five minutes on Google it would take to find a link to the NASA image in question. There doesn't have to be a working URL in the image description; per other threads on this subject, these links stop working whenever someone decides to change their web page structure. All there has to be is enough information that a motivated party could verify the stated source with a reasonable amount of effort. An analogous example is academic journal papers used as references in articles. Most of these are not freely available online - but they are readily verifiable by either using an academic internet connection (where the academic institution has paid for access to the journals), or by visiting a brick-and-mortar library to look it up. For images, or article content, where it is highly likely that the source given is correct, assume that the template accurately reflects the source. Only if there's doubt should other action be taken. Even then, step 1) is to contact the author/uploader to ask for clarification, and step 2) is to bring the image/citation to the attention of the relevant wikiprojects and ask them to dig further. Deletion is for after both of these avenues have failed, not before trying either one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "spend the five minutes on Google" - I was doing exactly this - see beginning of this section "without source identifiable by description, title and image search" Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The images you nominated that were noted at WT:AST had templates clearly identifying them as NASA, and you marked them for deletion with "no source information" as the rationale. Per my previous statements, you were doing this at the rate of several per minute. Long story short, no, you were not "doing exactly this" for the images that were brought to my attention, and based on your editing rate, the same applies to most of the images you nominated. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maintaining the requirements for images or other medias is on the uploader or those using it, per BURDEN. Yes, its helpful to try to look for the source, but there is no requirement for this (much like BEFORE is not required for deletion). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • So, by that logic, everybody who has ever uploaded anything is required to watch it like a hawk and instantly fix links when they break lest it be deleted for not having a source? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps WP:BEFORE should be extended to images as well. Certainly, the spirit of it should apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:BEFORE has no teeth, what is needed is common sense and nothing else. You don't go trying to delete every possible image just because the source has moved or you have a question about it. It is flat out assuming bad faith, nothing more complicated than that. If we need a policy that explains this, then Wikipedia is hopelessly broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I also noticed several files on my watchlist and that fall under WPUSA come up for deletion and asked him to stop. Certainly there are files out there that should be deleted but Bulwersator doesn't seem to me to be doing much due diligence with their deletion submissions. Its just, as my kids call it, "ding, dong, ditch". Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Ding Dong Ditch? Clever. That's what this seems like to me as well. Just seems to nominate and lets the admins figure it out. The problem is that not every admin takes the time to ensure that the nomination is valid. He seems to think he is helping but in reality he is just causing a big mess. His talk page is full of people complaining about how he is doing these nominations. I'm just the first to take it to the next level with an ANI thread.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm glad someone/you did. I thought about submitting one myself for about 1/8th of a second but my opinion isn't worth much these days so if I would have done submitted it someone would have voted it down just on principle. I give my opinion anyway of course. :-) But I am under no illusions of how many (maybe even most) in the community perceive me. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over on Commons

• He's hitting there, too. Note that this image was one he had tagged here for deletion originally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• This seems a strong case of "I don't hear you". I still think a topic ban is appropriate and I would support it without question. This causes way too much damage and work for others, plus the obvious loss of what is possibly good content. His comments thus far in this ANI and on his talk page can be summarized as "Prove it or it gets deleted" with no understanding whatsoever of the problem that others have with this kind of disruptive conduct. It is simply inconsistent with our goals here and a net negative for the greater project. Slash and burn, indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

---

• I support topic banning Bulwersator from all deletion processes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this high-speed slash and burn of other people's hard work. Bulwersator has been given warnings and asked nicely, yet he does not show any sign of flexibility. On balance, the harm of his work exceeds the value. Good faith Wikipedians are offended, and good images are lost. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. It seems he is trying to use deletion processes to attempt to alter policy to his desired position, rather than to enforce policy. Orderinchaos 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately I also agree for whatever my opinion is worth. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Looking at the situation, and given B's attitude and IDHT behavior, it seems as if a topic ban is the answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I made a good faith attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page and he seemed very inflexible and very set in his attempts to continue nominating images, despite the massive amount of threads on his talk page telling him he was erroneously doing so. He was very stubborn with my image, first trying to get it speedy deleted, and when I removed the Speedy delete tag, he stubbornly nominated it for deletion. In fact, he continued to nominate other images, even after I shared my concern with him. I wouldn't have begun this ANI discussion if it was just my single image that was erroneously nominated, but it looked to me that there were several. If a topic ban is the only way to get through to him, then let it be so.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe that will work. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's proof that he's missing the point when he essentially says, no one disputes that the image is public domain, but I am nominating it for deletion anyway. FurrySings (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous statements. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per many above posted good points of this blanket deletion policy being disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. Sf46 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bulwersator's current approach and attitude is not helpful to the project. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - When a large fraction of files-for-deletion nominations made by an editor wind up as 'move to Commons', that says something, but he isn't listening - and is continuing his campaign over there. Putting a stop to the disruption here is a start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Primarily due to IDHT behaviour. This blanket program of deletion requests is destructive and is a waste of the community's time. Resolute 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the user is doing sloppy work. Here's an example. Obviously a radio station logo will be copyright whether it's publicly owned or not, but casual editors will not know copyright law and all the byzantine wiki rules and templates in that regard. If Bulserwator proposes to help with images, this knowledge should be de rigueur, and he should be prepared to help by adding the required templates on obvious cases and/or by teaching more casual users how to do it themselves. None of the work I completed on this file and article yesterday had to be done by an admin; he could have done it himself. The uploader commented on his own talk page and received no response, so he removed the deletion discussion tag from the file on the 7th. Bulwersator must not have been watching these pages, or he would have known that. He therefore missed an opportunity to communicate with the user via something other than a template. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Putting the hack-n-slash antics of Betacommand out of bounds was one of the better decisions the community ever made. I see no reason why they should be tolerated by anyone else. Neither has Bulwersator proferred evidence that he is a licensed attorney practiced in copyright law, a Byzantine tangle of conflicting rules which occupies the rapt attention of many a specialized lawyer, so the degree to we ought to kowtow to his impressions is - and ought to be - limited. Ravenswing 04:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with regrets. How are us evil deletionists going to take over the project if we have to keep banning 'em? Seriously, it does not seem from the discussion that he understands either the policies or the process, and it does not seem as if he wants to learn. Unfortunately, to protect the project as a whole, I see no other option than a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately, Bulwersator's approach and attitude is unhelpful to the project and is a net negative. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this mass deletion of other people's hard work. Basically, Bulwersator refuses to get the point. With that said, enough is enough and since Bulwersator's program of deletion request is destructive actions, it is a waste of the community's time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Given it's almost 48 hours and unanimous, looks like it's time for a closure here? (If this was an xFD I'd say it's time to put up blizzard warnings.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like a unanimous approval rating for the topic ban, you are right. Should we wait for an uninvolved admin, or is this one of those obvious decisions that basically nobody will challenge, even if closed by an involved admin.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem with non-admin closes of topic bans is that admins will have to enforce it, so it's better if an admin closes it, showing that at least one uninvolved admin agreed with it. "Better" but not absolutely necessary. I'd say give it another 24 hours or so, and if no admin has closed it, any uninvolved editor can do a NAC and log the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He has been rude in how he goes about this, and things would be resolved much better by talking to contributors instead of just leaving the generic message when he tags things for deletion. His attitude seems like he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and he seems unwilling to change. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_topic_ban_(Bulwersator) may be interesting to all commenting above Bulwersator (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping edit warrior

First, this happened (a change from "The Beatles" to "the Beatles"), then it got reverted. It went back and forth a few times, then the anonymous editor proceeded to change his IP address once, then again, making the same edits to dozens of articles. Up until this point all the addresses stayed stayed within the 69.5.x range, but then 74.115.33.163 showed up with this edit to the Who.

Is anyone else seeing a common thread here? My money is on this guy, but I'm not sure that helps. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Evan we need to talk you should open up your page bro. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; not interested. I know I'm extremely attractive to you, but it just wouldn't work out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No really we could set you straight about many things to do with Wikipedia but we understand

have you ever been to st louis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont you have anything better to do? Whats so important about tees anyways? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your primary focus seems to be changing uppercase T's to lowercase t's (and vice-versa), you should ask yourself that second question. This IP hopping editor needs to be stopped from the campaign they are on, as they are just flying through Beatles articles. Doc talk 02:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it now vandalism to follow the MOS precriptions? How are our edits any more or less vandalism then the reverts themselves? Take a look at how many editors have been warring, it takes two, or three or four or five to tango yo yo. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use the first person singular, not plural, for accuracy's sake. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

how dare you tell us what we are we demand an apology now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that "The/the Beatles" dispute is a new thing, or that the way you are running around to every article you can find to make your changes is the correct way to "settle" the issue, you are mistaken on both counts. Doc talk 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the point Doc it matters little to us if it is new or old. Why not just let it go yo yo joe joe? We have the mighty MOS on our side so why should we stop? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that no one changes "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" or vice versa until Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles has been resolved. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion batty brains ditty danes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Any admins watching this thread? Just checking... Doc talk 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is IP 99. I can practically hear the lustful infatuation as he types. Block, revert, and be done with it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked it for 31 hours. I've not looked into the rest of it or whether it's a sock or whatever. Secretlondon (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

199.30.241.228 (talk · contribs), also from St. Louis, is now at it. Doc talk 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

what the matter with our actions are they unacceptable to you? what is wrong with our edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.241.228 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC) who is more silly us or you? does it take less time to move from "t" to "T"? you will be assimilated, resistance is fucking futile what are you gonna do shut down 1000s of IPs just for big tees? hahahaha we could just drive around a city picking up WiFi IPs miller jones for me stones fans

Why is IP not blocked? Seriously? Doc talk 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

F'n whack a mole Huh?--intelati/talk 03:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Thank youintelati/talk 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there are 7,000,000,000 moles. *sigh* Kerfuffler (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This now too. Certainly something can be done about this? In the UK I believe this falls under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; I've been told that in the US at least a few of the comments he has made would be considered communicating a threat, since he has in fact made thinly veiled threats on my life. As far as Canadian legislation is concerned, I'm not quite sure but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

we never threatened you dear evan whatever are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.3.26 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The worst of it was all revdel'd, but "I'm coming to get you!" was one of the tamer ones. By the way, it turns out that section 264 of the federal Criminal Code is the relevant portion of Canadian law, in case anyone was still wondering about that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting that these are all in rackco.com address blocks. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Add 208.86.3.27 to the list. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.94.18 Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.80.114 G'night! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS - Just pay attention to User talk:Hot Stop‎. He's defecating all over that page. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.82.146. Problem is that there are about >10000 IPs just in the ranges he's used so far. This could be a real pain. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a real pain for me for the past 2-3 months, but it looks like he wants to spread the love around. Regarding the IP ranges, give him time and he'll go through all of them. We won't even have to range block. End sarcasm. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRI Repeat.intelati/talk 04:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But how many times do we repeat? 'cause I'm pretty sure we crossed the century mark around the beginning of August. Is there really no precedent for a range block in a case like this? This is quite literally the worst troll I have ever seen. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

[71]--intelati/talk 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of this latest round (64.59.*) is a commercial proxy service for anonymizing network traffic.[72] Can we just ban the whole damn thing? Kerfuffler (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I will dispense hugs, kisses, cookies, pizza, and barnstars to whoever does. This is taking up most of my time on the site and I'm damn sick of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a block on the known PP ranges. We'll see. The Rackco stuff is more problematic. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, that set has now been blocked. —Kerfuffler 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• See the the "Paranoid" section above too. I'd appreciate it if all pages in my userspace were protected (submitted to RFPP already). Hot Stop (Edits) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, these IPs probably relate to CaptainHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I user I reverted several times yesterday before all the fun started. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop, please stop editing. You are attracting people here who are disrupting Wikipedia because of you. --MuZemike 05:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If not, then we will have to block you. --MuZemike 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What did he do? Or is that sarcasm? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Causing disruption to Wikipedia via causing coordinated attacks to multiple articles. --MuZemike 05:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I heard that the first time, but what did he actually do? Do you have diffs? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Yeepsi. They're coming too fast for me to tag them all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like that. --MuZemike 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking for help in dealing with trolls? What the hell are you talking about? Maybe I should just CSD this page, then? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop, as far as I am aware, you have not violated any Wikipedia policies, and thus are not at risk of being blocked. That others are attacking you is by no means a reason to block you. MuZemike, your comments are highly inappropriate. That is NOT a reason to block any user, and you are fully aware of that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then good luck with the imminent war. --MuZemike 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- you're a moron. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. For the record, this war has been going on for three months but I seem to be one of four people that has noticed. If there are any admins reading this, Yeepsi's page is getting ravaged at the moment, but why deal with that when we could just crucify Hot Stop instead? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am not intending, and will not intend, to wheel war with any other administrator. I am just very frustrated with our inability to do anything, and I feel that the only solution is to stop the source, which I am afraid is those who are innocent in this. --MuZemike 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I've been dealing with this guy for months and I can tell you that attention does not motivate him, nor does inattention dissuade him. He is malicious, relentless, mentally unstable, and in my mind the best argument there has ever been for ending anonymous contributions on this site. If you want to stop him, the only way is to revert and go to AIV. Hot Stop has absolutely nothing to do with his psychosis. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How is HopStop causing any of this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Threatening a WP:AGF user with a ban because they annoy YOU is beyond the pale, withdraw the threat now - otherwise this needs to go higher and get your admin rights reviewed. It's outrageous behaviour. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

103-something, if anyone cares. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I won't do anything here. However, if you come up with any other idea to prevent him from editing while still allowing any and all anonymous editing to occur, let me know. I say that knowing that the WMF will not allow any ban of anonymous editing or anything past what there currently is for article creation. Besides, we have newcomers to think about. --MuZemike 06:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stopping anonymous editing isn't the only option. Semi-protection of these articles (not talk pages), would work for starters. Let people vent, but stopping them from disrupting the articles might force them to wait for the decision about all this capital T and small t business, whatever it is about. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know who started this and who might be the root sockmaster, registered or IP? Right now many are being listed here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120, but I fear we're getting different socks blended into this mix. Of course we may just have a change of focus, since this IP does have a fascination for minor language details, and changing tactics by attacking the Beatles articles would fit his mindset. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Has any one noticed who has been conspicuously absent since this started Friday night??? Radiopathy •talk• 15:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Give MuZemike a break. If HopStop's account was somehow related to this crapola going on, MuzeMike would be justified in issuing a block to alleviate any possible damage to the encyclopedia. This wouldn't necessarily equate to a black mark against HopStop the editor. If a leg has gangrene, the surgeon has to pull out the saw. In this case maybe a shot would do instead of the saw, but Gimli and Hersfold, your harsh condemnation wasn't needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Harsh condemnation? Hardly. It's not an admins job to swing the big hammer at any user that happens to come along and get caught up in something. There is no evidence of hopstops account being compromised. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate analogy at all. HotStop has done no wrong, and there is absolutely nothing in the blocking policy that would support such an action. This is an escalation of a series of questionable actions made by MuZemike in regards to long-term vandals, and one that is entirely unbecoming of an administrator. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Got another one - 41.77.137.96 (talk · contribs · email) Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

38.78.193.183 (talk · contribs), confirmed proxy. Doc talk 08:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems our friend has started again. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IP accounts

It'd be nice to have some guidance on blocking the IP accounts. I just blocked two. I somewhat arbitrarily blocked each for 3 months. The reports at AIV keep coming in, sometimes with just one contribution, although it's fairly clear that the style is the same as the others. Are we supposed to just pick them off one by one? Is 3 months reasonable? Shorter? Longer? We don't have to be completely consistent, but some unity would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

His original address (99.251 something) got a year. That seems reasonable to me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist appears to be doing it for six months. They are also using {{blockedproxy}} as the reason. I was using socking as the basis. Any thoughts on that one? You're understandably biased, Evan. :-) On the other side of the spectrum, User: CharlieEchoTango is blocking for 12 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say use your discretion. If those I.P. addresses are open proxies, then blocking them for a few months is fine. Personally, when dealing with an address hopping vandal/troublemaker, I tend to block single addresses for just a few hours/days, as the vandal will just switch IP addresses, and is unlikely to try using the same one again (making a longer block useless). If the same vandal keeps turning up on the same address after blocks have expired, then you can start using longer ones and be confident that they are actually effective. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have a stupid question. How am I supposed to know that an IP is using an open proxy?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies looks like quite a good guide, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. We also have an extension and a bot which keep the common proxies (Tor) blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks complicated. Returning to the present problem, it sounds to me like you believe these IPs are not using open proxies and should be blocked initially for short periods of time. Do I have that right?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, there is a team at this noticeboard that has experts at checking for proxies, feel free to use them as you need. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There were something like three or four blocks (check the log for a specific number) against his original address, and he came back after each one. Just be aware of that. In general, a few hours does it, but I tend to think open proxies are a standing hazard, anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Several of the ones I looked at more recently (81.218.236.182, 188.116.36.92, 91.228.2.67, 69.5.89.104, 41.77.137.96) have open PPTP ports, which indicates they are almost certainly VPN hosts. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The 47 one is definitely an open proxy. Geolocation tells me the IP is from Egypt. Unless this person can teleport from St. Louis to Egypt :P Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendstotheend (talk · contribs) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'll let other admins deal with this (there seem to be plenty anyway). Besides, it's 2:00 a.m., and I should be in bed, not blocking IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No other IP's for 30 minutes now. Looks like we can give it the all clear (for now - I'd expect more coming our way sooner or later). Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is this guy is obviously using commercial proxy free trials and going through open proxy lists. Blocking them for 3, 12, or 31 hours (as some did) doesn't really help here; it needs to be long enough that the list gets exhausted. Since I have no love for proxies, I suggest a year.Kerfuffler (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These short blocks accomplish very little. If some good editor gets blocked out, they can get back in. The risk is very small. Use much longer blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize to Hot Stop for my comments made to him yesterday on two separate threads. I also extend that apology to all others currently involved in this struggle. As Hersfold said, it was highly inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator to threaten innocent editors in the fashion that I have done. As for myself, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if I have burned out completely. --MuZemike 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good luck, whatever you decide. Mephistophelian (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

• Recognizing and correcting a mistake in a forum that is just as public as the mistake itself is a sign of good character. It also proves that it was a mistake, not something you think is acceptable. We all make mistakes. I try to live by the same code, so I respect how difficult it is to step up and take the blame. Maybe a change of pace and venue would be helpful. I always say that an admin staying in heated and difficult areas too long is unhealthy, as you can easily get a jaded point of view of editors in general. Maybe some teahouse or help desk time, plus a lower work load for a month or two, de-stress, help others, don't even use the tools, and remember or reinvent why you came here to start with. I have tremendous respect for you Muzemike, and would rather see you take a break from the heated areas than to leave altogether. We all need a change of pace and surroundings from time to time, to keep us from burning out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• What he said.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, from the periphery, "what BB said he said", seen you around doing good stuff, don't burn and crash! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey MuZemike, you've been a tremendous long term asset to the project, and constantly dealing with troublemakers really can take it out of you - and that apology for making a mistake was pretty cool. I take Wikibreaks from time to time, and am heading on one shortly, and I'm also thinking of having a non-admin spell for a while and only doing content work, just so I don't lose touch - might one of those help you at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Take a break if you need it old chap, you deserve it. You've worked so hard for so long to stem the tide of socks, remember you're not glued to SPI and CU, or even Wikipedia and the computer. Do something else for a bit, get your mojo back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Forgive my harsh words this morning, take a couple of days off to refresh yourself before deciding to do anything drastic. This place needs decent people, and you are one. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your apology is very much accepted! You're good. Too bad we have to fight vandals, but as long as we allow IP editing the way we do now (there are other ways to allow them, without so many problems), we'll keep wasting huge amounts of donor money, time, bytes, server space, and editor burnout. It all lessens the credibility of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is all so ridiculous, and I wish we would do something about the root cause. No one - admins, ArbCom, editors - has ever yet provided me (in my seven years here, yes, I started as an IP for a few edits) with a good reason why we should allow IP editing the way we do. It's not necessary to allow IPs to edit articles directly, or at least for very long. The collateral damage far outweighs the good that some IP editors do. They should be required to register after a short trial period. This would still allow everyone to edit. It wouldn't change that at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some kind of probationary period for a “new” IP address would make it much harder to IP-hop and would deter people like this. I think there are ways it could be completely automatic, even. But this probably isn't the right place for that discussion. Kerfuffler (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't been able to relocate it, but I seem to recall awhile back that there was a petition sent to WMF to require Sign In To Edit, and it indicated that there was a strong and clear consensus for that. WMF's reaction: "lolno". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that this isn't the best place, but it's a relevant place, considering the circumstances. These discussions about IP editing often happen so far removed from the actual consequences that innane arguments are used to protect IP editing, as if it somehow would prevent people from editing. It wouldn't at all.

• A probationary period is exactly what's needed, and it should be automatic. After maybe 500(?) edits, then they must register. By then they'd know if they really want to get involved more seriously. Make them save their edits at least twice before those edits are accepted, IOW they meet a hoop with a request to register, and then have to jump through a similar hoop again, before their edits are finally accepted. The details can be worked out. At the same time, all featured content, policy pages, and controversial articles should enjoy permanent semi-protection. Semi-protection is the best way to block IP vandals, and by far, most vandals are IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, WMF will never agree to something like this (they rejected a proposal to restrict page creation to autoconfirmed users, even though it had community consensus). --Rschen7754 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the others; just take a deep breath and a break if you need to to recharge the batteries, you're one of the good guys here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• That wouldn't deter this guy. I'm thinking something makes the IP hopping take a substantial amount of time. As an example (not saying this is right), “You must have edited your sandbox at least 15 minutes ago, and since the last time this IP was blocked.” Kerfuffler (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• When you've been working in contentious areas for months/years on end, you need to take a break every once in a while. Highways used to be a contentious area, and two arbitration cases and several death threats later, I was quite burned out, and it reflected in my interactions with editors. It took me two months of stepping away entirely to refocus. Plus, everyone picks up the slack, so when you get back, there's less that you have to do! :) --Rschen7754 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Highways? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not. Drama llamas breed in some strange places. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• A good time for me to sing my song. We need (a) email-confirmed real name registration; (b) sign-in-to-edit; (c) one account per person. Ya can't really block any other way and we all waste far too much energy fighting IP vandalism. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• It's reassuring that an admin was able to admit to a temporary lapse in good judgement. I'm echoing what others said about putting some distance between you and the area which caused the outburst. This doesn't necessarily entail ceasing to edit altogether. Just find something fun and non-contentious. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

West Hartlepool War Memorial

One dynamic IP user is getting increasing annoyed that his version of West Hartlepool War Memorial has been changed to one more in keeping with wikipedia policies. His recent edit[73] includes

How is all this going to end? I am afraid Sir that I now have to remind you once again of your possible personal liability, (together with Wikipedia itself of course if they do nothing to correct these matters and it can be shown that what is in question is a deliberat refusal to do other than support the present Hartlepool Borough Council notwithstanding that they were aware of the actual facts as now detailed by myself) under Section 7 of the Perjury Act 1911, namely that "every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and published as if he were a principal offender", etc., etc. (the immediate section so far as the local authority itself is concerned being the previous section, Section 5, in this Act).

this sounds a bit like a legal threat to me.--Salix (talk): 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. If nothing else, it's attempting to chill discussion in order to get their preferred version dangerouspanda 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what his actual point is? I got lost after only two incredibly dense paragraphs. Is he just trying to say "it should be called "Victory Square""? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monkey hangers apparently have no idea what "perjury" is. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So maybe we can deduce that Quakers are the legal experts here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Can someone semi-protect the talkpage as the ip is continuing to post these vague rants with allegations that anyone who disagrees with him is (possibly including West Hartlepool Council) may be liable under the Perjury Act 1911. And someone may want to revdel the ips alledged email adress.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the last-used UP for making legal threats - if he skips IP, maybe someone can investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's part of a dynamic TalkTalk range, so a rangeblock doesn't appear plausible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor seems to have been in the local library looking up reports of debates. Unfortunately his own version was interminable and unreadable. He clearly has sources reporting on debates about the design of the menorial and its location. If he could provide the proper detailks of the sources they could be incorporated. The difficulty is that he does not seem to respond well, even though he clearly wants to communicate. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked another IP for repeating the same statement and saying he will only withdraw it if we allow his edits, although his writing style is nearly incomprehensible it is difficult to see what his actual problem is. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the legal threats on the talk page, and have left him a warning there - a temporary protection of the talk page might indeed be worthwhile if he continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a bit of background I found while researching the article that may be illuminating Peter Judge / Moving the statue. I think he's very passionate, has done a lot of research, and wants all his research included in the article. I and others have suggested he find another venue / blog / webpage to post all his information. I think someone else nailed it - it's really an original research issue and I don't think he understands that we cannot post original research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, to quote Norman Moorsom of that Evening Gazette article: "In the meantime, Mr Judge, "of Hartlepool", I would politely suggest that you should go away and leave us alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's still carrying on about Wikipedia editors being liable under the Perjury Act of 1911 - though really not making much sense about it. As he won't drop the legal thing, I've blocked his latest IP and have semi-protected the article and its talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• He is now repeating the legal stuff on my talk page, I am afraid he just doesnt get it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP too. If he posts again, I suggest you just revert and ignore, and deny him the outlet for his nonsense. If you want your talk page temporarily semi-protected, let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ah, sorry, I see you can semi it yourself ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This user has been posting on the article and its discussion page in very long, very detailed, original research mostly stemming from odd bits of local legislation (I think). As far as I can tell, his recent claim seems to be that the local council is in some way guilty of perjury over having misrepresented some details surrounding the memorial in its publications; if we don't "set the record straight" then we're aiding and abetting that. This is patently implausible, so I wouldn't worry too much about the "legal threat" aspects.

I've tried to engage with this user in the past - see Talk:West_Hartlepool_War_Memorial/Archive_1 - but gave up a couple of years ago - it didn't seem very productive! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There looks to be a definite WP:COMPETENCE issue with this user. Pity he's on an IP hopping connection, although I didn't think any still reset that quick that you'd get 3 or 4 different IPs in one day. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are still some that give you a new IP every time you reset the modem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Humm, yes. Personally I'd invoke WP:IAR, inform the IP that he is bocked from editing Wikipedia until Hartlepool F.C. beats Manchester United 10-nil in an F.A. Cup Final, refer him to Arkell v. Pressdram regarding the legal threats, and then place a notice on the edit page stating that any postings that may reasonably be inferred (by us) to be from him should be deleted on sight. We have enough problems with POV-pushers and world-setters-to-rights concerning issues that matter. This one doesn't, as far as we at Wikipedia (and evidently likewise the vast majority of the inhabitants of Hartlepool) are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never argue law with someone violating WP:NLT. It is like wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig actually enjoys it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the intention was not to cite Arkell vs Pressdram in earnest, but rather to refer the user in question to the response in the case - for which, see AndyTheGrump's link, above. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A person of this name seems to have a history dating back to 2005 of taking councils in the North East of England to court for moving memorial statues [74]. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. The article will remain on my watchlist, and if he carries on when the protection expires I'll re-protect it for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I've added the page to my watchlist. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope no-one tries to move it!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He appears to believe that it has been "moved" because the square around it - indeed Hartlepool as a whole - is not the same shape it once was. Kind of Zen-like memorial moving. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant the article, haha. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the same shape it once was. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

• Is this a community ban yet? (on either legal threats, or competence) That's going to make the cluebat easier to wield in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  That might not be a bad idea - it's clearly been an obsession of his for quite a few years, and I think it's unlikely he's going to drop it any time soon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  Support community ban, assuming we can ban somebody who doesn't have (as far as we know) any named accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are going to ban a dynamic IP? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why not? We had an Arbcom case six years ago for a dynamic IP after it ignored the results of an RFCU on it. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Then I guess I will Support in principal, although not sure the actual benefits since he is de facto banned anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban of Peter Judge the person - it's always the person who's banned, not the account or IP. He always signs his real name, and his posting style is unmistakeable, so we can be sure it's him. If the person is banned, we can revert/block/protect on sight, whatever IP he uses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  If a ban is enacted, he will need to be told. He's given us his email address enough times, so that should suffice - I'm happy to send a notification to him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a ban of the person, not the IP's. He's basically just using the page to promote his own ideas. --Salix (talk): 08:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support the proposed community ban of Peter Judge for his persistent threats, disruption, and lack of competence. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC).
• Support ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Peter Judge is now hassling me and threatening legal action on my talk page (twice deleted) and after I asked him to cease and desist. Totally unacceptable and irrational behaviour. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter Judge has yesterday been attempting to consult a solicitor on Just Answer (UK Law) here [75] regarding his perception of Wikipedia's stance and actions. It would appear he has confused the solicitor, almost as much as he has confounded us, about what his actual question is. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support the ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. He has clearly exhausted the community's patience with his irrational behavior. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. He's now moved on to Talk:Redheugh Gardens War Memorial, making demands under the Data Protection Act 1998 this time. I've reverted, and temporarily semi-protected that talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  And legal threats continuing on my talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia but to use it as a soapbox for his ideas and the use of legal threats to support his position in not acceptable behaviour. Most of the time his badly formed English make it impossible to understand his points, efforts over they years to communicate with the user have failed so I would suggest we also have a competency issue as well. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Marcelo Samuel Berman

After adding comments to the autobiographical Marcelo Samuel Berman talk page, the first editor started personal accusations and made legal threats. If somebody could please take a look at it... Thank you Albertlberman (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note - I guess this is about user MarceloBerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have also noticed this outing/threat edit by user Msberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — shouldn't that edit be made invisible? This author seems be using multiple usernames. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

as the target of the lie i would very much like it to be made invisible. Albertlberman (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I can't do it as I don't have the necessary privilege to do so. Can someone with wp:oversight take care of this? - Thx. DVdm (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes

The backstory is that user Kwamikagami is advocating that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron do not exist, that the correct name is Lake Michigan-Huron for a combined lake. (BTW they do behave as one lake only with respect to levels because they are connected at the straits of Mackinac, but IMHO sources overwhelmingly, probably at or near 100% name them as two lakes) ) Towards that end they (or the material that they are untagging etc.) are putting in material that is either unsourced or where the sourcing does not support the assertions made in the article which cited it. There are also some more convoluted constructions. For example, there is editor-written text within one reference which says that it supports the editor's assertions. Another example of a convolution is where an editor took an asterisk/footnote from a level data chart explaining why Michigan and Huron were combined in the chart out of context and placed it as a separate quote as if it was a statement about the lake's name status in general. In short, took it out of the context of explaining combination in the level chart to make it sound like it was a general statement on the status and naming of the lakes.

We've had some sporadic debates over this over months. There have been comments from others regarding this and I took it upon myself to finally do something about it. More recently I've done a lot of detailed work related to this at two articles: Lake Michigan–Huron and List of lakes by area. To avoid writing a book book with zillions of diffs I believe that this is an accurate summary:

At List of lakes by area I tagged both the name and data for "lake" Michigan-Huron for sourcing. I added Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as lakes and the data on them, with solid sourcing (US Government summary of Great Lakes Data). I deleted "lake" Michigan-Huron from the listing and renumbered the size ranking of the lakes accordingly. Kwamikagami reverted everything that I did in one edit, with just an overall statement "Every statement you have made about that article that I have checked has been false." This included removal of the sourced Lake Michigan and Lake Huron listing and data and re-insertion of the unsourced "lake" Michigan-Huron data, and removal of the "citation needed" tags on the latter.

At the Lake Michigan–Huron article I went through and tagged all of the explicit and implicit assertions of the "Michigan-Huron" naming for sourcing, and also tagged the data given for the combined lakes for sourcing. I also did more detailed edits and edit summaries which unraveled the more complex constructions such as the editor-written assertions within a reference. As a sidebar, I also reviewed the references; the traceable ones actually refuted the assertion rather than supporting it. That left one (untracable) one, a magazine. They gave only the name of the magazine, and the year that a statement was purportedly in the magazine and a cryptic code which the magazine does not use at their website for searching back issues etc. There was no title of the article. no author of the article, no page number, no indication of which month's issue of the magazine it purportedly was from in 2004. I tagged it asking for verification and a page number. I did all of this split into a series of about 9 edits, each with an edit summary. Kwamikagami revrted all of the work en masse in one edit with only the comment "we don't ref the lead, the page numbers are given, etc etc." (the "etc. etc." is their words, not mine).

So far I've only reported 2 people in my Wiki-life, this is #3. I tried avoiding it, with a suggestion at the article and on their talk page on how we could work together on the Lake Michigan–Huron and an indication that if they persisted on the policy-related areas I would be forced to report them. The core of their argument seems to be (in MY words) that their (mis)interpretation wp:brd (which is not a policy) overrides wp:ver (which IS a policy). While there is also an underlying content issue (Whether or not Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron-Michigan are the names for those lakes) lakes) this report is only about the policy related-issues which I have noted in my report. And I'm asking that a reading be given on the policy-related aspects. More eyes on the article would also be good, but I digress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The very first version of that article was modestly written and truthful - that these two bodies of water are sometimes grouped together. It looks like we've now got some editors trying to be advocates for an obscure technical viewpoint in order to impose their viewpoint over common convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Any POV corrections are welcome. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start by abandoning the fringe claim that the two lakes are one lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He accused me of removing tags at List of lakes, despite the fact that there were no tags. The tags in the main article were largely spurious: he repeatedly tagged the bolded words in the lead, despite the fact that I explained to him that we don't normally ref the lead. (The words in question are cited in the text.) He tagged a ref for verification because it needs a page number, when it already had a page number. He deleted a note with the summary that it wasn't a good reference, when it wasn't supposed to be a reference. He tagged another he claimed did not say what it clearly says. (The least he could do is explain his POV at Talk; it appears to me to be a case of OR.) Perhaps some of his other edits were legit, but when I got half-way through and every one turned out to be spurious, I decided going further was a waste of time and reverted him. Rather than correct the errors I pointed out, he started to edit war. This appears to be a case of trying to smear the article because he failed to get it deleted altogether. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone remind me again, in a little less tl;dr manner, why this isn't a garden variety content dispute? People who disagree have different points of view on a matter. That is tautologically true, so noting that someone whom you disagree with has "POV editing" doesn't mean anything more than "Me and this other person are in a content dispute". The best way to handle this is to follow any of the things listed at WP:DR, before it becomes necessary to block someone. I see nothing here that isn't a simple content dispute colored by strong emotions on both sides. Meh. --Jayron32 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, aside from the edit-warring, there is no such thing as "Lake Michigan–Huron", so really the article should be deleted, and there are processes for doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone's trying to claim that they're the same lake? Who do I need to lose respect for today? dangerouspanda 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are deleting "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" and their statistics from the "list of lakes" article, and inserting an unsourced name and statistics for "lake" Michigsn-Huron. Can't wait to see how that plays out for Oceans, since they are more-than-joined. Start deleting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from listings and replace it with the Atlantic-Pacific-Indian-Artic-Etc. Ocean data. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, they are doing so right now, as we are typing this discussion, they are sneaking out to put their own versions of the articles back? Is that correct? If that is what is happening right now, then perhaps we should fix that. If, however, they have stopped doing that, then we are in the discussion phase and no one should be blocked for discussing their viewpoint, so long as they aren't reverting for force a fait accompli. So what is it, are they still warring right this minute or have they stopped and started discussing their unpopular viewpoint with others? --Jayron32 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all the world's bodies of water are interconnected, so just drop all the names of bodies of water and replace them with one highly-useful designation: Panaqua. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CharlieBugs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That article actually makes some sense, although it's likely redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, it probably should get deleted, but my "Plan A" was to cooperatively evolve it to an article that discusses the ways (levels etc.) that behave like a single lake, which I put out as an olive branch. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the right way to handle this would be to take out the approximately two useful sentences from that one article, put them in the appropriate place in Great Lakes, and then make this fictional "Huron-Michigan" a simple redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the continents and even minor islands are also joined, if you dig down deep enough. This is a content dispute, but it does look like it has gotten to the point of being disruptive due to it touching many articles. I would love to hear Kwami's rationale for the whole "one lake" theory, including sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Either the Fringe noticeboard, or the "don't edit Wikipedia while on mind-altering substances of any type" noticeboard might be better :-) dangerouspanda 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They're joined underwater, yes. But even considering only the conventional surface level continents, and ignoring artifices like canals, there are really only 4 continents: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Europe-Asia-Africa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an argument to keep Huron–Michigan. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Only to those who don't understand satire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Kwamikagami:

• regarding "despite the fact that there were no tags", here are the tags. [76] When you did a giant deletion of all of my work you nuked it to a version prior to the tags.
• regarding page number, if you would put in a page number and/or identify it as such, that would settle that tag. But there still would just be name of the magazine and the year so the other tag would apply.
• regarding "failed to get it deleted" I have NEVER tried to get either article deleted. In fact I would fight for the retention of one of them if someone AFD'd it. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute notes, yes there is a content dispute underlying this the core of which is I am saying that "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" exist. But I approached the editing as tagging the unsourced assertions otherwise, and my report here is on the policy-related matters, most of which are semi-warring to remove tags for sourcing. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your tagging, and it hen way past the line into tag-bombing. I've looked at the sources provided, except for the magazine, and they support the hydrological claim. If you haven't already, you should revert any changes made to lake lists to remove Lake M & lake H and replace them with Lake M-H, since it is not generally considered to be a lake, per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. None of the sources I can check support the claim that there is a lake called "Michigan-Huron". What they support, and what the article is now about, is that the two bodies of water can be considered as one hydrologically or hydraulically, and that combined body can be called "Lake Michogan-Huron". No lists of lakes should be changed, there's no general consensus in the world at large that these are the same body of water, it's simply that for one specific purpose one can think of them as one body. The article should stay, on the basis of that specific reason. I believe that I've removed any vestiges of a fringey POV that the to lakes are actually considered to be one except in that particular circumstance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've already stated everything that needs to be said about it. So why a separate article? It should just go back into the Great Lakes article as an "oh-by-the-way" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with it being merged into the Great Lakes article as a section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here I'm just trying to resolve the policy related aspects. More feedback or eyes on the overall issues would be a nice adder. But I do not seek any sanctions etc. (I have to leave for a few hours.....) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly moved all the material from the Lake Michigan-Huron article into the already existing section in the Great Lakes article, tagged them both with the "copied" template, and converted the former into a redirect to the section of the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is best. Goes further than I did and is for the best. That renders what I brought on one of the articles a moot point; the other where the issues has been active is at List of lakes by area (Plus it is germane at one or two more "lake list" articles where I've done nothing yet. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the "area" article, and broke up Michigan-Huron to its components in the "volume" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami reverted you on the Lake Michigan-Huron article. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted per BOLD because there was no discussion: the discussion is on the talk page of the article; I didn't even see this.

As for deleting the tags, you did that yourself![77] You're chiding me for your own actions?

@BaseballBugs: Huron–Michigan are one body of water the same way that the Ocean is one body of water. The sources are clear on that.

@Beyond My Ken: "no lists should be changed". Then please undo your changes. Lake Huron-Michigan has been on the list for years. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "for years" argument is irrelevant. The fact that this bogus item has been under the radar for a long time doesn't accrue any validity. In fact, the original article was modest and on the mark. It has evolved somehow from merely an obscure alternative term to an alleged "fact" which is unsupported by sources or common usage. In either case, there was no valid reason for it to be separate from the Great Lakes article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, do you propose to merge our articles on Europe and Asia? The sources are clear that they are one body of land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. The claim that I'm saying that "Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes" (in the title of this section) is purposely obtuse. I'm not proposing that we merge those articles, merely that we keep the article on the combined body, just as we have articles on Eurasia alongside Europe and Asia, and the World Ocean alongside the Pacific and Atlantic—or for that matter, Hindi-Urdu alongside Hindi and Urdu, and any number of other cases where there is disagreement as to how to divide up continua into conventionalized units. Are the people opposed to this article willing to delete those articles as well? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best analogy. But either way, we don't call "Eurasia" a continent, which is the core issue at both lake articles. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do. Read continent. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is, in my opinion, disingenuous. While there is dispute as to exactly where the boundary between Europe and Asia is, and possibly on the difference between Hindi and Urdu (I'm not that familiar with south-central Asian languages), there is no dispute as to the boundary between the Atlantic and Pacific (dividing point in open water is a line running directly south from the southernmost point of Cape Horn to the edge of the Antarctic continent), and likewise, there's no dispute as to where the boundary between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is--the line that represents the shortest distance between Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas (which is, not so coincidentally, the exact alignment of the Mackinac Bridge) in the Straits of Mackinac. As people have pointed out earlier in the discussion, all the referenced sources support that they are *separate* lakes rather than a single lake, except for the single magazine article that does not have sufficient information (month, article title, page number... the year and a cryptic code that doesn't do anything in the magazine's website isn't enough) to be verifiable. Others have pointed out that the combined body of water is only referred to as a single entity in the hydrographic sense, where the two lakes act as one; in all other circumstances, they are referred to separately. I recommend you self-revert, Kwami, and do more discussion in the future. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone close this please now and/or take it to DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe only after someone puts Kwami on the Ross Ice Shelf for awhile, for having broken 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When his post started I was at 1RR/24hr on both articles and Kwamikagami was at 2RR/24hr on both. Since the beginning of the report Kwamikagami moved up from 2RR to 4RR in 24h on the one article and from 2RR to 3RR on the other article. I stepped back and remained at 1RR in 24h on both. Rightly or wrongly so, the policy related issues in my original report got lost in the shuffle. I am not seeking sanctions, but I also don't want this to descend back into the mess of a situation that it was in when I reported. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain this is not the first time Kwami has been schlepped here for edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave up on the threads I had going with them there for now.....there isn't a real conversation going on, they are just firing volleys and ignoring the main points of each of my posts in the conversation. And now they have added insults e.g. "Your personal POV is clouding your ability to read the sources objectively".....most of my points included precise specific things from a careful reading of the sources, so that is uncalled for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content issue, I agree strongly with Beyond My Ken that the very minor double lake concept should not appear in any lists of lakes. A lake is a body of inland water; Lakes Huron and Michigan are obviously separate bodies joined by a narrow strait. The lakes are huge and so it the strait, but the relative sizes give us the popular mainstream viewpoint that there are two lakes. A ratio of many thousands to one in reliable sources tells us that the proper weight for the minor viewpoint is vanishingly small, and it should only be mentioned at the Great Lakes articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. And each claim of support by a source where the source is available turned out to be a mis-use of the source and where the source said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus of all editors involved in discussing this article, between the discussion on the article's talk page and the one here, is that the separate article is not warranted. (Consensus does not have to be located in a single place.) For this reason, I have restored the redirect to Great lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, and this should not be undone without the support of consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also removed the terribly WP:FRINGEy view that Michigan-Huron is "one lake" from Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Straits of Mackinac, although I left or added the information that the two lakes can be considered to be one body of water hydrologically. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Kwami still a rollbacker?

It seems from the above that he edit wars regularly and he was also desysoped by ArbCom. The anti-thesis of a trustworthy user, I'd say. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to know -- I have had the very same experience with him @ the article on Croatian language. He is supported by another user there and they revert everything which isn't their POV.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs where Kwami has violated WP:Rollback. Absent violations, what harm is there in retaining the right? (other then lack of consistency with the rollback thread below) Monty₈₄₅ 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[78][79], [80][81], [82][83]. Also [84][85][86]. Not really related to this incident, though, so maybe this is not the most useful place for the rollback discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he is regularly misusing rollback in content disputes. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It does indeed. Since we regularly remove rollback from editors who use it in content disputes, I have removed it in this case. This is an admin action, and the normal rules apply. If Kwami can show that he understands the problem and agrees not to do it again, any admin can on their discretion restore rollback. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Kwami not blocked yet?

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

He already violated 3RR yesterday, with no admin response, and today he continues to edit war against consensus. This needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Bugs, you said "there is no consensus" when you deleted the article. The article has been there for five years (and not created by me). If you want to delete it, go through proper channels at RfD. "No consensus" means we leave the status quo for now. Meanwhile, we do have consensus wording for the lead to address the objections, proposed on the talk page and apart from a few quibbles apparently accepted by everyone.

(As for violating 3RR, does deleting a speedy tag on an article that is being debated count toward 3RR?) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You continue to support a fringe, non-notable viewpoint. The length of time it was under the radar is irrelevant. And you, as a former admin, should know the consequences of edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly is not WP:FRINGE, it is only minority usage. Regardless, if you want to make a contested deletion—and despite North8000's allegation, I'm not the only one contesting it (Jason Quest characterized the deletion as "a hearty fuck you", and others have as well)—then take it through proper channels. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted. Redirecting =/= deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And even as he makes his bogus arguments here, he continues to edit war. He's already been stripped of his adminship and been blocked several times for edit warring. I guess he wants to go leave wikipedia altogether, in a big splash in a non-existent lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being the admin's incident board you can imagine that many admins are aware of the situation and if they feel blocking is necessary that's a decision one of them can make. You're not making this situation any better by antagonizing Kwami; it's just adding to the drama so please cut it out. If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. Sædon^talk 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's antagonizing everyone else. He's at war with several editors. I expect the admins are asleep at the switch, and that Kwami is hoping to outlast everyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm not going to disagree (or agree) with your position about the edit warring, but I personally find the moniker "Kwami the Swami" to be racist. I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be humorous, but it's not coming across that way. Would you please strike the "the Swami" part of your comments above? Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's racist at all; Chris Berman would certainly disagree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, please don't use the obnoxious Chris Berman as an exemplar; however, I do agree that BB's comment was clearly meant humorously, with no "racist" intent, and that Risker (an admin I have great respect for) is being a bit too sensitive on this particular occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the, IYO, "obnoxious" Berman, what's racist about it in the first place? If there are reliable sources for the blatant racism, we should add it to the article... --Onorem♠Dil 09:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the YouTube link per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And as regards RFA, you don't have enough money to get me to run again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the core topic is already at two articles so we shouldn't start a third here. But IMO it is a case of Kwamikagami vs. reality/everybody/overwhelming sources. North8000 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies for editing another's post - but wrong is wrong. We can do better than resorting to name calling. — ChedZILLA 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • • And you can do better than refactoring someone else's posts. Please don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The term "Swami" is used by my Indian colleagues to mean someone who is wise and knowledgeable. So calling Kwami a Swami is basically rhyming irony. Sorry about the distraction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. This is a BS argument. So now, only administrators are allowed to say someone needs to be blocked, their opinions on this are indisputable law, and non-admins ought to shut up or start a self-RFA? I knew Wikipedia had strayed from its core values over the past few years but I had no idea just how far. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I take back what I said. If Saedon the Nanny gives me a million dollars, I'll consider running for admin again. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User: Fair Treatment blanking sections of law firm articles

Fair Treatment (talk · contribs · count) appears to be a single use account. All of the user's edits involve the removal of large amounts of information from a number of articles on major U.S. law firms. The account may be a public relations firm or something. I'm posting this here because I really don't know where else to go. I would like to revert all the user's edits, but I am afraid that might be too harsh a solution. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Update, I decided to roll back only those edits which deleted a lot of info and history. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those blankings are too much and there seems to be some sort of agenda, although it's unclear exactly what it is. If there's specific information to remove fine, but that's just a slash and burn approach. And yes, most of those on the list are major international law firms. I think Eastlaw's perfectly within bounds rolling back most of those. Shadowjams (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowjams about the approach. I reverted his edit adding to LeClairRyan because, though it could be true, it is unsourced and if it isn't true it would be really bad. I'll add a blurb to his talk that assumes good faith and reminds him to add reliable sources for edits. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of his deletions like [87] appear justified. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss (4th report)

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss. I don't understand why he won't discuss. There's a trend I've noticed with this user. I'll make a report against him for the very issue of not discussing (this is the 4th report), he'll begin to discuss because he's essentially forced to, but after a little time has passed (maybe a week or two after the report is archived), he'll go right back to not discussing. It happened the first time, it happened the second time, and it's happened again. The second report was never answered by an admin and the third report was also not answered by an admin, however, there was a lengthy discussion involving myself, Bluerim, and another user (User:Bridies), and that other user noticed the issues with Bluerim.

The article of question that he's refusing to discuss is Kratos (God of War) (which was one of the two articles in the last report). In the majority of my edit summaries since September 2, I've mentioned to Bluerim about the discussion (Kratos revision history). He's reverted me and stated things such as "Didn't see any discussion re: Simpsons." which he essentially hid the big portion of this revert by stating something minor; he's stated "...what discussion?" despite the fact it was the one he started (which User:Niemti was more in agreeance with me as we had discussed the lead and other issues previously); he covered up his reversion again by stating "Correction"; he stated that he's "Not ignoring anything" despite the fact I've told him about the discussion multiple times; despite me mentioning it multiple times, he tells me to go to the discussion, and then did it again. I've also sought the opinion of a copy-editor on how a particular sentence in this article should be written and they gave me their opinion. I implemented that version because it is worded much better and clearer than what Bluerim wants to put, but despite that, Bluerim states That's one opinion" when it's actually two (mine and the copy-editors), and in his last two reverts, he hides this by telling me to go to the Talk page over the lead section. I pointed this out in one of my edit summaries to Bluerim but he ignored it: he's walking a fine line (and probably crossed it) of disruptive editing, particularly bullets 4 and 5 here under "A disruptive editor....".

This has been going on for far too long. I was hoping the last two reports would settle this, but obviously they haven't. Administrative help would be appreciated. --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This needs to stop right now. It is obsessive and I am now concerned for this user's mental health. He argues the point on even small corrections and shows more than a little ownership. I've repeatedly asked for a justiification for a certain lead, and instead receive reverting with some rather preachy edit summaries. The fact that this editor has come here a fourth time is stunning. Not the correct forum. Again, a third party. Not going to comment here any further as it just fuels the debate.

Bluerim (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't seriously just comment about their mental health? dangerouspanda 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a great deal of discussion on the talk page about this disagreement (from both of you). — ThePowerofX 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, after making this remark (We will require another opinion. diff), what outside help did you seek to resolve the dispute? — ThePowerofX 12:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can source someone if you wish. As for the mental health issue, it is not personal. I find this a real concern on Wikipedia. People become far too involved - and indeed obsessed - with editing. I found two other editors - one who looks to have edited on and off for 24 hours and another who admits to having issues and their posts are wild ramblings - in one hour. Hence my comment. Wikipedia can be a great thing, at times.Bluerim (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you give up that train of thought quickly. Making personal comments about folks like that is a quick road to a block.--v/r - TP 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[88] Indeed (note edit summary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the last incarnation of this: Bluerim has a continuing pattern of making personal attacks against the OP, which have now progressed to questioning of the OP's mental health. A block has to be in order if that isn't the last one. bridies (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, you didn't find anyone to resolve the dispute, so I don't know how you could source someone. That mental health comment is a personal attack against me. You said you "repeatedly asked" for me to explain, but you only did it a couple of times, and in actuality, I've been asking you countless times to discuss. I left a post on that discussion and your only response was "We will require another opinion." but you didn't find anyone. There was another editor that posted (User:Niemti), who like I said earlier, was more in agreeance with me, and they actually reverted you. --JDC808 ♫ 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my comment comes out of concern. Wikipedia is a fine thing, but people become too involved in the process. Your examples also shade the truth. That said, nose to the grindstone. If these things must be thrashed out on the Talk pages word by word to resolve the issues, so be it. List of God of War characters is a start. Bluerim (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is Kratos (God of War), not the List page (which I requested that RfC despite the fact you're borderline rejecting community input) . My examples show the truth, and you're now trying to cover it up by saying the List page is a start. It's your same argument from the last report. If it was a start last time, it should have carried into Kratos. And as I stated in the OP, you're essentially being forced to discuss because of these reports. That's one of the problems, it shouldn't take four reports to force you to discuss. --JDC808 ♫ 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I too take issue at Bluerim's numerous jabs at user's "mental health". It seems like a cheap way of avoiding the real issues (article/content disputes) while thinly veiling a personal attack. I haven't seen anything wrong with JDC's actions, but even if there were, it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's any of my business, but I find the comments above unacceptable as a personal attack on another editor, and it is made worse by Bluerim's response to a NPA warning. See diff. He is essentially daring an admin to take action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I also take issue with Bluerim's jabs at a user's "mental health". I believe that this reflects an attitude that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have seen nothing wrong with JRC's actions as well, but it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Any type of personal attacks are not, should not, and will not be tolerated. Also, competence is required. As a collaborative encyclopedia, we users should comment on content. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a jab but rather an observation. Thank you for the excellent link on competence. I thought it was fascinating and it should be a must read for all editors. I don't believe it addresses all the areas of incompetence and only generalizes about solutions, but it is encouraging and I may try and offer some suggestions as to a framework. They may or may not be accepted but I believe it to be worthwhile as there's a bigger picture. Anyway, that said, I still feel the other editor is a tad too keen but will post more comments if I can find someone to moderate. There's a decent chap at one of the pages in question who seems willing to ask questions. Will start there. Bluerim (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, article in question is Kratos, not the List page. That "decent chap" posted here and noticed the issue of the personal attack. --JDC808 ♫ 11:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you (Bluerim) label it, the way you approach it is wrong. You can make the same point without being offensive. For examples

• Constructive - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits. I think he's crossed the line because it's being disruptive to cleaning up Article Y.
• Innappropriate - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits, and therefore, has a mental disorder.

That's the real problem here. It's out of line to jump to that "mental health" conclusion. Just stick to what you feel is really happening, and leave the diagnosis to a Doctor. (Note: This is all hypothetically how I feel Bluerim should have reacted if he takes issue with a user. As I said before, I don't think JDC is in the wrong to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Threatening legal action

On my talk page a message is threatening legal action because I reverted an edit, identified as vandalism diff here where an IP editor removed content without providing a reason for his actions. He claims he removed it because it was defamatory. --Itemirus (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The material removed by the IP was a gross violation of WP:BLP (it made unsourced claims of illegality), and on that basis anyone could have (in fact should have) removed it. I suggest you familiarise yourself with policy before accusing others of vandalism. Meanwhile, rather than go through endless further drama, perhaps you should apologise to the IP editor - while we have a WP:NLT policy, it seems hardly worthwhile to invoke it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That article could use some work. Note the embedded editorial comment, "SIN wasn't even record label SIGNED YET!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. After noticing the notability tag on SIN (band) from September 2010, I checked the references and determined that there was an obvious and substantial copyright violation that dated back to the earliest version of the article.
2. While the long-standing copyright infringement is remarkable and unfortunate, it doesn't mitigate Andy's concerns regarding the removal of defamatory biographical material.
3. Another worthwhile observation is that the existence of an edit summary is wholly inconsequential in relation to the validity of another editor's rationale for reverting any changes. Omitting the summary introduces an obvious difficulty, but the reversion should relate directly to the material altered, its neutrality, accuracy, references, structure, coherence, etc., rather than the explanation offered.
4. Following Andy, I'd also apologise. Don't lose heart, just ensure that you rectify the mistake. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I presented my apologies to the anonymous editor. I am positive this issue will be resolved as it is clear I have reverted his edit with no intention to defamate. My mistake was just being too hasty in identifying it as vandalism, when I should have paid more attention to the contents removed. It is an article about a 2nd-tier band from the late 70s, so I was quite careless...--Itemirus (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Itemirus. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I have advised the article creator, MDSanker (talk · contribs), that he should come here and comment on this matter. I noticed his second edit summary said, "Missed first paragraph". Presumably meaning he forgot to copy-and-paste it. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he didn't realize he was violating copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After glancing through MDSanker's contributions, there are various warnings relating to copyright violations from 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Never blocked for it, though. I hate to come down hard on our brave military personnel (U.S. Navy Captain in this case), but copyright violations are on the short list of things that could potentially get wikipedia into legal trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a Captain at all; not even a commissioned officer. US Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class if I am correct. You're confusing the bird. The Captain/Colonel bird does not have the chevrons under it.--v/r - TP 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. E-5 Petty Officer Second Class [89] I mis-read something. In any case, after he deleted the copyright complaint without comment, he asked me what ANI is. I am not impressed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In the brief encounter I had with MDSanker, I was immediately struck by his difficulties with the English language, evidenced in his edit summaries. I made him aware of my concern(kindly...sort of). Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I mention it because I haven't noticed him responding much after that. I bring it up because it wouldn't surprise me if he stays clear of this discussion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend closure: Given that Nyttend deleted the infringing article, I don't believe that there's anything else that's recent and properly actionable for administrators. While other contributors evidently share my concerns regarding MDSanker's competence with English, and his decision to avoid the discussion, the deletion has nonetheless resolved the principal issue. Thanks, Mephistophelian (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

What about other potential copyright violations? If he's been dinged for that on several occasions, it looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Old user, new username

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) has returned after an absence as Patrick Haseldine (talk · contribs) (both are his real name). I believe his old account should be disabled if he's abandoned it, given his past history of creating socks. Please note that I'm not recommending any sanctions be applied for violating naming policy - happy to AGF at this time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked him. It has been two years, and we can be open minded as to a return, but there is a degree of procedure that must be followed. I will leave it up to the community to decide if he should or shouldn't be coming back, my block was purely procedural, based on the fact that is primary account IS blocked for socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJHaseldine/Archive I think he needs to explain a bit how he wants to move foward before any consideration should be given to the idea. Again, I will leave to others, I'm out the door for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise (or forgot) that his primary account is indef blocked already - I assumed he'd forgotten the password, given that the new account is under his real name and hence not hiding anything. Anyay, I'm not opposed in principle to his return - the primary issue that led to his last community ban and block is no more since the release and passing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. However I agree with the expectation of a statement of intention/behaviour, given his track record and early lapse to a previous pattern of personal attacks after I attempted to help address the points he raised about this biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The PJHaseldine account is still under the community sanction given at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction:

A community sanction has been established at this discussion:

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ...

The same information is logged in WP:RESTRICT. In his unblock request at User talk:Patrick Haseldine, the editor states he wants to return to update his Wikipedia biography. Haseldine advances a theory that South Africa is related to the Lockerbie bombing. Most of the content of his biography at Patrick Haseldine is about his friction with the British government over South African issues. In my opinion, there is not much point to his return. He will not be able to edit his own article without adding self-serving information that is going to reignite the past turmoil. Voluntary restrictions on Haseldine in the past have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to him, his activity in updating his biography has consisted of him proposing changes on the talk page, which is right and proper for someone with a COI. I would not object to unblocking the latest account if he discloses all other accounts he has created and agrees to continue editing from that one account only. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a vote at WP:AN if you want him unindef'ed. My objection is unilateral unblocking, so if the community thinks it is ok, then it is ok with me. Either than or via ArbCom, but WP:AN is a faster, simpler option. I would recuse myself from voting since I did the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

From the person who in his eyes has probably caused him the most "trouble" at Wikipedia, I propose that he be unblocked for a probationary period of 6 months subject to his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

• The previous community topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place
• He restricts his activities exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits)
• He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements
• He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism
• He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, any blog or campaigning site.
• He assumes good faith and refrains from any ad hominum attacks against other editors, particularly those previously involved in uncovering his previous sock accounts and activities.
• He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour
• Any transgression of the above will result in an immediate and permanent ban without further warning.

At the end of the 6 month period, if he's not already banned, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place as is or be amended. If anyone would like to suggest any wording changes, please go ahead, otherwise let's put it to the vote.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't an incident, and should be discussed at WP:AN if you want him unblocked. It will require a community consensus there, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Spam revdel on Talk:Minecraft please

Live eBay links posted here (2 edit spa). I've blanked them, but they've also been restored (GF, but it's still spam) by another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised eBay links aren't blacklisted. Is there an encyclopedic purpose of which I'm not aware? Aside from a link to the main page from eBay of course. Sædon^talk 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always propose it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given the user a last warning on his talk page. That is a pretty obvious policy violation even for a new user, so I assume he will be blocked on site if he does it again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A blacklist wouldn't be helpful because eBay is a suitable source for images. You could probably find good examples of fair-use images that came from listings on eBay (album covers come to mind), and I've seen plenty of images of PD-old artwork (especially postcards) that came from there. If we blacklisted it, people wouldn't be able to provide good sources for images uploaded from eBay. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for being confused, but how is ebay a good source for images? All the images there are copyrighted, are they not? I have been an occasional ebayer since 1998 and have never seen an auction with a copyright release in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Dennis. I found nothing on Ebay.com that discusses the copyright of the images there, but it seems safe to assume that whoever owns the copyright, Ebay or the seller, has not signed a release somewhere that gives us a license. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of many public domain works, like say old postcards are derivative works. They are still PD even if posted on ebay. There's no problem using them in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Phantom block of User:Zorro redux

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

---

Can anybody work out why Zorro redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked? Zorro was banned in 2006 by Jimmy Wales and the last action in the block log of that account is an indefinite block, yet the following observations lead me to think the account is able to edit.

• When editing his talk page, no message is displayed that "This user is currently blocked"
• The system considers there to be no current blocks of that account
• The log at the bottom of Special:Block/Zorro redux is in the past tense, as it is for users with a non-empty block log but no active blocks: "This user has been blocked previously"
• The markblocked script I have installed does not consider the account to be blocked

I also suspect that the same problem applies to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), and I see several accounts on WP:BANLIST that should be blocked but aren't. None of the accounts seem to have been renamed at any time. AGK [•] 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The block somehow failed. After I re-added the block, he shows up as blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

DanielUmel on Syrian Civil War articles

DanielUmel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred, added glaringly one-sided info that misrepresents sources, and attacked other users on articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

On the article Battle of Al-Qusayr, he added this one-sided story which misrepresents what the source says and ignores key info. Myself and User:I7laseral reverted him twice each. For doing so, he accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth" (see here). I re-wrote what he had written to make it more neutral and in line with the source, but he reverted me. When I wrote to him about his behavior, he again simply accused me of supporting Islamist terrorists and trying to hide the truth (see here).

DanielUmel has also been edit warring on the articles Rif Dimashq offensive, Darayya massacre and Al-Nusra Front (in the latter he ignored WP:TERRORISM). He has been reported four times for edit warring since 26 July.
~Asarlaí 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of edit warring — taking material that could be of use and making it useless. Obvious civility problems, to boot. DanielUmel could use a time-out from editing on articles related to the Syrian Civil War. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add that to remarks as this (which win the "I don't even think you tried to keep your POV in check" award) and the bad-faithed, disparaging talk headings I changed here and here. See also any of 4 3RR reports filed against him: [91] [92] [93] [94]. Additionally, he has made virtually no edits whatsoever outside of this topic area since his explosion onto the scene at the end of June. An acronym beginning with S and ending with PA comes to mind here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom abusive behavior

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

---

I foolishly decided to do some research on their original dispute and offer what I found. Since you're talking about the behavior of rollbackers in another thread, I'd like to point out this: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. This isn't even bad etiquette; it's just outright verbal abuse. As I suspected, there was noone clean in that dispute.

BTW, and this: [101]. —Kerfuffler 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, much of this is way out of line. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some of these comments were certainly rude, but I don't see anything that requires admin intervention here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• *groan* - nothing to really see here. Concur with Mark. – Connormah (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just left PoD a warning for one comment, but some of the difs above are nowhere near verbal abuse, and some are pretty sensible [102]. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Eh, what's wrong with this? Kerfuffler? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "BTW, and this": that is very insightful. It's not PoD, it's Malleus, in spirited conversation with an IP editor who was blocked for edit warring, an IP editor whose side the plaintiff has taken. In other words, this smacks of sour grapes for being on the losing end of a content discussion. That conversation makes for interesting reading--PoD and Malleus are being their usual selves, the IP is trying to get a rise of out them ("the bored, trolling teenagers are winning"--screw that, and note the other abuse, and the allegation that PoD is operating a sock farm to control the FA he helped write), and Kerfuffler is playing the IP's hand. Moving right along: nothing here to see, except that we'll keep this in mind next time they try to get others in trouble by dragging them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Drmies: Not only admitting to ownership, but outright bragging about it. How can that not be problematic? —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mark Arsten: I'm getting a good feel for why Wikipedia has a reputation for driving people away, when people don't even try to be civil and actually get backed up for it. Seriously, I'm disgusted. —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that this doesn't require any admin intervention - block are preventative, not punitive. – Connormah (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

...and seeing as he can be fully expected to brag about WP:OWN more, seems like it'd be preventative to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, go find something better to do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Fuck Randies. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

JonFlaune recent behauvior and ban

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.

Let's wait until his block expires. He's got enough WP:ROPE at this point. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'd like to raise the issue about JonFlaune (talk · contribs). He was recently banned for 3RR violation and then a two week ban for continuing the edit war immediately after the earlier ban ended. Obviously he got quite hot-heated in the dispute, and then kept removing the notifications from his talk page, and issued quite a concerning message to the admin (User:Toddst1) in the edit summary: Pathetic. I'm going to make sure your POV pushing and abuse of tools to further the far-right agenda are investigated properly.. Quite inappropriate, and so that Toddst1 is not completely alone here being acccused, it would be good if other admins take a look at the situation too.

• Furthermore, regarding the earlier behauvior of JonFlaune, he has accused an admin of bias earlier. The debate got heated over the deletion of Islamophobia related categories, and he filed a DRV that eventually upkept the decision. While at that, he condemned the admin who closed the CfD with harsh words (see the DRV). But not just that, he also nominated three antisemitism-related categories to make a WP:POINT Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_11#Category:Antisemitism_in_Palestine. Here he was even more aggressive accusing the closing admin (User:Mike Selinker) of "striking double standards" and "you people sabotaging" (diff).
• While the discussion was going on with the CfD on Islamophobia categories, he updated his user page. (diff). He basically implies that the people he disagreed with are "politically extreme users" and quotes a newspaper article about subject hijacking.
• Related to those newspaper articles, after the 3RR ban he issued a "Final note." (diff). He says more media coverage is coming on [on Wikipedia editing]. That's not exactly a WP:THREAT, because it's not a legal one, but just makes me wonder who should be worried and is he journalist or who's writing an article on it? After that, he issued the other inappropriate "warning" to the admin who banned him as I earlier linked diff.

I think this has gone too far. I've been participating in some those discussions and respect the people who I disagree with, so it's not definitely nice to see that. It really poisons the editing atmosphere if you go that hot-heated. And the threat that some editors are now getting "media coverage" is definitely weird. Should I feel worried about writing this ANI?

JonFlaune is currently banned for a 2-week period, but I've notified him on his talk page. --Pudeo' 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean s/he is blocked for a 2-week period, which is different from being banned.

That aside, s/he has been pretty much singularly-focused as User:JonFlaune states, "I try to do my best to counter Islamophobic POV pushing." Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I've been asked my opinion: I am not terribly happy with JonFlaune's behavior toward me, but I've moved on from it. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that suggests some sort of action should be taken, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed a block, not a ban. My fault. Regarding the extent what JonFlaune went to criticize the CfD-closing admin Mike Selinker, that's probably a strategy to try to influence admins closing the discussions. If an admin who closes a tough CfD always gets attacked, who wants to make those calls anymore? Distruptive. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That stuff doesn't work on me, obviously. I expect that any time I close a debate with an obviously disruptive user on the losing side, I will issue three opinions: in the original close, in the DRV, and in the user's subsequent block discussion. It doesn't bother me. (However, someone should really close those POINTy discussions he launched.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• After his block ended and he recommenced inserting his preferred version and then left a vandalism final warning on the talk page of a user who reverted him, before hounding him to a article he had never previously edited. He also reported an established editor that was contesting his edits to AIV. It is apparent that he does not tolerate disagreement and the retaliatory deletion nominations of three antisemitism-related categories further demonstrate this. Perhaps it is desirable that his adamantine attentions are directed towards a different topic area? Ankh.Morpork 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor that Ankh mentions, and I was going to bring up those diffs, but I see he already has... I agree with what Ankh says, but would like to add one thing as well. JonFlaune has absolutely zero tolerance for anyone - be it editor or reliable reference - that disagrees with his POV. So if reliable refs disagree with him, he often just removes them, and says he's fixing the POV, while calling them "far-right extremists" on the talk page (i'm talking about established outlets like The Telegraph...). Ankh gave examples of which he harassed me, both on my user page, by wikihounding me, and by filing an NPOV report against me (which, ironically, he got banned for 2 weeks just a few minutes after he filed it...). His edits aren't constructive and his POV pushing violates so many Wikipedia rules... I don't have an opinion on giving him an indefinite block, but I definitely don't think he should be allowed to be editing this topic area (I'm referring to Arab-Israeli conflict, but I assume it's the same in Islam-related articles and Jewish-related articles as well, as examples were given above in these articles, so I'd say such a ban should apply there as well). --Activism1234 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment—He did the crime, he's doing the time. But how does anyone think it's reasonable to discuss this while he's blocked and can't participate?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This behauvior is going far back, as my top comment explains. The recent 3RR violation and its aftermath was explained in AnkhMorpok's comment, and I wasn't going into that in my original comment. Besides, after the last ban he still made that media coverage claim and that very questionable comment and investigation threat on the admin who banned him. Unfortunately, it just looks we're short on ways to cooperate here.

Also, he can comment this on his talk page and I hope he does so. --Pudeo' 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm closing this down. I concur with Alf here. If problems start again (socking or disruption when the block ends) then we can address it then. He's blocked, there's no need to sit here and gossip about him in his absence. This is quite enough. Let's invoke WP:ROPE here, let the block expire of its own accord, and see what he does when the block expires. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• Socking was never an issue here. A blocked editor has the right to reply to an ANI on his talk page. JonFlaune still has an access to his talk page and I notified him. I request this discussion to be re-opened. --Pudeo' 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  I say keep it closed. He's blocked now, and one of two things will happen when the block expires - either he'll behave and things will be fine, or he'll misbehave and further action can be taken then. No further admin action is going to be taken just now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Juragraf and film-test.info possible spam

• test-bericht.info: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.test-bericht.info

Juragraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alongside some Cologne-based IP addresses) has been adding reviews from the above German-language review site to multiple TV and film articles over the past few days, with translated summaries/excerpts being added into article text. Neither the site itself nor the named reviewers seem to be noted critics. I and other editors have reverted most of these edits. I then left a note on their talk page explaining the problem. They responded in a section on mine, in barely literate English, where the discussion continued, with my explaining that so far consensus seemed to be against inclusion but that there were places they could go for other opinions. In response I get accused of being a "rambo-editor" of not having a proper education and of trying to suppress press freedom. Since then they have simply gone round en-masse reverting all of my edits today, including my correction of apparent vandalism to the wholly unrelated Ottoman Empire page, all with the bizarre edit summary "subjective view!" N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It does look like he is spamming http://test-bericht.info around the place. I will leave a note on his talk page. I also note that they really hit the ground running with a new and complete article at their first edit, which is unusual... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1

Resolved

 – improper GA review deleted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

---

• Lucky102 (talk · contribs)

The "review" at Talk:Milan/GA1 consists of exactly:

• I find this to be a good article, passing all of the good article criteria.

This results in Talk:Milan's GAN notice stating:

• the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

The article has not actually been tagged as a GA or listed. I believe this "review" needs to be cleared so that the article is open to a proper review. Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article calls for a "detailed review" and this simply isn't. Milan, any GAN, deserves better. nb: I'm not saying the article should fail, but I found minor things to fix after this "passed", and so did Malleus). I'll let Lucky102 know about this post (and Malleus;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I did mention it to them at User talk:Wehwalt#Good Article Review, where they said they're sorry. The admin action needed here is a ruling that the review is invalid and possibly even deleting it to clear the way for a proper review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

more: ANI is not simply about grievances about users, which I did not claim to have. The issue here is the poor GA Review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The better place to raise issues about poor GA reviews is WT:GAN, and there are enough admins active there to see that the review page is deleted if appropriate. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I've re-posted there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations has a FAQ dealing with these kind of situations. WP:ANI (or admins in general) are not among the suggested solutions (and have no special authority to state that GA reviews are "valid" or "invalid"). If you wanted that page to be deleted, you could have asked the user in question to put a G7 on it. It is in any case nothing that urgently needs admin attention. Fram (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Any reason, by the way, why simply blanking the review page isn't sufficient? Fram (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On the GAN page, things key off of the mere existence of /GAn pages; by now existing, with a lame review, this GA1 page is causing Milan to be listed w/ (discuss review) rather than (start review), i.e. this is "taken" and potential serious reviewers will more likely move along. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice Please

Hoping to get some advice please. For over a month I have been dealing with a disruptive user and I'm pretty sick of it at this point. They will upload a photo to commons from a nude calendar that some Australian women football players were in around a decade ago, then they will create an account here and add the image to one or more pages. This is obviously a problem on two fronts, the copyvio as well as BLP issues. Initially I warned the user and followed with a block but they hop from new account to new account after each image so blocking doesn't solve the issue. The autoblock does seem to stop them briefly but the behaviour resumes afterwards.

On each occasion I have reverted the image addition, blocked the user and reported the copyvio image on commons but this has been happening for too long. I could semi-protect the pages, but there are at least a dozen potential pages (including some yet to be created, which the user has previously done) and given the persistence of the user it would probably need to be longer than a short term protection.

To see the accounts involved, check my blocking log - each account from August 5 is involved in this issue.

Any ideas please? I've gone through revert/block/ignore enough times now that something more is needed if possible. Camw (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried an SPI? Have you talked with the Commons AN? I've left a message at COM:AN, and presumably an SPI could reveal the user's range and perform a hard rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have not tried SPI, I did look into it but was left unsure if it was appropriate to request. I have submitted a request there thanks. Camw (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis M. Lynch

I wanted to request that others more familiar with BLP concerns take a look at the article on Dennis M. Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Given a post I received this morning on my talk page claiming an interest in seeking publicity due to my actions, I wanted to post here to ensure my actions are completely open and public. My actions themselves are no big deal (all I've done was semi-protected the article), but others may want to review the article more closely due to the ongoing content dispute.

I first noticed the article due to a post yesterday at Wikipedia:Help desk#Vandals. After seeing a continuation of the problematic editing, I semi-protected the article. Another editor has since added in a more neutrally worded and better sourced abbreviated version of the content being added by the IPs - but I haven't looked closely at the sources used, and several statements in the "Entrepreneur" section remain unsourced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• You worry too much. It looks like there are a couple of good editors watching as well, and protection was justified. Just to note, I usually suggest using WP:AN rather than WP:ANI for review. Mainly admins there, slightly less drama, and it isn't really an incident, just a review. But in this case, it was an obvious solution. Looks like you have an SPA over there, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't see the need for this to be here. This is standard COI/NOOB/SPAM stuff we deal with all the time. We've got a publicist who doesn't know how to deal with Wikipedia's esoteric standards, and reacts rudely to having their work taken down. This happens so often in exactly the same way that it is here that it doesn't bear much special recognition in this case. FWIW, I watched this article after responding to a similar request at the Help Desk, so you can count me among the many active users who have an eye out for this. We should keep the carrot availible to help this user make the article the best it can be, by Wikipedia standards, but the stick should also be close by incase they aren't interested in following Wikipedia standards. But this really isn't ANI-level stuff, given that this is pretty much exactly how 90% of the people who come to Wikipedia for the first time wish to use it. --Jayron32 16:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but I got a certain user or users/guests that is vandalizing the page and putting unreliable sources, false information, unnecessary & messy notes on the note section. I have simply explained on why I was cleaning up the messy page on "Los Angeles Metro bus fleet" page.

Recently IP Address user "[208.54.4.160]" have reverted my edits and was disrespectful to my edits, and I have since reverted his edits and told him that he was being reported for vandalism. I already have posted on his talk page telling him not to mess up the page. I have told user to stop reverting my edits in capital letters since I was getting frustrated.

Here's my note to his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.54.4.160 but I think he needs to be warned or blocked in my opinion since he might not listen.

Also, another user also keeps messing up the page and the Wikipedia user is "DiasMi012" is also messing up the Wikipedia page with putting unsourced, false information & unnecessary notes onto Wikipedia page. I have reverted his edits, but he sometimes reverts my edits causing an edit conflict.

I have reverted his edits because he has failed to provide sources, and has put unnecessary notes to the page and messed up the page. He has also put false information onto the page in the past, which I had to revert, for example he put 1997-1998 Neoplan AN440A on to retired section when the buses were not retired and were still in service.

This User: DiasMi012 needs to be watched or blocked from editing in my opinion, same with guest user "208.54.4.160" as I'm getting tired of reverting their vandalism or mess they cause to the "Los Angeles Metro Bus fleet" page. I haven't told him anything on talk page to the user since I gave one more chance before reporting this.

I already issued a note to User: Random5555 on his talk page too after he didn't provide sources for 2002-2003 NABI 40C-LFW so he doesn't need to be told anything. However he have since reply to post and understood my post, so he's okay and he provide me sources recently.

However the main problem is user DiasMi012 since he's trying to act like if he owns "Los Angeles Metro Bus fleet" page when he doesn't and when he puts so many false information on the page.

I think the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page needs to be watched since there's several members out there tend to put false information too many times and mess up the page and/or are vandalizing the page. It's getting terrible to a point where action will be needed to be taken.

I try to make Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page accurate as it can be and never done anything wrong.

In my opinion and suggestion is, I think IP Address user "[208.54.5.160]" needs to be blocked from editing or warned and User: DiasMi012 needs to be warned or be blocked from editing because they have been vandalizing the page and I'm getting really sick of reverting their edits because its getting really frustrating to re-edit the page and remove the mess they make on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asloge (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've templated their talk page about putting unsourced material in articles. Actually, the whole article needs to be sourced or cited better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have notified both DiasMi012 and Random5555 of this discussion. I have also warned the reporting user about forum shopping - this same report was posted at WT:DR (later retracted) and WT:AIV, despite the notices at the top of both those pages that say that they are not appropriate pages to place reports. As far as the article is concerned, I have put in a request for full protection of this page at WP:RFPP because of this dispute. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to add a script to one of our pages?

Can someone familiar with web page coding take a look at this diff?[103]

It looks to me as if 66.69.81.221 (talk · contribs · count) was attempting to add a script of some sort to our Affiliate marketing article. That article, by the way, tends to attract spam links to various dodgy schemes, which is why I watch it. I've never seen this sort of edit, however.

What is this code trying to do?

Thanks for any insight folks can give. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's attempting to output some text to the page, I would have to translate the html escape characters to see exactly what it is trying to write though. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I ran into another script the other day, that looked like it was trying to be some game. Someone else had already reverted it, so it's not in my history to find easily, though. I'm unclear why this stuff isn't filtered. —Kerfuffler 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the code formatted nicely:

<script type="text/javascript">
   function affiliateLink(str) {
       str = unescape(str);
       var r = ;
           for (var i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
             r += String.fromCharCode(6 ^ str.charCodeAt(i));
           }
       document.write(r);
   }
   affiliateLink('%3Ag%26ntc%60%3B%24nrrv%3C%29%29qqq%28tcpocqkc%28eik%299tc%60%3B703071%248%3Aoka%26ute%3B%24nrrv%3C%29%29qqq%28tcpocqkc%28eik%29okgacu%29dghhctu%2920%3E%7E06%28ao%60%24%26ditbct%3B%246%24%26gjr%3B%24TcpocqKc%24%298%3A%29g8');
    
</script>

Here's the output. Note that I purposely introduced errors (well, spaces) into the URL for safety's sake:

<a href="http://www.r e v i e w m e .com/?ref=165617"><img src="http://www.r e v i e w m e .com/images/banners/468x60.gif" border="0" alt="ReviewMe"/></a>

It appears to create a hyperlink to a website called www.reviewme.com, passing a reference number of 165617. I'm not sure what exactly is going on with the fromCharCode() code; my guess is that this is a way of encrypting/obsficating the URL to bypass spam filters. But I'm just guessing. It also does something funky with the URL in the address textbox (at least on Firefox). When I execute the script locally, it prepends "http://wyciwyg://7/" to the address of the website I was on when I executed the script.

Basically, it's spam. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we have some info on WYCIWYG. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks, I wasn't aware of WYCIWYG. Even cooler, the article mentions Zalewski - I just started reading one of his books! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A side note on the de-obfuscation: it's doing a bitwise XOR between 6 and every character, so ":" becomes "<", "g" becomes "a", and so forth — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help. We will add reachme.com to the spam blacklist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute... the site is "reviewme.com" and not "reachme", and even if that were added to the spam blacklist, it would not have caught this particular edit. You might consider adding <script type="text/javascript"> to the filter. Zad68 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adding it to the spam black list will help since the script is trying to create the hyperlink at run-time when the user loads the page. In fact, the script does not actually work, possibly because the Wiki software checks for XSS attacks like this. I only got it to work by executing the script locally (not in Wikipedia) in a Firebug console window. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesinderbyshire and our article on George Galloway

Despite having policy (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR) explained numerous times, and in spite of requests to stop using the talk page as a forum, Jamesinderbyshire has repeatedly made claims to the effect that the subject of the article isn't in fact a Christian, in spite of multiple sources to the contrary, including one as recently as 2010, when Galloway unequivocally described himself as such on a broadcast on CBC, Canada's national public radio and television broadcaster. [104]. Instead, Jamesinderbyshire has variously alleged that "It isn't self-declared by him that he's now a Muslim but there appears to be evidence that points to that" [105], "Wikipedia is giving people more access to facts and reality than you would ever get from Galloway himself in a million years", [106] and "he's a 100% political animal who would be happy to announce he was Jedi if running for a Jedi vote" [107] (note that the edit summary also calls Galloway "a huge liar") and generally makes clear that he refuses to accept Wikipedia policy - which is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no better source for George Galloway's faith than George Galloway, even if we don't like his politics. Given Jamesinderbyshire's refusal to drop the stick, and his multiple violations of WP:BLP on the talk page, combined with his claims to be 'defending Wikipedia' and his assertions that others are driven by "strongly motivated personal desires to ensure Mr Galloway gets his own PR version in place", [108] can I suggest that a topic ban might be the simplest solution here - he seems to have been a useful contributor elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A highly distorted version of reality. I gave sources that show that he is, at best, not currently Christian and proposed his status be changed from "Christian" to being removed. In response, AndyTheGrump told me to "fuck off" and he and Matt Lewis subjected me to a stream of verbal abuse and attacks. The status has been removed and this was done by an admin who agreed with my position. It appears that Andy has severe ownership issues on the article. I have committed no violations of BLP, indeed I have only done one admin-confirmed edit on it in this cycle. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Footnote) I would also refer admins to Andy's block log [109] which shows a 2-week block for personal attacks only a few weeks ago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly an accurate representation of the debate. There has been speculation that Galloway is no longer a Christian, based on recent events and statement, so the reference to a 2010 utterance obfuscates this point. Jamesderbyshire has lost his temper, but IMO he was no exactly unprovoked. The "Jedi" comment arises from the fact that Galloway has clearly been intentionally evasive in the manner of politicians generally when they think a straight answer will create more problems than it resolves for them. As a result, the religion has been deleted from the infobox, an outcome recommended by Andy himself and also supported by Jamesderbyshire. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say haven't we been through this already with people arguing that he is a Muslim. The most you can say is that the chap was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, but has more recently been very noncommittal as to allegiance to any particular religion. What AndytheGrump is doing arguing that he is a Christian, I don't know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing is pointing out that as recently as 2010 he made a public statement to the effect that he is a Christian, and per WP:BLP policy, we don't go around accusing him of being a liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to reverence politicians - it is true that my personal views don't matter, but someone on that thread asked me what I thought, so I expressed my honest opinion about it. If that's all this is about, I take it back and retract it from the thread. Will you retract the bit where you used the F word? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the post where I wrote "if you wish to argue that a statement by Galloway broadcast on CBS that he is a Christian isn't a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN". [110] Did you? No you didn't. Instead you continued to accuse others of "only recognis[ing] sources that confirm your viewpoint", of "ownership issues", and finally claiming that "current sources don't bear out the assertion that Galloway is a Christian, he's not exactly saying that himself now is he?" [111], when not only do we have an assertion that the only claim to the contrary (Khan's NS article) has been denied by Galloway, but we have a clear statement from him asserting his Christianity as recently as 2010 - long after any alleged 'conversion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for removing that. I need to be more careful about the terrible UI clicking Edit on a diff page. BTW, I double check every edit I make later, and would have noticed this. —Kerfuffler 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Slight sigh) I mean this in all seriousness Andy, is BLP the right place for you to be working? You seem to have a shaky understanding at best of the logic of sources. The Guardian citation is NOT about the Khan allegation, but a general commentary about his MUCH MORE RECENT THAN YOUR SOURCE discussions, by an expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway. We were discussing the infobox status that baldly said "Religion - Christian" - a blanket definitive statement like that becomes non-definitive if there are challenging and reliable QSes that paint a different picture. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the BLP issue actually is - but the admin who agreed with me on the article talk page that it should be changed did, luckily, does get it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who is this "expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway" you are referring to? And where does this journalist assert that Galloway is not a Christian? As for the infobox, you are well aware that I argued that it should either read 'religion: Christian' as per the CBC source, or be left blank. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't see what James has done wrong here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I got mildly overheated. Yes, the sources are inconclusive and Andy wants us to simply take Galloway's word for it against a welter of contrary facts and reports; his basic position is that the article should convey Galloway's position regardless. I concur that I did get a little ill-mannered and the Jedi remark was throwaway, but in the light of attacks like this from AndyTheGrump [112] I felt riled. I ask that admins consider giving Andy another break for personal attacks, as he really doesn't seem to be able to not behave in quite an offensive manner when an edit is proposed with which he strongly disagrees. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "welter of contrary facts and reports" - there is a single unverifiable assertion by Jemima Khan that Galloway once went through a conversion ceremony, which Galloway promptly denied and threatened to take legal action over. Everything else is speculation, WP:OR and gossip. WP:BLP policy is clear - an individual's assertions of religious belief are what matters, not the unverifiable opinions of others, regardless of what we think of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation - the Guardian (generally regarded as a QS!) says in April that "Galloway is often asked about his faith but refuses to answer, saying his religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities." [113] So the point is that his "Christian" status is in doubt according to at least one QS. (There are others). But did you really drag me to ANI to debate the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner? That's what the article talk page is for. Shall we go back to it? Or do you want to continue to press your claim that I am some vile abuser of BLP? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for once again demonstrating how you engage in WP:OR to back up your dubious claims. There is nothing whatsoever incompatible between someone stating that religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities, and that person being a Christian. As for "debat[ing] the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner", I suggested you take the CBC broadcast to WP:RSN if you didn't accept it as a source - you didn't but instead continued to make personal attacks on Galloway, e.g. "he keeps stum about it [his religion], understandably given what's really going on". That is a direct contravention of WP:BLP policy, amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are being completely disingenuous. There is no compatability between stating that religion is a "personal matter" and that person being a Christian...or being a Muslim, atheist, Jedi or anything. That's the point. When someone changes from saying they are a Christian to being evasive, we should change to being evasive too...which is what we did. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's position appears to be that his definition of "Christian" includes Muslim marriage and recent public statements strongly identifying with Islam or else denying a religious affiliation. He's welcome to that view, but it is just a view and not objective. The difficulty is that when challenged, he resorts to strong attacks rather than a structured discussion and rejects discussion of sources ("take it to RSN", etc) - against this background it is difficult to see how this can proceed logically. Personally I think the project could easily manage without this kind of approach. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And we're off again. Please provide (a) a reliable source for Galloway undergoing a "Muslim marriage", and (b) a reliable source that asserts that this marriage made him a Muslim. As for "take it to RSN" being a rejection of sources, it is nothing of the kind - it is a suggestion to get wider input on whether the source can be cited for what is being claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, can you provide a source for Galloway "denying a religious affiliation" - you've produced none so far, and it would rather demolish your claims that he is a Muslim if you did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What, here? What exactly is the purpose of your ANI Andy, are you griping at me, or the sources? Do you seriously believe that a paper as clever as the Guardian would publish recent articles like this one [114] about the notoriously litigious Mr Galloway without the most excellent sourcing? But that isn't the point, is it? If you dispute the sources, we're in the wrong place. Have you given up on the behaviour angle? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian piece is in their 'comment is free' section - it isn't an 'article'. As for your behaviour, it is your endless resorting to WP:OR that is at issue. You have made specific statements, but have not provided the sources to back them up. So where are the sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you wanting me to repeat more material from newspapers here in ANI? Is this a source dispute, or a genuine ANI? The former, self-evidently. But since you insist, how about things like this story from the Mirror in April that his former wife said they are still married under Islamic Law? [115] The trouble is, lots of sources have material on it. I am happy to debate if we should or should not use material from them and to not refer to the content of it directly in talk pages, but here in ANI I will continue to state that I am not some wild BLP-vandal, but am using sources to give positions. However, these debates belong in the talk page of the article. The basic charge Andy made at the start of this thread is untrue. Andy has however been very incivil and repeatedly so, also his constant allegation that I am doing OR is also becoming quite offensive as it is false. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to gossip, which has no place on Wikipedia. (But I do not support bad behavior from anyone, and AndyTheGrump should be more civil.) Since this is primarily a content dispute, some will say this is the wrong board. —Kerfuffler 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Which bit is gossip? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The part where you extend “some reporter claims he's evasive” to “his religious affiliation is in doubt” is pure speculation. Even if the reporter said it, it's still pure speculation. It's the kind of crap I expect in The Enquirer. —Kerfuffler 20:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just some reporter. He put out a leaflet entitled "God KNOWS who is a Muslim and he KNOWS who is not. I, George Galloway, do not drink and never have.". There was extensive debate. See Bradford West by-election, 2012. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If Galloway had put out the leaflet, it might be significant. He didn't, so it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be significant in not actually supporting the claim that he's Muslim. In any case, the one statement I find from him on this is a strong denial. —Kerfuffler 20:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The leaflet not coming from Galloway is strongly contested, not least by the Guardian and the Telegraph if I recall correctly. So once again this is about sources, not ANI material. If there is nothing else and no blocks are to be administered, I suggest this "discussion" (rehash of the source debate on the article talk page) be closed forthwith. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose to (a) provide sources for the assertions regarding Galloway you have made here, and (b) take them to WP:RSN if others query whether they can be seen as reliable for the assertions you make regarding them? Unless you do, further discussion on the talk page is pointless - you are abusing the page to make assertions which are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

“Strongly contested”: more rumor-monger. I also note that this is all based on some claim of a secret conversion 10.5 years ago, and his own direct statement of his Christianity is far more recent than that. I'm now convinced that is completely specious political hackery. —Kerfuffler 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with 'political hackery' and everything to do with trying to be honest. Either the issue is properly debated or it is left out. Al Capone's infox doesn't say 'catholic', so why should George's? Paul B (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping spread rumors is the exact opposite of honest. —Kerfuffler 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously when asked about his faith, he said he was a Christian. More recently, when asked repeatedly about his faith during the Bradford by-election and the subsequent local council elections where his Reform party made a showing, he has consistently refused to answer questions about his religion, only giving riddling hints that he might be a Muslim while never answering a direct question. Personally I believe him to be behaving like the Vicar of Bray, but it does mean that one cannot in all honesty stick "Christian" "Muslim" or any other religion in the infobox. In the article text, one has the opportunity to explain all this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)