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

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo to free up space on this page. MuZemike

Topic Ban of User:DHawker

Unresolved

I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).

User:DHawker was placed up for discussion for block evasion [1]. He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block.[2].

Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.

The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK -- let's keep our terminology clear. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, and exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ten-cent piece once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)

I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at Colloidal silver and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? Franamax (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.

While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.

I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the talk page will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to improve other areas of Wikipedia. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.

I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. DHawker (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that more eyes on colloidal silver would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to promote an agenda at the expense of the site's basic policies is a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.

Regarding a path to redemption, I would strongly recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Wikipedia works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check, the consensus was to extend the block, which was done. ME then revisited this closed issue and added their own additional 2 cents to the block. I'm glad wikipedia's justice system is as corrupt and wishy-washy as Canada's or the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your views on how DHawker should be sanctioned, but to say that Matthewedwards added his "2 cents" to the block is out of line and fundamentally flawed. The matter was not "closed" after the block extension (which incidentally, was enacted promptly to reflect the timing issue). Even if the discussion was archived by a bot, the community consensus was not limited to extending 1 block. Effectively, Matthewedwards enacted the community consensus which remained unenacted, and saved me having to make a formal call to the community to do its job (by enacting what was unenacted). So the fundamental problem here is not with the system, but rather regrettably, your own understanding - you are responsible for opening this thread when you decided to voice your additional "2 cents" about an action that was, and remains, approved by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the community of 3 people. You have a grand understanding of a jury. Why is it that 3RR on any non-fringe topic warrants at best a 24hour block, yet the second its on a fringe theory, the "community" (Aka the several banded editors that disapprove of fringe theories) makes all effort to expel them when they have done nothing worthy of that. Your community consensus is a three person brigade. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to harp on about a ridiculous notion that Wikipedia is a justice system, or the community is a jury, is really becoming old. Please move on. Someone please close this already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah quickly, shut it before anyone that has an actual neutral and unhindered opinion on the subject matter makes a comment. What do you call this board if its not essentially a place to bring justice to editors acting out of place or in contempt of the purpose of the encyclopedia? You still skipped my question on why (Even repeated, but occasional) 3RR violations warrants a topic ban with fringe articles but nothing even comparatively close anywhere else on the site? I look through the block log and see users such as SOPHIAN, who was blocked 5 times for 3RR over the span of 2 months before finely getting a ban. DHawker has had 3, two of which occurred nearly a year ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think I've only had 1 previous 3rr violation. I incurred a brief extension to it for some misdemeanor due mainly to my inexperience but it was all one episode - about a year ago. I'm not a serial offender.DHawker (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is (and was) entirely neutral and unhindered, and I have no view on the particular subject, and I proposed said editing restrictions after taking a look at the editing in question. Despite this, I still welcome (and have welcomed) more opinion - the fact that there were no other objections spoke volumes; there's been no change, which is why the discussion ought to be closed, rather than dragged out because you remain the only user who has a problem. This board, much like most other admin noticeboards, simply exists to help bring community attention to particular incidents - this often involvesenforcing any necessary measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, particularly in the areas affected by the incident(s) and in relation to the users involved in those incidents. This is not a justice system; it's merely a noticeboard.

It really should not surprise you that I stop answering your questions, when you show all appearances of not making the effort to look through the comments I made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Editing_restriction_proposal. In other words, it wasn't mere 3RR violations that led to me proposing and continuing to endorse the topic ban. Finally, the case of SOPHIA is not one that you can compare to here, and note, incidents can only be dealt with as and when attention is brought to them. SOPHIAN was community banned; that editor lost their privilleges - they cannot edit ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. Unless DHawker violates his restrictions (wherein his fate will be no different to SOPHIA's), DHawker retains all of his editing privilleges except that he is not allowed to edit 2 particular pages on Wikipedia (topic ban), and he is not allowed to use more than 1 account (account restriction). Do you get it yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring does not require an editor to violate 3RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I still do not understand why DHawker is given a topic ban for an offense that normally never incurs a topic ban. I could provide plenty of examples, all of which you'd just shoot down and say "Oh... Well that doesn't apply to this situation" because it simply proves how wrong this is.

Fine, call this a noticeboard. Regardless, it is the place where incidents are brought up, tried, and punishments applied. These are the components of a justice system, but this is besides the point.

You claim to have no view on the subject and yet you placed a vote. Does this mean you reject said vote? In which case it becomes 1 (me) vs 1 (Franamax). We could also look at the fact that you voted All which means your vote is essentially thrown away since you voted for no particular remedy. My vote is thrown away because I am involved. This leaves Franamax. There's your consensus!

I obviously read the entire thread. It reads like every other incident involving a fringe theory. I'll spell it out: B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Complete and total mockery. The editor is not a sockpuppet, he merely evaded the block because he is not as up to speed with all our policies. Yes, you have a small bit that defines that as a sockpuppet, but thats amidst the several paragraphs that describe them as malicious editors, which DHawker is not. The evasion wasn't malicious and was a simple reply at the colloidal silver talk page. I reposted his comment as my own and will gladly post it here to show how evil and destructive this user is and why he must be blocked from editing his subject of interest. Why? Because he believes the theory, and thats just too annoying for the editors who want to go on painting the absolute nonsense fringe theory picture and reject all positive influence on the subject matter (Note: I am not referring to MastCell here, I'm referring to the scores of biased elite editors who have taken ownership of each particular fringe theory). To hell, call me a fringe theorist, but it smells like a friggen conspiracy theory! This BS needs to change ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I placed a set of proposals, and my vote, based on DHawker's conduct (or that which I reviewed). That doesn't mean I have a view on the merits of any content disputes that were going on. The fact that you continue to evade or ignore the comments I made at that discussion and this one suggests I'm wasting my time responding to you - no more. The problem isn't merely that DHawker doesn't get it, but that you really don't get it either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've plainly told you that I'm aware of your comments there, that I have read them, and that I do not agree with them. In addition, DHawker has also pointed out that no examples were pointed out (Besides "The talk page"). Show a specific example of the repeated comments by DHawker that discourage other editors from participating.

On the contrary, they brought a few more editors to the discussion of a page that contained stale discussion prior. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over recent cases of bans I see that an example of the offence is almost always offered in evidence. I'm still waiting to see such an example presented in my case. All sorts of accusations have been made against me by Mastcell but the core accusation, and most serious, seems to be that I am 'dedicated to promoting colloidal silver'. I'm still waiting to see an example of this even though I have previously asked Mastcell to provide one. Apparently judges in this case are expected to either take Mastcells word for it, or form an unbiased opinion by trawling back through the history of colloidal silver looking for evidence of my indiscretions. Not only is that rather suspicious in itself, I really dont know how anyone can do it with any clarity. I'm involved in this case and even I find it hard to follow the history. It also seems that my permanent ban is a rather extreme penalty for a less-than-conclusive case of edit warring. I see that in another recent case ArthurRubin, a long time opponent of mine on colloidal silver, was recently found guilty of edit warring (11 to 1 by the Arbitration committee no less) but he was simply 'admonished'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Arthur_Rubin_admonished ). I also deny that I have ever been involved in sockpuppetry as has been suggested. I've always identified myself when editing. DHawker (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah go figure, the usual bullshit from wikipedia. Just ignore it because technically they're right and no proof was offered and the ban was based on nothing in order to silence an editor. Fucking cabal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When we see the words "usual bullshit" and "Fucking cabal" pop up at an ANI thread, that's usually a good indication the discussion is going nowhere. Can an uninvolved admin close this please?

I've been waiting for Miszabot to archive this in due course so that I can engage the subject editor in direct discussion. Purposeless comments which prevent the bot from archiving aren't advancing any causes. Can we close this? Franamax (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the discussion is going nowhere, because it is being totally ignored with the hopes that it will go away, rather than being properly dealt with and addressed.

Completely ignoring and avoiding the point to comment on the fact that I am pissed off about this blatant injustice (Yeah yeah, wikipedia isn't blah blah blah) just goes to show that nobody can show an example of wrongdoing on DHawkers part that warrants a block from the talk page of the article. NO PROOF WAS OFFERED, THIS BAN/BLOCK/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT WAS UNWARRANTED

1. 3R was on the article, not the talk page
2. No previous incidents involving the talk page, or advocacy, or promotion, or whatever sorry pathetic excuse he is being blocked for (Did we get a reason, or was it "because he makes the talk page an inhospitable zone for new editors to comment"? Can we get an example?) have come up. He has one previous block for 3RR from December 2008!
3. No previous blocks for over 9 months, a pretty sure sign of an editor that isn't committed to having the last word on the topic, and that is willing to work to a consensus
4. No previous complaints whatsoever related to the talk page.
5. The ban was applied after 4 individuals commented:
   1. Franamax (Neutral)
   2. Ncmvocalist (Neutral, didn't specify a preference in the vote)
   3. Mastcell (Involved)
   4. Floydian (Involved)

   Striking the involved editors out, who both have strong ties to the situation, we are left with one voter who rather than making a comment just gave a "Support all" vote, and one voter (Franamax) who is the only uninvolved neutral editor who specified a choice and gave comments along with that choice. This is not a consensus, it's a mockery and a total abuse of power, timing, and is blissfully ignorant.

The reason he is being blocked, is because he doesn't agree with the total negative picture that is painted on every alternative medicine article by this cabal of fringe theory editors. As such, when the opportunity to strike came, it was seized, and a totally out of context punishment applied. I will not let the bot archive this until somebody that hasn't been involved at this point comments. Someone who doesn't have an opinion on fringe theories to cloud their decision. So far, 2over0 and Vsmith have commented, but both have played on the notion that because DHawker only edits colloidal silver, he is a nuisance or a harm to the goal of this encyclopedia (And whats that ladies and gentlemen? Oh right! Improving the knowledge of the human race, and providing free access to neutral information covering all facet of life and the universe). I fail to see how DHawker's attempts to come to a consensus on the plague of issues in the article is harmful to, or against the goals of the encyclopedia. Care to elaborate (Don't forget the other points I made though when you do) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, this has been sitting here for a week now. It's become pretty obvious that no-one is willing to advance your case. Lots of editors review this noticeboard and presumably at least a few of them have made a review and decided there is nothing further to be done for now. Quite honestly, I think your extended comments here have hammered a spike into the heart of DHawker's editing career. It's fine that you feel frustration with the way Wikipedia works and wish to vent that frustration - but you're no longer helping the subject editor.

DHawker has been offered a clear pathway out of this: edit some completely unrelated articles to show that they are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia rather than just advancing a cause on the world's most popular reference site. I'd prefer to engage them directly as to how to get their restrictions lifted, but I won't do it while this thread is open. But you want to keep the thread open in order to rant about how unfair it all is, and I'm losing interest by the hour. Do you see a problem here? Franamax (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax. I dont blame you for losing interest. I too would like this resolved ASAP but I do not believe the current penalty is at all fair. Its ridiculous that this thread has gone on for so long without a jot of evidence being presented that I can specifically reply too. (Perhaps this is also why so few admins have shown any interest - because there are no details on offer). My only clear violation is breaking the 3RR rule. A lifetime ban for that indiscretion alone seems extremely harsh. If I'm being punished for something else more serious then surely some evidence should be presented. But you guys, the judges, should not have to go looking for that evidence. Mastcell brought this case up so Mastcell should provide an example of what he's complaining about. If I'm such a 'dedicated promoter' then finding an incriminating example should not be difficult. DHawker (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And thats what I'm also saying. Yes, I'm frustrated, and I have vented a bit, but the points I've made are clear cut, and his ban/block should be lifted until evidence is provided warranting a talk page ban. His block from the article, which could be lifted given an interest in other subjects, is enough to prevent him from "advancing a cause on the world's most popular reference site". Its funny how making that article neutral is "advancing a cause". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you tie my comments to DHawkers editing career is a great example of how rediculous these notions are. Is it an excuse to further block him? Is it a method for shutting me up? Or is it just another way to avoid the point? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano

This 251 line, 99.7KiB, discussion can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 appears to be the sock of a banned user

Erik9 picked up editing just as Kristen Eriksen was blocked

For background, see RFAR/Scientology#John254, ANI#John254 and Kristen Eriksen, and User talk:Kristen Eriksen

Several days ago, an arbitrator noticed that Erik9 (talk · contribs) appeared to be behaving like a former banned user, John254 (talk · contribs). In particular, this account was filing frivolous RFAR requests which were literally undesired by any party. He injected himself into multiple disputes by writing statements and recommendations for remedies. Erik9 also executed ham-fisted clerking, much like John254 and his disruptive sock Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs).

With these behavioral clues in mind we examined the account technically. Erik9 began editing January 30, just 2 days after KE was blocked and gave up her appeals. Since then, Erik9 has edited prolifically (as John254 and KE did). At this moment has over 28,000 edits. The time zone matches, and checkuser shows that user geolocates to the same large metropolitan area as John254 and KE, although there are no direct IP matches. Edit: actually there are also technological reasons to suspect that they are socks. FT2 and other CUs have kindly rechecked this for me. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering also that this user's early edits are not the work of a newbie,[3] I think it is highly likely that Erik9 is a returned sock of these John254 and Kristen Eriksen. I ask the community to block or sanction this account appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity the poor editor in the large metropolitan area of [redacted] who started to edit after John/Kristen were indeffed, and has something of a similar schedual. What you haven't noted, is the many differences between my editing and John's. John wasn't a botop, but I run the prolifically productive Erik9bot. John wrote crappy C-style javascript like User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js indicating he doesn't understand regexps - yes, I'm familiar with John's programming because I used his User:John254/mass rollback.js after seeing it described at WP:ROLLBACK - but I obviously have to understand regexps very well to run a complex AWB task like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9. Oh, and we haven't edited the same articles. You could say, well, I wrote Nemifitide, but not all pharmacology editors are the same person :) However, like most editors, I'm a volunteer, so if the community no longer wants my contributions, I'll find a more productive use for my time - though how you're going to maintain Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), I have no idea... Erik9 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you do not say I am not John254 or Kristen Eriksen. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do solemnly swear that I am not, and have never been, John254 or Kristen Eriksen. Erik9 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL forgot to mention the same use of a topless blonde woman on your userpage, same as Kristen's userpage. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the same woman -- and Kristen apparently used the photograph because "she" was a man impersonating a woman (or so the community believes). Hopefully, you aren't accusing me of the same thing... Erik9 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what really concerns me is that I don't think this is his only account. John254 kept KE separate by only editing on weekends (until the John account was abandoned). I plotted the edits, and Erik9 was strictly a night and weekends creature for much of its existence. I'm afraid that there might be a work/school account that is not currently known. If anyone has any leads, please post them or email me. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's no mystery - its Erik9bot - or perhaps you don't mean that sort of sock :) So, basically, you're claiming that the horrible banned user John was given an account with a bot flag - I don't have to explain to you why that's a rather trusted user group - and you're searching desperately for John's other account - maybe even a sysop, who knows? It's sure good that I know this nightmare scenario isn't true -- but I suppose Wikipedia can be just as scary as you want it... Erik9 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we just blocked an admin as a returning banned user. You could have avoided this whole problem by appealing your ban. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the John situation, the following is clear:

1. John is never being unbanned, ever.

   Not so. With an admission and some time away from the project, we would love to have you back in the community. We must prevent you from being disruptive though. Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2. John is obviously by now an experienced sockpuppeteer, so if he did return to Wikipedia to evade his ban, you're going to need to look a lot harder.
3. As an experienced sockpuppeteer, John probably would have waited some weeks, at least, before starting to edit again, could have used a computer in a different geographic location as a proxy to hide from checkusering, and could have employed his influence with the arbcom to frame me. Don't put anything past this John fellow... Erik9 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   No, John appears to have socked because he was an addict. He simply could not stay away. Going from thousands of edits to nil was apparently too hard for him. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Does this mean I'll have to start Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (third nomination)? --NE2 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's just a little fly in the ointment -- John's obviously a very intelligent user, if he could pull off what Wikipedia Review describes as the "Massive Kristen Eriksen conspiracy" - I looked there just a minute ago to see exactly what this John/Kristen fuss was all about. Obviously, someone who could write Nemifitide and run complex bot tasks like Erik9bot task 9 is no fool either. So, by claiming that I'm John, Luke can't really be stating that John didn't take the simple precaution of starting his next account some weeks after John/Kristen were indeffed -- Luke must be asserting that John was deliberately trying to be caught, perhaps to show the ease with which horrible banned users can obtain privileged user groups, and to scare editors looking for (what Luke thinks is the) other sock which could have who-knows-what privileges. Does Luke really expect the community to believe all of this? Erik9 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the "I'm too smart to do that" defense. Actually, we know from experience that it's not true. And what John did wasn't rocket science anyway. He used a library location to edit from Kristen Eriksen, and his home location for John254... until he abandoned the John254 account in one of the most revealing stunts ever seen on this site, that is. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, since difference in coding style is being used as a defence here, could you explain why your monobook.js contains the exact same function as User:John254's, a function found in no other script page on Wikipedia, as evidenced here? I realize there may be a reasonable explanation, but I do find it odd. decltype (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Both my Javascript and his appear to be (substantially different) derivatives of User:Voice of All/nolupin/monobook.js (which contains the substring "ipnote"), updated to use template:blp0 and other warnings in the series. Since the same template is being used, it's not at all odd that the function would have the same name. If you look at User:John254/monobook.js vs User:Erik9/monobook.js, you'll see that Voice of All's script was modified in quite divergent directions. Erik9 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that nags at me as I'm reading all this- Erik9 clearly has extensive knowledge of John245 and Kristen's work and history on Wikipedia for having "looked there (at the Wikipedia Review) just a moment ago". And the evidence combined with the checkuser review is pretty strong, too strong to be a coincidence in my opinion. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the likelihood of all these points being mere coincidence is fairly low. I really wish there were some stronger "evidence", but the volume of weaker evidence may make up for that fact. Shereth 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, if you want to get out of this alive, here's what you must do: start editing naked short selling and related articles. Mantanmoreland socks require higher standards of evidence. Shhh, don't tell anyone. --NE2 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Hit the button. Wknight94 ^talk 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Cool Hand Luke emailed me at 18:33 UTC with an allegation that I was John, so I had more time to research this than would be apparent from the timing of his report here. Erik9 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you tell them that, Luke, when people were claiming that I knew all too much about this John fellow? Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Like you said, I didn't initially tell you who we suspected. I did not tell you that the suspect was John254 until you refused to appeal your ban. That was 18:33, less than half an hour before the first post. You apparently were not aware of it until at least 18:38. I'm also impressed with how quickly you've "learned" about John254. Your post above at 9:13 raises points we hadn't considered in spite of discussing this for several days. Cool Hand Luke 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this. The Kristen sock's style of defense is alarmingly similar to the one Erik9 is fleshing out right now. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you both have the exact same function "blpn", not present in any other user script page. That doesn't really count as "divergent directions". decltype (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Well, in the John254 and KE thread I was on the cautious side with respect to blocking and banning. Shall I now assume that non-admin AFD closing has become a common pastime in the mentioned metropolitan area? --Tikiwont (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this -- a decision has already been made, it seems. By the way, don't forget to deflag my bot account and empty the now unmaintainable Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) - just trying to be helpful :) Erik9 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)What a very odd way of addressing a sockpuppet accusation against yourself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has Erik9 editor been involved in any inappropriate edits? Or are we just trying to block them for coming back without our knowing? If they obey the rules I don't see what the big deal is. I don't see an allegation that they are using multiple accounts (socking), just that they were able to get around a block or ban to edit in good faith. Isn't that what many editors here have done? If they edit in good faith then it's not clear that they should have been blocked or banned in the first place. Aren't these measures supposed to be preventative? Now we (apparently) know who we're dealing with, we can keep a close eye on their edits. Asking for an admission of guilt is ridiculous when all it will do is get the party blocked. I don't see what blocking them now accomplishes. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if we presume for a moment that the ban in the first place was made for a good reason, then continuing that ban seems to be a good idea. That is, if the ban is a legitimate mean to a legitimate end, then continue the mean.--Tznkai (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the ban was appropriate or not, if the offending behaviors aren't repeated then I don't see an issue. But as Cool Hand Luke points out there are some problematic behaviors that have to be addressed. I should have read the statement more carefully. I was preoccupied with investigating and addressing the "socking" allegation (socking is not an accurate term in this case. It's really more about returning to edit under a new account). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• CoM: Yes. I put that right up front. The account has been disruptive at RFAR, fanning the flames of disputes that had subsided. He's also been similarly disruptive at the recent MFD. At the least, I think he should be given editing restrictions to prevent disruption. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to COM: I was just having the same thought. We're pretty sure this is John, but he hasn't done anything really disruptive. Why don't we deal with the problematic Arbcom requests like we would any normal user? As long as Erik9 limits himself to one account I don't see an issue. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that approach. That's one of the reasons this was taken to the community. I would like to see editing restrictions to prevent disruption. And it would also be nice if Erik9 had a little more candor. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm less ok with it. The level of deception and effort to maintain that deception suggest that the user is likely to disrupt. Socking like this is also inherently disruptive to consensus building processes.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On principle I dislike the notion of ratifying a banned user's surreptitious return. Especially when the problematic behavior hasn't entirely ended: he was highly disruptive at the Scientology case workshop and resumed poking hornets' nests with disruptive RFAR filings. To John: have a look at the Wikipedia:Standard offer essay. Abide by its terms and email me in 3 or 6 months (depending on whether you build a good history at a sister WMF project); if everything checks out I'll initiate your unban request myself. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com accepted a similar offer and came back after a very long ban. There's an honest way to return. Shoot straight with us and we'll be fair. Durova³²⁰ 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's reading this, I think he should strongly consider Durova's kind offer. I tend to understate things a lot. Asking for "a little more candor" is a polite way of saying he needs full disclosure and to put his games behind; and only then would it be appropriate to discuss editing restrictions. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, editing restrictions can be overcome. Nearly a year ago the community brought back another editor after a pretty lengthy ban. He had a topic ban and a mentorship for a while but has graduated from both and now edits without restriction. Has earned barnstars. We just want to know things are on the level and have confidence the problems will end. Durova³²⁰ 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as ratifying bad behavior. I think the focus should be on getting editors to abide by our policies. If there's no way to do that then banning is the only option. But if a banned or blocked user returns to edit in good faith without our knowlege it seems to me to indicate there is no reason to punish them when we catch them other than to remind them that we expect them to avoid a return to the problematice behaviors. I don't see a benefit to punitive action. Asking for candor when a confession results in a bad outcome for the editor involved seems kind of ridiculous and is a practice engaged in by some of the most despicable regimes. A better option would be to make a reasonable offer conditional on coming clean. I see all stick and no carrot. There's a huge incentive to IP hop, and no incentive to be upfront and work with the community to find an appropriate remedy such as mentorship. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 came to my attention by non-admin closing an AfD early. When I asked him/her to reopen the AfD so I could make a comment, s/he refused. I went to Deletion Review, where I was criticised for bringing it to DR until I put forward evidence that Eric9 made a regular practice of closing AfDs early (see the second entry). Then consensus shifted to the view that Eric9 should ease up on the practice of early closure. To me the whole episode was indicative of a person who is a compulsive editor. Should this editor ever be brought back, s/he should be restricted from closing AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To CoM: banned users don't get to use sock accounts as bargaining chips to broker a return. I'm more impressed when a banned user respects community consensus by editing productively at any of the other WMF sites where their participation is welcome. Durova³²⁰ 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ChildofMidnight, you're seeing the stick because Erik9 had already refused the carrot. I wanted to make disclosure his best option, but he chose to persist in this game.

Email request to Erik9
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Erik9: The Arbitration Committee suspects that you are a returning user who has not disclosed your prior account. While this alone might not be cause for concern, we believe that you are resuming behaviors that have proved disruptive in the past. In particular: Filing requests that are unwanted by any of the parties. ArbCom is a forum for dispute resolution, not a venue re-stoking old quarrels that are otherwise at the point of dissipating. Injecting yourself into numerous disputes by filing statements and recommending remedies. This is especially disruptive when the parties' dispute has already subsided. Clerking cases, even though you are not a clerk. This doesn't save time because the official assigned clerk has to recheck your work. It also confuses participants, especially when you are acting as a party in the case. If this is true, we ask that you immediately retire your account so that you can request unban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). Please disclose all prior accounts--including accounts that you may have run simultaneously. The BASC will work with you to unban your account, but there will almost certainly be conditions on your return. For example, BASC may require an away period and/or restrictions on participating in ArbCom cases. More importantly, we believe that your previous accounts should be publicly disclosed to the community--particularly if you intend to request adminship. If you refuse to cooperate, an arbitrator will take this matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. The community will be asked to determine whether User:Erik9 is an undisclosed sock of a particular banned user and to apply appropriate sanctions if so. We believe that this is a worse alternative because it will attract unnecessary attention and drama. We're contacting you because we hope this can be resolved more quietly. If you have any questions, please contact us. We hope to hear from you shortly.

The reply to this message was that they were not a banned user, and that we should conduct this publicly.

Erik9 still has the opportunity to request an unban. I hope that he does it as Durova suggests, after several months of good work on another project, and with honesty. There are success stories. Cool Hand Luke 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 blocked

I've indefinitely blocked the [[::User:Erik9|Erik9]] (talk · contribs) account given the evidence and responses here. I don't particularly see the purpose of the Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) category at all, but that's a discussion for a different venue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That leave Erik9bot (talk · contribs) which needs a block, a de-rollbackering, and a crat to de-bot. Also, Erik9 (talk · contribs) needs a de-righting by an admin. MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Erik9bot. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence looks convincing to me, so block endorsed. As for the category, banned users can have their work reverted or deleted regardless of the merits of the edits. So you should have the green light to delete the category (unless you think others would find it useful). Spellcast (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot blocked by another admin, most recent edit rolledback by me because it was used to evade.--Tznkai (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the category, it's a good one to keep (although it could use a rename). There's been multiple requests at WP:BOTR for it. I'll start another one to try and get a eager bot op. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in particular I'm trying to figure out why the category was ever created / implemented. Is anyone actively using it? At a minimum, it needs to be renamed to a generic name; but really I don't see much reason at the moment to not simply get rid of it altogether. That said, it's used on over 140,000 pages currently, so we should be sure before doing any mass actions. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of support for a bot-maintained list of unsourced articles. However, there are improvements that could be made to the way Erik9bot used to categorise them, for example, the pages could be categorised into sub-categories depending on the topic. However, this isn't really the venue, please add any comments/suggestions you have to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_take_over_categorising_unsourced_articles_from_User:Erik9bot. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MZM: I didn't get that either. Seemed like redundant busywork. The new bot proposal looks more promising though. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The category can just be merged with the normal category where we have all unreferenced articles. The special category was a way to distinguish mass bot edits from the other ones. Can someone provide me a link for why User:John254 was banned? IF it was just "multiple accounts" we can check if Erik9 participated in xfDs or discussions. Maybe the ban could be reduced to something else. I don't know the case but Erik9 was/is very active in janitorial stuff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• A category of unreferenced articles is useful. I disagree with this block and it seems to me there is a double standard compared to the the treatment of a former Arbcom member who WAS caught socking with multiple simultaneous accounts and who wasn't just a banned or blocked user returning. I see a lot of evidence this editor was doing some good work. The focus should have been on addressing the problematice behaviors instead of taking punitive action. They'll be back. The indefinite block seems particularly pointless, silly and counterproductive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually cats can be herded. The secret is to open a can of tuna.

• • I agree with you that they'll be back, and I wanted it your way, but they refused to come clean. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We took that the attitude that we weren't interested in "bargaining". Why on earth would they come clean? I didn't see anything on offer and with the options available I'm not surprised at all that they weren't willing to admit guilt and face a firing squad. Better to just create a new account with none of the baggage. I can't believe that after all the recent disclosures of editors not being who we thought they were that we're still taking the cat herding approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova's "standard offer" (which is a very reasonable one) was put to them. Is that not enough? What do they expect, truffles and some after eights? Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We were attempting to bargain though. See message above. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if other users criticize me for attempting to bargain. I thought it was the best thing for the project, and so I made the offer before bringing it to ANI. Other might believe that we should have just done that or SPI to begin with, or even block with instructions to contact ArbCom. This was the best opportunity we could possibly offer, and it was rejected. Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed both technically and behaviorally that Erik9 is extremely likely to be almost beyond doubt the same user. I have rechecked the basis of the technical evidence (per CHL) which is fairly compelling already, and added to it some rather striking further evidence for other checkusers to review; each appear fairly conclusive. I tend to agree that given Erik9's responses, they do not suggest much chance of a forthright discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the email to Erik9. This mess up with the ArbCom it's a reason for a ban. I striked out my suggestion above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?

Problem solved The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. We had an opportunity to see if we could help someone who spends lots of time on-wiki editing. We would have known who they are and had access to their full history. We could have worked with them to improve their approach moving forward. Instead we encourage them to continue cheating. Remember kids, next time, don't get caught!

Such is the way of Wiki justice. If we repeat newspeaky statements like "an indefinite block is not forever" enough times does it start to make sense?

I think it would be better to use "blocks pending evidence of reform". I would ask editors to stay away for a while and meet specific conditions to work their way back. Instead we ask that they confess their sins so we can have the additional pleasure of gloating as we banish them to the wilderness for months at a stretch. The simpletons will be stuck out there while those with any computer skills can return the same day.

I hope George Orwell is laughing as he looks down on us. "Agree to our terms and you'll only have to stay away for 6 months"? What a joke. I look forward to following the sock sleuthing of those who supported this "remedy". What a waste of time. Durvoa can name a couple "success" stories of this method. I can name dozens of examples demonstrating it works just as well as the war on drugs.

If the policy is to push troublemakers to keep getting fresh starts why don't we just state that? If you get into trouble or get caught returning before a block has expired just start over with a completely new account and make sure we don't catch you. Maybe we should put it on the pages we post to instruct new editors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to get into the larger argument here, but I've yet to see where Orwell references do anything but irritate people and otherwise inflate the rhetoric over the operation of a website.--Tznkai (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work in comparisons to Chairman Mao's focus on getting the accused to admit their crimes and the Soviet Union's use of gulags, but I couldn't get it quite right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with ChildofMidnight but at least at this discussion Erik9 had to admit that he created a new account and doesn't wish to do what he did before. As far as I understand now he follows the same string of actions that caused his ban the last time. I really would like to see him unbanned and keep his janitorial work as he did the last months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can't trust a user to act within the bounds of Wikipedia's etiquette about not editing when blocked or banned, how can we trust them to act within the bounds of etiquette about getting consensus? Or NPOV? Or.. well..anything really? I personally consider Durova's "standard offer" to be light, comparatively. There has to be trust amongst editors, and someone who serially breaks that trust makes Wikipedia that much poorer. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How does it encourage trust when you push people to edit under new identities without disclosing their history? You're just encouraging subterfuge. According to your logic on who we can trust there are NUMEROUS admins that can't be trusted based on their KNOWN hisories, not to mention all the ones we don't know about. Isn't it preferable to have someone edit with a known account where we know the history? The standard offer is a joke and is totally unrealistic. Are you ready to take a 6 month break Fozzie?

For an editor who is only interested in working on a narrow range of articles you may be able to keep catching them. But for anyone who is flexible and has wide interests you're just pushing them to create whole new identities and promoting lawlessness by refusing to engage in sensible reform. We need to compromise our high but unrealistic standards and accept that we're dealing with humanoids. I wonder how many admins have undiclosed histories and are editors who have returned after being blocked or banned? What message does it send that it's better to hide your past than to be honest about it? The number we catch indicates is small compared to all those who remain in the shadows. Not to mention that the more cheating we encourage the better people get at it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Time away from wiki is quite satisfying actually.--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I already had a six month break, pretty much, thanks already *grins*... It's not whether I want a six month break, or even is Erik9/Kristen/John wants a break, it's whether he has the approval/support of the community at large. If they don't have that, if the community (or the Arbitration Committee, who is elected by the community) does not think that they can be trusted to edit constructively UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S RULES AND ETTIQUETTE then that's that.

Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it's a privilege, and that privilege can and will be revoked if it is misused. I have seen multiple users where hundreds of socks were used in an attempt to sock their way around a block/ban. Either we have rules that we follow, or we embrace total and complete anarchy. If someone wants to come back and be a active contributing editor, that's great.. but we need some evidence that they won't fall back into the disruptive behaviour that caused them to lose the trust of the community. The standard offer is a light way around that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can revoke that editor's editing privleges and I don't prescribe to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil school of enforcement. But we'll see. I'd prefer we reform editors and bring them into the light rather than keep pushing them to the fringes and into the shadows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We tried, and he refused. If he had edited non-disruptively, this wouldn't have been an issue. If he had admitted it and worked with arbcom, this could have been handled quietly. But he apparently prefers to play games. There's not much else we can do. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim, but I just looked at their user talk page and at least one editor thought they would make a good admin candidate. The picture on their userpage also indicates to me that they would have been okay with having their history known. The accusation keeps being made that they insisted on being deceptive, but I don't see that they had any choice. The choice we're offering is 6 month cold turkey or hop to a new account and keep their identity a secret (which of course requires lying if anyone asks and engaging in some deception to cover their tracks). I'm not trying to make y'all mad, I just don't think that's a reasonable offer. Fayssal asks below what offer I would make so here it is: I would ask them nicely if they'd be willing take a week off, come clean about who they are, accounts they've used in the past, and any sock accounts they have. They need to agree to avoid engaging in the problematic behaviors noted by Cool Hand Luke and be willing to take some regular breaks from editing if the addiction is itself part of the problem. I'm not sure on the last part, but the rest seems pretty reasonable. I would also assign them a mentor. GTBacchus indicated some willingness to take on being a mentor so he might be someone to ask. If people want to stand by the ban knowing that they'll be back unbeknownst to us then so be it. I'd love it if they e-mailed me so I could track how long it takes before they're at RfA and I'd like to see if it is successful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the email I posted above? We were not demanding a 6 month ban, nor were we persecuting a purely productive user. They were disruptive in similar ways as their old accounts—that's the only reason it even came to our attention. And even then, several arbitrators thought it was appropriate to give them a face-saving way out. They refused. One week with full disclosure and editing restrictions was open for debate, but it was rejected. Jeez, they could still email ArbCom if they wanted. They could have done that at any point since January. But they did not.

Until they make some showing that they've actually moved on, there's no need for you to argue in favor of their hypothetical appeal. You have to demonstrate good behavior before you get "time off for good behavior." Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as the "we ask that you immediately retire your account so that you can request unban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC)" and started rolling my eyes. Sorry if that sounds dickish, but it seemed like an enormous amount of bother for someone who has demonstrated that they can start editing under a new identity at will. I've read beyond that now and I don't see anything specific on offer. It's all rather nebulous. I don't know about you, but I'm also cautious about who I start e-mailing. So I'm not surprised that the editor chose to roll the dice knowing they were busted. They may even have preferred just starting over. But at the very least I would have put something on the table to see if they were willing to meet us halfway and turn over a proverbial new leaf without having to go into the witness relocation program. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they knew that they were busted, but they still had a way out. Would you prefer that we tell disruptive socks that we value them more than those who play by the rules? In effect, we do, you know. I modestly don't think it's good for the morale of the project. Cool Hand Luke 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL I don't ask or expect you to agree with me, but please reread what I wrote and consider it. Nowhere do I suggest that I like disruptive socks. Were they using multiple accounts at the same time? If not I don't think the term socking is accurate and it is at the very least misleading. (cont. below...)

The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. Well, the problem is not that a new account will be created because any potential new account behaving in a similar disruptive way will be dealt with in a similar fashion. The socking issue here is too secondary; it is not the main concern. Disrupting the process with three different accounts is a very bad sign and it is a nuisance to many editors. The user in question is experienced enough to understand that he needs to reform before coming back. He had a good chance today and I personally was thinking that he'd say sorry and promise to stop disrupting when answering the ArbCom e-mail. He chose to not to answer and instead he was at the MfD claiming that another user has federal powers and believing ArbCom came to the rescue of the other editor. This is not a game as everyone here got plenty of positive stuff to do instead of wasting our time here.

There were two offers on the table; that of ArbCom and the Durova one which is still open I suppose. If you want to help him reform, please put your offer on the table (mentorship or whatever). Otherwise, please let's move on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia:Standard offer remains on the table. Its time frame begins whenever he decides to stop socking and accept it. No apology required. Durova³²⁰ 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

whenever he decides to stop socking... and disrupting! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There ain't much fine print to the offer, but that's part of the deal. :) Durova³²⁰ 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Continued from right margin above) I've tried to make it clear that I have a strong preference for knowing who I'm dealing with and addressing problems out in the open. That's why I'm advocating reforms and encouraging a better way of working out these issues instead of sweeping them under the carpet and having to stay on constant alert with paranoia in never ending spy game. Speaking of which, I'd love to have a check user do some checking up on various accounts. How strong do my suspicions have to be to support an investigation? I'd like to know that the editors I deal with are on the up and up. And how do I stop mailing lists and collaborations devloped off-wiki and in chat rooms? Maybe we should fix what we can control and instead of being inhospitable to those with imperfections?

The reason that it's not necessary to make the conditions more substantial is : 1) we can't stop them from editing and 2) editing with their known history already provides an enormous deterent to repeating the poor behavior and is in and of itself a hardship that they will have to overcome by earning back good faith.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope my fellow arbitrators are amused by this conversation—I agree with you in principle, and I was actually making those arguments a short while ago. I believe we should accommodate users who want reform, which is why we even bothered to send the email. I don't think that we should break our spines bending backwards though. Cool Hand Luke 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, maybe it would help to explain the wikiphilosophy behind Wikipedia:Standard offer. An individual's dedication to the project is not (by itself) enough to succeed as an editor here. Sooner or later we each find ourselves on the short end of a consensus decision. Most of us accept the outcome (perhaps with bit of grousing) and move on. A few refuse to take no for an answer. Edit warring, Reichstag climbing, incivility, etc. are all variants of a refusal to accept the word no. Good content work does earn extra chances because we like to keep productive people, but no one deserves an indefinite license to act out. We all get a voice in creating site policies; it's possible to improve those policies when they are really wrong. This website is not an anarchy. Occasionally someone goes so far that we show them the door. Yes they could return through the window, but that'll get their hands dirty and tear their trousers at the knee. We can show them the door again (sometimes hundreds of times) until they understand that it really is much less stressful to take time out and then knock at the front door. That shows they're willing to respect limitations--to observe the same rules that apply to the rest of us. And that's when they deserve a respectful welcome. Durova³²⁰ 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This event deeply disappoints me. Erik9 was the one who filed an arbitration request where I was heavily involved (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118) even though he had not been involved in that dispute. In that case the request was not frivolous, indeed it ended with a conclusion along the lines requested by Erik9 (as well as myself, SarekOfVulcan, and Scjessey who were also involved). The main problem with this discovery is that it lends unnessecary credence to 194x's stance that there was a conspiracy to get him through improper means. I am surprised at the choice of arena. I would think that a "secret comeback" ought to stay far away from ArbCom, and not doing so can only be explained by an excessive interest in the drama of conflict resolution. I don't see any point in endorsing or opposing the block since the policy is quite clear about what "banned" means. Regarding the possibility of a future unban, I agree with Durova's postings in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The past behavior of John254/Kristen Eriksen shows a keen interest in drama, yes. That case was certainly an example of that. They started an even bigger feud in the Scientology arbitration that mystified users on both sides, tried the clerks, and was enormously disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: Personally, I see this as a classic example of WP:BEAR. The very nature of our site's registration system is that nearly anyone can game it given enough time and energy. The idea behind blocks and bans is to prevent disruption (usually, at least). If someone gets indefinitely blocked, returns and edits productively in a different area, nobody will be the wiser about their previous history. But in cases like this, Erik9 deliberately went around poking the bear (ArbCom in this case) by filing frivolous requests and doing other similarly-boneheaded things. If he had stuck to bot work, he very likely could've gotten adminship and nobody would have cared. But he chose to "piss on the wall of the police station" instead, and, yeah, that usually has negative consequences. I don't see this as a particular failing of Wikipedia's account registration system (it was either already broken or already working long before Erik9 arrived). This is simply a failure on this person's ability to stay the hell away from certain areas. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. People are overlooking the fact that it's not the socking, but the return to the negative behavior that is the problem. Using The Simpsons as an example, it's rather like Milhouse's dad in A Milhouse Divided, where he quarrels with his wife until they get divorced. His blank incomprehension when he gets fired from his job at the cracker factory (a job his wife's father got him) is the best lesson. Everybody is a "big wheel down at the cracker factory" here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits by new account

• A conundrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IS making a vast number of edits in a very short time frame - I have blocked for 3 hours until we can investigate. Manning (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock of John254/Erik9. This can be a {{checkuserblock}}. Risker (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this means John254 (talk · contribs) has chosen not to take up the above Wikipedia:Standard offer. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still on the table. He's just reset the clock on its start. ;) Durova³²⁰ 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted their edits, per the request at the bottom of this page, the fact that they are the sock of a banned user, and the fact that this category (which they were removing) may be helpful (as noted in a section higher up). Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting development

Anyway, Wikipedia:Standard offer has been mentioned above, and I'd like to comment. It can work, but it's tough. It needs to be tough (other project work should be *required*). I was indefed on the last day of March, 2008; see the eight-month-long dip in my en:wp editing here (I was unblocked for a few days in May). I didn't create another account, as John/Erik has (although I went that route some years ago). I went to Commons (spike!), to id:wp (almost 40% template edits) and then to wikisource.^+mop

I was unbanned on en:wp in December 2008 largely due to having done good work elsewhere, being honest, and listening. My account is activated on 167 different projects and I've made non-trivial edits on close to half of them. For some, a ban is The End. I coined the term "Single Project Account" for such folks. This is the 800lb gorilla and that is what attracts many and is the core reason for what we're currently calling a "Toxic Environment". Our size is the root of a lot of problems. Bans serve multiple purposes. The proximate one is to end some objectionable behavior. In some cases, it can also serve to widen an editor's perspective. There are hundreds of other projects for banned editors to work on to earn another shot at this project, but many have no interest in anything but the big baby; many of them are merely here to push a POV, to exploit disagreements and inflame situations. These all amount to trolling and online lulz.

Bans should be easier to impose. There are many editors here who need it. If they go away and develop as editors elsewhere, they can probably be allowed to return. If they are truly interested in the foundation's broader goals, they will be able to do this. If they're not, the ban adheres and the socks get whacked, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I wish that everyone who has been indefinitely block/banned and resorted to socking would take these words to heart. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So we make it tough on known accounts to come back to editing after agreeing to mentoring and reform. But if they come back surreptitiously, avoid disrupting (at least enough not to get caught) they have our blessing? Surreal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, thanks very much for posting. It reminds me you deserve a barnstar for the successful return. Durova³²⁰ 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, that's the way the whole world works. People who avoid paying their taxes don't have to give up their income and are forced to lie about it to stay out of jail. Of course you can benefit from breaking the rules, that's why people break them. Nobody is giving someone a "blessing" by secretly socking and staying out of trouble, but by staying under the radar they get away with it. Again, that's just how things are, and that's not restricted to Wikipedia. Your alternative of amnesty, however, would just embolden bad behavior. -- Atama頭 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I object to amnesty. The status quo and what you and Durova are arguing is that we make reform and accountability back breaking. But if an editor returns surreptitiously they get total amnesty and a clean slate with none of us having any idea who they are. I prefer transparency and accountability. I don't understand why we're encouraging people to cheat. And as far as the comparison to taxes, incentives are made and deals brokered to encourage the filing of back taxes and to push people to come clean. What's the point in setting up a whole bunch of disincentives to fixing wrongs? Why are we just pretending that this approach is working when it isn't? We've decided to do away with plea bargains in favor of summary judgment, except that we have no way of carrying out these severe sentences except on editors who are unable or incapable of figuring out how get around it (which also makes enforcement very unfair). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty means forgiving a person's wrongful deeds. If a person sneaks back into the project, that's not amnesty, because if they get caught they'll get blocked. I hope you forgive the analogy, but this is very much like immigration. I do not want to hijack this debate with real-life politics, so please forgive me, but it's a pretty close analogy. Wikipedia is not unlike a country that has deported someone for breaking the law. For the person to come back and request "citizenship", certain restrictions are requested. Instead of going through that process, the person has sneaked over the border with a false identity and was caught. What you're suggesting is to ignore all of their past crimes because they haven't committed any new ones since they sneaked back in, even though hopping the border is itself a crime. Obviously, to any reasonable person what you propose is the textbook definition of amnesty, however you want to twist things.

I realize that Wikipedia doesn't have a system of law, and doesn't give out punishments. Wikipedia only wants to prevent disruption and any actions taken against editors are meant to stop current disruption and prevent future disruption. But I still think it's a very apt analogy to make regardless. Just as with immigration, if the rules aren't enforced they cease to have meaning. Perhaps you want to change the rules to make it easier, but do you really want an unrepentant sockpuppet around? And as Durova stated, eventually these people do cause disruption, as we saw yet again in Erik9's case. -- Atama頭 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On a practical level, most banned users who sock return to problematic behavior. An arbitration case from 2007 makes an interesting example: midway through the case checkuser discovered that one of the parties was the reincarnation of a community banned editor who had previously been disruptive at baseball articles and returned to disrupt football articles. The sock of the banned editor and a different shadowy IP editor had been trolling a productive editor who was trollable. After those two irritants were removed the remaining editor reformed and has over 50,000 edits now. Either of those banned editors could probably return by now if they asked for reinstatement, but apparently their priorities are elsewhere. Durova³²⁰ 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks ;)

Someone who reacts to a ban by socking has not learned anything, they've not developed; they just want to keep playing whatever their game is. This is why they get caught again, too. John/Erik above filed the E&C 2 case that I was involved in and he aggressively sought the deletion of a page in my user space. He returned to a lot of his prior areas, like filing a lot of RfAr requests. This attracted scrutiny. He skipped the crucial step of developing as an editor.

I've tried that. Socking is an awkward business. You have to act — stay in character and manage your image. You have to consider every edit and the odds that it might show your true self. It is fundamentally at odds with honesty because being honest will get you caught; being yourself will get you caught. For some, I expect, this is just more game-play, which they enjoy. I didn't enjoy it and I was indefed when I came clean. While there were a fair number of folks who were pretty sure that I was a sock, it's possible that I could have lied my way through it. I do not regret it; it felt good. As they say, confession is good for the soul.

There are very good reasons to leave the easy door to socking available to the Indonesian: nakal anaks (mischievous children); the same reason we leave admins the ability to unblock themselves: it's a test. Those that take the easy route exhibit their true colors. My intentions have always been good, but the means I employed were unacceptable. My time in bantown was good for me; I understand the foundation's goals and projects far better for having been given a compelling reason to go do appreciated work elsewhere. I have learned that there are good people here who can be trusted and who share my goals.

There are certainly others who will read this who have significant experience on other projects, but the vast majority of editors on en:wp have never even looked at another project. They have little idea that they even exist and no idea what they are like. News Flash: This is the only toxic wiki. The others are all very mellow places. Take id:wp, for example. In Indonesian culture, aggressive behavior is considered unacceptably rude and outright vulgar. Grawp followed me there and went on a few sprees. Most folks were aghast; they had never seen such uncivilized behavior. It's no secret what culture produced our unwelcome troll. Why do we have so much toxic behavior? My view is that it is an aspect of an affluent society with an abundance of leisure time and which has a long history of escapist behaviors. I am from one such society, but I live in a much more relaxed one, now. I am also in a very different time zone than most en:wp editors and this means I don't see most of the drama 'live'. The whole Erik9 business landed and was all over before I saw any of it, and I read the whole story as a piece. I edit when most editors here are asleep and I see a mellower en:wp than most of you do. So I see that this place can work; all it takes is for the littluns to not be editing.

We let (most) anybody edit and that includes malactors of all sorts. When a pattern of problematic behavior is identified and other efforts to correct it have been unsuccessfully tried, it is quite appropriate to ban an editor. If they are serious, they will learn from it, and if that is demonstrated on one of the other projects, a return should be considered. The road back is a winding one, full of ruts and mud. This is to sort the serious from the not serious; most will not make it. I have long said that Wikipedia has scalability issues. This is not just about the proliferation of less than appropriate articles; it includes the concern that too many problematic editors are tolerated for too long. A ban is not the end of the world if the person is serious; it is a demand that they pay attention to the other serious people and wise up. Some will fail this test, which is good; it improves the caliber of editors here and reduces the ambient toxicity of the environment. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user?

• 74.104.160.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 38.104.186.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (banned, confirmed by ArbCom, has used IPs and socks before)
• ArbCom declines review; this has links and of course extensive posting by Rbj[4]

This has been brought to my attention on my talk page, but I'm not positive. Would someone else take a look and give a opinion?

The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage).

Thanks in advance for your kind attention - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

anyone... anyone at all. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

.... any input will be appreciated. thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you want people to say? The old account edits are far too old to CheckUser, and statements that the similarity will be evident to "those who know Rbj" is going to discourage anyone who doesn't know Rbj from commenting. I find the usual AN/I refrain of "diffs, please" coming to the tip of the tongue. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was brought this on my talk page, and you have the entirety. Its not a similarity I noticed, you comprehend. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Going through some of the contributions there are definetly some striking similarities in interests and speech.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party Tomruen where Rbj gives his email address:

My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by IP on my talk page about banned user

Could someone have a look at this? It appears to be a comment by an IP on my talk page about a banned user, but I don't have time to work out what this is about. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This merger of duplicate incidents should enlighten. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G's use of Huggle.

Bringing this here for a review. I was going to let this pass because this incident happened a couple of days ago, but it seems there are ongoing issues with their use of Huggle. Earlier in the day, I saw this report where they stated the IP had been removing the {{whois}} template from the top of their talk page. I discussed this matter with the IP, and explained the situation. They co-operated, and I closed the matter at AIV as resolved.

Seeing this IP at AIV again later in the day raised my eyebrows, and the six diffs he cited as vandalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), none of them vandalism. I raised concerns on their talk page, as did an administrator who blocked the IP in error. When asked for an explanation, they basically blamed Huggle[5] for the error. A mistake or two is excusable, but an ongoing pattern is not. This edit today was pointed out to me as well.

I feel that Jeff is unable to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, and should have his rollback removed. Alternatively, he could take these two lessons on vandalism, and keep his rollback, but I see an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed, and I'd welcome input from administrators. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Jeff G of this discussion, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That slipped my mind. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Other questionable uses include; The Funniest Joke in the World, Anadolu Airport, Marsia, List of Omnitrix aliens, Wes Ramsey, Glasses Malone, Characters of Extras, Taronga Zoo, and Eskişehir Airport, and CityRail K set, just to list a few. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to address these one at a time:

• The Funniest Joke in the World: Sorry, I guess I put too much faith in 115.128.43.169 (talk · contribs)'s translation and humor sensing capabilities.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But your edit restored the questionable assertion. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anadolu Airport: 88.244.74.28 (talk · contribs) removed "*Anadolu Jet (Ankara)" content without explanation and added two lines without citing a source. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism - in fact, it's at least in part a valid edit as two minutes of research shows.[6] 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Marsia: 203.190.147.124 (talk · contribs) removed a paragraph, a {{wikify}} tag, and a {{Husayn}} infobox template without explanation, and added a whole swath of unreferenced text. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your use of Huggle to undo an edit that may be questionable but not obviously vandalism and apparently done in good faith. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• List of Omnitrix aliens: 76.177.243.197 (talk · contribs) added more unreferenced info without explanation, despite having been warned not to do so 10 minutes earlier. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it vandalism. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following unsourced templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced2}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wes Ramsey: 71.52.103.188 (talk · contribs) made an unsourced change. After further review, the entire line about Mr. Ramsey appearing in an undisambiguated Heroes is unsourced, so I've disambiguated it and tagged it with {{fact}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Glasses Malone: 97.117.210.232 (talk · contribs) removed content without explanation. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another accurate edit, as shown by 3 minutes of research, labeled vandalism. Hardly a case of unambiguous vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Characters of Extras:
• Taronga Zoo:
• Eskişehir Airport:
• CityRail K set:

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think this concerns me, Jeff G. (talk · contribs) (note the dot), rather than the uninvolved user Jeff G (talk · contribs), who has been inactive since February, so I undid the notification mentioned above by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). Concerning this edit, the user I was reverting, 93.86.164.168 (talk · contribs), sarcastically called Verbal (talk · contribs) "allknowing" and accused that user of "lying" in this edit. I took the "lying" part as a personal attack (since it involved the language of {{subst:uw-delete1}} in this warning edit, which was not a lie and concerned this original content removal edit), and reverted/warned accordingly.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism or your own edits. This clearly states that personal attacks (perceived or otherwise) does not fall under that criteria, so rollback should not be used. The edits that 98.248 also outlined are concerning. Why should you be allowed to retain rollback, when there is clearly an ongoing pattern of problematic edits. Unless you'd agree to go through a lesson on how to use rollback appropriately, and how to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, which I'm happy to go through with you, I'm worried that problems like this will continue to arise. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go through a lesson, but I'd like to finish responding to all of the above first.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-npa1}}
• {{subst:uw-npa2}}
• {{subst:uw-npa3}} (formerly {{subst:npa3}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4}} (formerly {{subst:npa4}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4im}} (formerly {{subst:npa4im}})

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Some interpret the vandalism policy a bit looser than others, I interpret it quite strictly, simply because reverting poor edits, that may be made with good intentions, and labelling them as "vandalism" is one of the fastest ways to make a new editor stop editing. When you're ready, pop a note on my talk page and we'll go through the Vandalism lessons. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not tonight, I'm too tired (it's about 03:06 here). I'll be back tomorrow evening or night.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All those templates appear to relate to personal attacks, not vandalism. I can say that vandalism is only when it is unambiguously clear that an edit was made with the sole intent of damaging wikipedia as a resource. There is a long (but not exhaustive) list at VAND#NOT of disruptive or unpleasant edits which aren't vandalism. The basic rule is, if there is any doubt, use the edit summary feature in HG. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here; rollback is for blatantly unproductive edits, and not only for vandalism. If an edit can in no way be thought as made in good faith, it is quite appropriate to use rollback for that. Huggle provides options for reverting personal attacks and unexplained content removals, among others. However IIRC, in each case huggle gives the same edit summary by default (Reverted edits by x to last revision by y (HG)), but the warning issued will be different. That aside, I agree that Jeff G. should exercise more scrutiny and care when using huggle. This edit is somewhat understandable considering that a large amount of text was removed without explanation, and I think many RC patrollers would have reverted that. But almost every other example seems to be a careless mistake or a result of being too hasty. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

With as many as 9 edits per minute (03:26, 22 September 2009), there's not any doubt in my mind that Jeff is being too quick to push the button. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with this. he reverted my edit too because i said other editor lied -- which he did -- so it was not a personal attack. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that the nine-edits-per-minute revert rate described above is too fast for an editor to be effectively judging the individual merits of each edit? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's only 5 reverts, plus 3 warnings and one AIV report. The reverts in question are [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. I'll leave it to others to judge if they are good reverts. Tim Song (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Craftsman is someone that is a tool, or a big douche bag!", "it has somewhat of jewish origans" concerning a family of beetles, "The Ford Mustang is an insanely awesome automobile", and "*Howard Stern - Radio show host, King of All Media" were easy to spot as vandalism. The birthdate change I had to research for a bit. The user I reported to AIV for vandalizing Ford Mustang, 72.199.232.33 (talk · contribs), got blocked subsequent to my report.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Try not to obsfucate the point being made - that the speed of rollbacks is indicative of Jeff not taking the time to give each due consideration. This one minute period is just an example of his rapidity. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I'm obfuscating the point - I agree with Jeff's assessment of the reverts, BTW - you said that he's rolling back too fast and not giving each due consideration because he made 9 edits in a minute; I pointed out that it's actually only 5 reverts; I also think that they are all sound. And for four of them it probably takes 3 seconds to figure out that a revert is appropriate. So, no, I don't see you proving your point with this example; if he made a bad revert in the minute, yes, but I think that they are all good. Tim Song (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

←I think it's suffice to say at this point that Jeff should be more careful in his reverts. I haven't looked at the diffs provided in this ANI thread, but I did some of my own investigating about a week ago, and I was concerned. Jeff, please consider the concerns of everyone in this discussion when you use Huggle. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 70.108.59.249

This IP and various similar ones of a dynamic nature (70.108.121.71, 70.108.86.23, 70.108.66.63, 70.108.89.47, 70.108.61.231, 70.108.70.197, 70.108.104.200, 70.108.114.181) has been engaged for the last nearly 3 weeks in trying to insert content sourced to a blog-type source, written ostensibly by someone named Jawn Murray, into the article The Game (U.S. TV series). He made reference to other CW network shows as "trash" and "bullshit" [12], Some of the content was sourced to twitter posts regarding an alleged "plagiarism" claim by the same Jawn Murray against TV Guide over an item, and even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article [13], when he posted the plagiarism accusation into the article, and also in an early talk page post Funny thing its basically my story from June 16!. Other sources were found for the same content and placed by established editor User:Pinkadelica. Pinkadelica reverted the addition of the plagiarism accusation and Twitter post refs three times [14] [15] [16] and posts were made to the talk page of the IP being used at the time by three different editors, regarding two different articles and edit warring, inappropriate content including incomplete sentences and other grammatical errors. [17] At one point, the IP stated "for the 2nd time 3 colums(look b4 u rever). if you're going to credit some1 credit the one WHO PUBLISHED IT FIRST. &if twitter isnt reliable you need to strip it from the hundreds of articles it is in", seeking credit for himself for the story. I also removed the plagiarism accusation and use of the Twitter source. [18] The IP persisted, posting the plagiarism accusation on the talk page and Pinkadelica finally requested semi-protection on September 14. [19] At that point, the IP began to post to the article talk page, at which time I asked if the person was Jawn Murray, [20], here, here, here and here. I repeatedly pointed out that the actual link the IP was posting was not going to the story he thought he was posting, since each new blog entry pushed the story further back in the pages. The IP response was "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you...". I asked the editor at least four different times to remove this incivility [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The IP began to refer to Pinkadelica as "pink", and when asked to call her by her full username, posted a tirade, repeatedly calling her "pink", said "Can you not focus? Go drink some giseng & then come back", "I disagree as I still see smoke coming from you area" and other incivil comments [26]. I reverted that post due to the harassing and incivil nature of it [27] and the IP began to call me "wild", despite repeated requests to use my full username. In addition the IP kept messing with the column markup, claiming that the 3 columns were absent, although it was not each and every time I looked at the page. This is blatant WP:COI, trying to insert his own column into the article, incivility, edit-warring and harassment and it would be very nice if someone put a stop to it. I've requested the page be protected again, but so far, no action has been taken on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looking at the IPs he uses, a rangeblock would be impossible to enact without huge collateral damage, so this is probably the best we can do. --Jayron32 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We knew that the IP hopping was going to be an issue. Appreciate the help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

AOL Black Voices is not a blog. It is an entertainment website, just as marc malkin/eonline and ausiello/ew. The CW network is trash, I am not the only one who feels like this. I did not include it being trash in the is the article, so pointing it out is of no matter. I did quote twitter but never did "...even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article". Pink did revert the twitter source, and I posted on the talk page asking why, but Pink didn't reply. I then acquiesced and compromised by removing the twitter, and jsut adding the AOL source, leaving the matt mitovich source. I do feel twitter is removed arbitrarily. Twitter is used as a source, for example in many Miley Cyrus articles, and it stands as a source. Wild said this link was not the actual link which I corrected, but wild wont accept the corrected. Yes I did reply in the ride manner in which I was posted to. Wild is not tellling you that wild/pink are friends. Thus wild is calling my replies incivil but did not warn their friend pink. I did not mess with the markup, I fixed it so that 3 columns were visible; the 3 columns were not visible each and every time I looked at the page. This is not blatant COI. I am inserting a reputable source, it is not my column. 70.108.122.230 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at the article talk page. If you can establish widespread consensus among editors for the changes you propose, then and ONLY then can you implement them. But either way, this venue is not the place to discuss content issues. --Jayron32 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading Musatov again

Special:Contributions/216.240.51.58 is spamming both the article and talk pages of halting problem with some "solutions". He has been warned: User talk:216.240.51.58. Technically, he's not vandalizing, he's just a crank, so I'm reporting him here instead of AIV. Pcap ping 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:MartinMusatov. The same guy also "solved" the P = NP problem a while back using the same (sockpuppeteer) methods, for which he has been indef blocked. Pcap ping 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can solve P = NP using sockpuppets? I'll start writing the nature paper and you work on the nobel prize acceptance speech. I'm teaching this next week, would be shame to have to warn my students off wikipedia. Verbal chat 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently P=NP that was way easy since he now moved to the halting problem... Except nobody else could understand the solution. I guess the sockpuppets can act like oracle machines for creating consensus or something. Better not think about it too hard. ;-) Pcap ping 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped of his own accord for now. But I'm curios if my post not actionable for some reason, or are we seeing a manifestation of the much-debated admin shortage? Pcap ping 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin look up prior deletions?

Resolved

 – Didn't require admin intervention.

(moved from WP:DRAW which I thought was an admin request channel)

I don't know if this is a proper question to ask but could an admin look at the delete history for Clark Heinrich to see if it was WP:PRODed or WP:CSDed before? The edit history does not start with an "N" (new page). The page is up for AFD and I was curious on if there were any prior delete discussions (such as on the article's talk page) and/or deletion reasoning. TIA. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this history for instance, you don't see "N" at the first edit either. Only articles which were created fairly recently contains an "N" at the first edit. Further, looking at the logs for Clark Heinrich it would appear that the article has not previously been deleted. Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, non-admins are able to review deletion logs, and there's no record of a previous deletion of any kind. In addition, I can confirm that there aren't any admin-viewable deleted edits here - so this article certainly hasn't been deleted at this title before, though it could of course potentially have been created at a slightly different one. Hopefully this helps. ~ mazca ^talk 09:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't created/deleted at Clark heinrich either. Only articles created after the MediaWiki software was modified will include the N page marker – the date of which still evades me but obviously after September 2007. – B.hotep •talk• 09:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I had not realized non-admins could look at the delete history for an article via Special:Log and that the "N" marker is a new thing. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User causing problems

I am having certain difficulties with the user LAz17. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article Boris Tadić. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Wikipedia.

I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Wikipedia and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you expect problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Boris Tadić) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). WP:Don't panic. Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.

I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Wikipedia can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--Avala (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not resolved but was archived and since the user is continuing to twist the common sense (by seeking consensus to be achieved on the stable version, and acting that his version is the newly born one man consensus) and keeps on reverting my edits that are actually reverts of his blanking I am bringing it back here per agreement to come back if the irrational behavior continues. Please actually read everything above before deciding to take part in this by either archiving or telling me how it's all cool.--Avala (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked for page protection on the Boris Tadić page. I think both parties should be reminded of the 3RR rule here as both are clearly over the line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and warned both users of 3RR via TWINKLE. Avala, don't take it personal, it is just a standard warning. I wanted to cover all bases with the warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I made myself quite clear here what my intentions are and why I started the process (to not end up in an edit war and 3RR breach) and I think I presented the situation quite clearly. It's not my fault that it got archived with no resolution, and no response from an admin. All the other details are present above where I clearly explained what is the problem all about, why is not a content dispute but something that requires admin action which is long overdue, and why it can't be resolved through discussion with the other user (though I did try as well some other users involved) as the user in question is first of all irrational in the sense that he is twisting the situation so that according to him the stable version needs to be proven on talk page and not his recent blanking (which is in turn based on conspiracy theory that can not be a valid edit reason) and secondly because he has a history of disruptive behavior including several warnings, ANI reports and a block.

I am not taking the warning personally but I find it very unnecessary for a user (me) who brought the whole thing to your attention and for a user who brought it to your attention in order to avoid the thing that the warning is all about. Anyway I still thank you for some action because prior to it the only reaction from others was to dump this into archives or rename it.--Avala (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you are not an admin either? Will any admin appear on the Administrators' noticeboard?--Avala (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to post on the admin board. I am just here to help. It might be a couple before the admins and other users get out of bed. It is only 7am on the east coast of the US, only 11am in the UK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm awake. A few points: in response to your comment "therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus", consensus can change. User:Equazcion was quite right in advising that content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages and that you should invite broader community input so that you can establish whether or not consensus is still with the inclusion of that information. He gave you links to some places where you can invite wider community input so that you don't have to wait months for somebody to show up at the talk page. If consensus is reached and a contributor continues editing the article to promote his preferred version, you have clear evidence of disruption. In the absence of current consensus, except where clear vandalism is ongoing, you have a content dispute. This is not clear vandalism, as this individual has expressed reasons for the removal at your talk page and in edit summary (derived from WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Synthesis). This one has not crossed 3RR, but is an edit war nevertheless, and I have temporarily fully protected the article to allow time for the consensus to emerge. This does not mean that I am in support of your version; protection is applied to whichever version happens to exist at the time. Neither do I support his. But the two of you need to seek consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes consensus can change but if there is no consensus to change the consensus than it has to be sought on the talk page not through edit wars. And as for the reasons, I already said that anyone can disrupt WP then if we allow for the reason to be "you added this to the article so he could win the election" because that is a conspiracy theory and not a valid reason that can be discussed. As for reasons that were linking to Wikipedia policies they are bogus as the content has a source and it doesn't take more than a minute to check it if you don't believe me. Again anyone can go and disrupt Wikipedia and give a random Wikipedia policy as a reason. I could go and remove some well referenced content and say "no original research" but that is simply a fake reason as the content I removed has a source so I can't make a serious claim that I did it because it was original research. We should really sanction perjury in Wikipedia to avoid anyone disrupting Wikipedia based on completely false claims that have got absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous. Also I don't see the point of directing me to talk with this user over and over again when from the first moment I said two things - first of all that I already tried talking to him so that is not a new idea, second of all it failed and not to my surprise knowing his history. Now I don't see the point in giving me optimistic proposals while you can yourself see it's going nowhere and while you yourself wouldn't be able to resolve the issue based on your suggestions. I appreciate that you are doing something here, but if this was so easily solvable you would have solved it yourself as a neutral party and good faith admin that wants disputes to be resolved as fast as possible but you know you can't solve it that way in situations like this. It's not that simple, actually nowhere near simple but probably impossible and that is why I came here.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; replying only to what you had originally written) I have all confidence that I would be able to resolve the issue based on my suggestions, and have resolved a number of issues using that very approach. I've volunteered my time at a number of boards created to help with these very kinds of situations: WP:3O, WP:BLPN, for two. Even as an admin, I frequently seek exactly this kind of assistance at WP:COIN. You may have tried talking to him, but if you have read "dispute resolution" then you should know that it doesn't stop there; the next step when two people don't agree is involving other contributors. This does not require administrator input; all contributors are equally welcome to contribute to consensus, and the fora that were recommended to you are good ones for getting exactly the kind of input you need. In the absence of current consensus, there is no unilateral disruption here. Neither of you is following Wikipedia:Consensus policy. The article is protected. While it is, you should seek to resolve your differences in accordance with that policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said was referring to directing me all the time to talk with him when I have already tried that and explained here why it doesn't work. As for the third party, I can only see one other editor that was involved in this same discussion and LAz17 wasn't any nicer to him either. This user is no longer active, edits only here and then. But LAz17 didn't forget him, though he didn't consider what was written to him as an argument, as a discussion but "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied ...". That's how he sees attempts to talk to him - as lies on purpose, the words he wrote more than a few times on my talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page isn't necessarily about talking to him. It's about putting it where other contributors to the article can join the conversation...and, if necessary, requesting that others contribute. If two editors reach a stalemate on a matter of text in an article, additional editors can break the stalemate. At the point when, say, five editors agree that the material does or does not belong, it is no longer an edit war if the sixth continues to edit the article to push his or her preferred view. At the point that a contributor continues "to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors", you have disruptive editing, and then it is a matter for admin intervention. But clear consensus must exist before you have clear violation of consensus, and a conversation between three editors from January of 2008 does not establish clear consensus. That further conversation is needed is rather underscored by the fact that a fourth contributor has now weighed in and opposes the inclusion. It seems more discussion of the material is needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Avala - Please don't make changes to the archives. The header at the top of archive page that says not to do it is for-real. I hesitated to undo the edit, I don't want to make things worse.- Sinneed 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about that, didn't even notice. However much bigger problem in my opinion was dumping this into archives in the first place as it wasn't resolved.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A neurosurgeon said: "A hospital is where you go to get better. You go home to get well." - The article and the article talk page are eventually where the problems in the article will be resolved.

The admins can only do limited things to help. Like... protect the article in a random state to give time for editors to work out their differences without wp:edit warring. This is also a place where editors interested in helping with problems watch for problems with which to help.

In this case, the article is now protected, and you now have suggestions about how to move forward including avoiding wp:edit warring (no matter how right one is, edit war is not the way, and my revert button finger itches too) and possibly seeking help through wp:conflict resolution. I don't see either of you discussing the problem with the quote on the talk page during the edit war.- Sinneed 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no concensus. Avala specifically avoids the talk page, as there is no consensus. Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there. Putin in no way endorsed tadic, the letter he sent was mainly focused on business, particularly in the energy sector. The talk from the past agreed to remove the information, yet someone put it back. I was involved back then, and am involved again, in order to remove this POV. A discussion has reopened to discuss this matter on the talk page, and clearly Avala is ignoring it. So far the consensus on the talk page is that this should not be part of the article. But, Avala ignores it, as he has a POV which is one of tadic's supporters. This is quite significant, because it is well known that tadic's ideology is against russia, and that most serbian people want closer relations to russia. By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president. I do not endorse any political party, and tend to think that most politicians are bad, be it putin, tadic, obama, or others. The point is that supports of certain candidates must not be allowed to transform an article into their own POV propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).

A 3rd opinion has been offered by user:No such user. I see there was discussion way back in Jan 2008 on this, with 2 editors for inclusion and one opposed, disagreeing about what the source said. There is now a new discussion area Talk:Boris Tadić#Putin stuff. Which, at this point, neither of the 2 in the current content dispute seem to have joined.- Sinneed 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the IP's edit history strongly suggests one of them has. :) (Note I'm not suggesting sock puppetry, but more likely that somebody forgot to log in.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There were three users back then. Me, Avala, and some guy, Pax. I am not very familiar with pax, but he is a problematic user who has been banned in the past for having very many sock puppets. On top of that, his contribution in the discussion a complete lie. I exposed his lie, and he did not show up again in the discussion. He said that Putin congratulated Tadic on his future presidency, which clearly all sides here agree that he did not. Therefore Pax falls off as a legitimate/worthy source to get information from. Later avala insists that pax was correct about future presidency - and disappears from the discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

So does this diatribe claiming how I am "tadic's supporter" and "By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president." still leave any room for people to suggest to me to give another try to discussing the matter with this user? The second quote continues directly from the previous conspiracy that adding this information to the article helped or was intended to help change the election results (and now also includes elements of libel for calling Tadic a corrupt president, followed by funny claim of impartiality). So all my coherent arguments are countered with conspiracy theories, of attacks that I write "lies on purpose" or "Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there" etc. I assume good faith but I keep getting slapped.--Avala (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read of the text on this page about dispute resolution and the point of inviting other contributors? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How many people is enough for there to be a consensus? We got one third opinion, which sides with me. Do we need more? (LAz17 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Who is siding with you, we are discussing the issue. And how about you stomping over the user PaxEquilibrium and calling me and him liars on purpose etc. At that time you had a different logic.--Avala (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More can help. 2-1 is not a very strong consensus. There is nothing wrong with seeking additional feedback to more definitively settle the matter. Given the nature of the issues, you might want to ask for input at WP:NPOVN. Another good possibility is Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Please be sure to word any request civilly and neutrally to avoid canvassing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#English Defence League

First up, if you're one of the usual people that reply to any thread within minutes saying it's a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI, please don't reply. This isn't a content dispute as such, although content is involved obviously. Since being unblocked in July following a year long Arbitration Committee ban and subsequent indefinite block for evading the ban using sockpuppets, Yorkshirian has continued to edit in the same problematic way. In fact, I believe below is evidence that every single type of problematic behaviour detailed in the finding of fact in the Arbitration Committee case still applies right now. I really don't want to go to RFC as when editing is this bad I consider having to jump through hoops to find someone willing to certify an RFC to be unhelpful, especially when an editor has had ample opportunity to learn from their mistakes after a year's ban. So I'd rather try and deal with the problem here, and if a consensus can't be reached I'll be happy to take it to the Arbitration Committee.

Yorkshirian's editing is generally problematic in various areas (although improving in other areas apparently, for the sake of balance), in particular with regards to the far right in the UK and related articles about anti-fascists who oppose the far right, attempting to paint the former in a more positive light and the latter in a more negative light. Dealing with articles one at a time, or actually two at a time for the first two since they involve the exact same content and problems.

• Red Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anti-Fascist Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. Two people who happened to be members of Red Action and/or Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) became involved with the Provisional IRA and took part in a bombing campaign, for which they were jailed for 30 years. Yorkshirian believes that both the Red Action and AFA articles should mention this. Others disagree with the inclusion (especially for Red Action, which is a short article and causes major undue weight problems), for example if a Greenpeace member becomes an Animal Rights Militia member and bombs a lab, does that belong in the Greenpeace article, and would that get a "terrorism" category too? Problems include undue weight, POV language, inappropriate categories, personal attacks, accusations of vandalism, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith and flat-out lying about what books actually say. Diffs:

• [28] [29] - Initial addition of the problematic content. Note the inappropriate and POV use of "bombing their home country", which is a judgmental view that does not appear in the source, it is Yorkshirian's own opinion. Also note the use of this unreliable source which is nothing to do with Searchlight (magazine), it is a far right spoof website.
• [30] [31] - Adds "terrorism" category (in addition to an unsourced and incorrect "communism" category on one diff, AFA are not communist. They had communist members, anarchist members, and all sorts of other members. Their only political position was anti-fascism, they were single-issue).
• [32] [33] - Claims removal of information with well explained edit summaries are vandalism.
• [34] [35] [36] [37] - More edit warring to retain the information above, including personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• [38] - More personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• [39] - After an editor points out neither book deals with Red Action, Yorkshirian responds by saying "Both book mentions Red Action explicity", this is a lie. The books being referred to are The Irish War by Tony Geraghty (Google Books link to the relevant page, and feel free to use the search function on the left to search the book for "Red Action", zero results, and neither does "Red Action" appear in the print version I also have), and Terrorism, 1992-1995: a chronology of events and a selectively annotated bibliography by Edward F. Mickolus (Google Books search for "Jan Taylor", Google Books search for "Patrick Hayes", Google Books search for "Red Action"), where as you can see both people involved are mentioned on page 282, yet there is no mention of Red Action.

• Stop the Islamification of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK have been protesting against Islam and have been met by counter-demonstators and there has been rioting. Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith

• [40] - Two tendentious claims added. First is that present at a demonstration were "Muslims who claimed to be there to "defend the mosque"" sourced by this, when no such quote is attributed to Muslims. Depending on your reading of the actual sentence, the Muslims could have been there for the same reason but it is ambiguous, thus failing WP:V which says citations have to be unambiguous. The second tendentious claim is that "The Muslims and the far-left rioted, attacking the police with bricks, bottles and firecrackers" sourced by the same source, which gives no information as to who was actually attacking the police, be they "far-left" (that label is also Yorkshirian's own invention, as it does not appear in the source), Muslim or Stop the Islamification of Europe.
• [41] - Adds unsourced "left-wing" description to John Denham.
• [42] - Adds "with riots against the police" to the sentence "Unite Against Fascism have opposed the group" sourced by this, which again gives no information as to who the rioters were, and does not directly implicate UAF.
• [43] [44] - Edit warring to maintain those tendentious additions, complete with a slight on a contributor for editing anonymously and a false accusation of vandalism.
• [45] - Related to the above. Combines the title of this source ("Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow") with a sentence from this source ("Bricks, bottles and firecrackers were thrown at police officers who were present in riot gear at the scene") to create the synthesised sentence "Islamic demonstrators clashed with the police, throwing bricks, bottles and firecrackers", despite objections about OR in an ongoing discussion.
• [46] - Assumes bad faith and says removal of information sourced by an unreliable source was "partisan removal of sourced LDN info by Nickhh. rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT", when Nickhh had explained on the talk page why it was unreliable.

• English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK linked to Stop the Islamification of Europe, similiar demonstrations with similar violent reactions and similar condemnation from politicans and the press. Again, Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources

• [47] - "sort out some militant left bias inserted by Presbo" edit summary first of all. Opening sentence changed to "The English and Welsh Defence League is a British pressure group which organises protests against what it regards as Islamism, the introduction of Sharia law to the UK and a percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", sourced by this (which sources that the EDL and Casuals United have held a number of "explicitly anti-Muslim rallies" with more to follow), this (which sources EDL protests against Islamic extremism and the use of sharia law in Britain) and this (which sources an upcoming EDL rally against Islamic extremism). So the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance" is a Yorkshirian invention. The claim that UAF "violently react to protests" held by the EDL is also unsourced, and the addition of "(a town in which Islamists recently held protests against the British Army)" with regard to Luton looks like a clear attempt to push a point of view that Muslims are allowed to protest in Luton yet "English" people are not.
• [48] - Same sources as above edit, used to source the claim that the EDL oppose the spread of Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom, none of which even contain the word "terrorism". Another invention by Yorkshirian. Also removes substantial content correctly cited from this source claiming "unsourced POV by JzG", considering JzG's changes are properly sourced and Yorkshirian's are his own opinions, what?!
• [49] - Changes "anti-fascist" to "far-left", despite both sources saying "anti-fascist" and never mentioning "far-left".
• [50] - Further attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim. Labels the BBC as "left-wing", as well as John Denham again.
• [51] - Another attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim, as well as labelling John Denham as left-wing again.
• [52] - Adds claim that counter protesters are "far-left...who call themselves "anti-fascists"". Source is no longer on the original link, but it's an AP story which can be seen here. The "far-left" label is attributed to the EDL, yet Yorkshirian insists that the EDL cannot be simply called "far-right", it must be attributed. Reasonable enough, if the same applies to "far-left" which it clearly doesn't! The "who call themselves "anti-fascists"" addition is quite laughable, considering the dozens of sources relating to the incidents that call them exactly that.
• [53] - Changes the previous AP reference to this source, where the label "far-left" does not ever appear.
• [54] - Unexplained removal of {{UK far right}} with misleading edit summary.
• [55] - Adds irrelevant information about John Denham being a member of the Fabian Society, seemingly to try and discredit his opinion of the EDL.
• [56] - Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort.
• [57] [58] - Changes "pro-Palestinian demonstrators" to "a Palestine themed demonstration, featuring Islamic immigrants (some with Hezbollah flags" based on this image (and a Guardian hosted video for the second diff), which does not in any way support the "Islamic immigrants" addition and neither does the already cited source.
• [59] - Proposes that the article should say "the far-left have levelled the term far-right at the EDL. This is used mostly as a form of newspeak to try and blacklist, as the EDL has yet to produce any political goal other than peaceful protest against the far-right Islamist movement". So apparently almost every media outlet in the UK is now "far-left", and they use the term for the reason in the second sentence. And don't get me started on "the far-right Islamist movement"
• [60] Assumes bad faith and shows his obvious politcal leanings with "The recent edits which you put into the article are clearly bias in favour of violent communist militias IMO" and reference to "reds", which in the UK is a term used almost exclusively by far-right activists, I'm sure you've all heard of Redwatch?
• [61] - Refers to some unions out of National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Communication Workers Union, UNISON and the TUC, as "corrupt unions", which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

There's more besides, but I wanted to keep things relatively brief. Everything that got him banned by the Arbitration Committee is still being done - "personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith", "edit-warring", "attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines" - yes to all three. The admin who unblocked him has already warned Yorkshirian of problems with his editing and said "the next valid complaint I receive about you will lead to the indef block being reinstated. Examples include but are not limited to: revert warring, editing against consensus, or being rude to anyone in any way. If I am not around to do it, an other admin can so so with my blessing", so perhaps it is time for that to be put into action? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:One Night In Hackney - Here is a short answer to a long thread (which I read and reviewed thoroughly). You have a strong case here and I agree that an indef block is warranted. Manning (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yorkshirian since being unblocked has made alot of good contributions to different articles. This character assassination is unfair and doesnt belong here. If you had a problem with some of his actions or comments, you should have questioned them at the time, instead of plotting and creating this long list of examples which has clearly been in the works a long time. Disgraceful BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thoguh I've only been involved in the English Defence League article, I can't do anything but agree with the evidence that BW has brought up here. Yorkshirian has a distinct POV in these articles and constantly edit-wars and fights against anything negative being added, as well as adding wildly inaccurate and inflammatory speeches on their talkpages, especially that of the EDL. Editors who need more evidence need only look over that article's talkpage to see what he's been upto. Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoops. That should be 'One Night in Hackney' and not BritishWatcher, my apologies to both of you. Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I was about to post here in partial defence of Yorkshirian - despite my fundamental opposition to many of his edits, and concerns about his behaviour - then realised that the block had already been reapplied, without the opportunity for any debate. A very hasty and regrettable decision has been taken, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Ghmyrtle - I have no doubt this user had the potential to be useful to the project. I have no doubt that since his release he has made some useful contributions. Now I am actually regarded as one of the most lenient and forgiving admins around and many admins question my willingness to give people a second chance. Regardless, my decision was a simple and uncontroversial one. His status was not that of an "editor in good standing". His status was of someone who had been released from an indefinite block under very stringent conditions of good behaviour. He clearly breached these conditions and therefore the block was reinstated. I had no alternative. Manning (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I hear what you say, and under the rules I'm sure you are correct - but I think it is unfortunate, firstly, that Yorkshirian was not given more specific warnings recently; and secondly that other involved editors were not given an opportunity to comment. I know Yorkshirian can be abusive (as can many other editors, of course) but in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles, which I think is common ground; and so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry. Perhaps I'm just being naive here, but I would have thought that a short sharp ban, to bring him to his senses re his occasionally abusive comments, would have been better on this occasion than an indef one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • How do people know they are "stepping over the line" if the first time its raised is when a long list of actions is presented here instead of them being told at the time to stop? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • You mean apart from the Request for Comment, the Request for Arbitration, the Arbcom case, being blocked, then being unblocked under the strict ruling that he not start up his old behaviour...then starting it up again? Skinny87 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                • He should have been dealt with at the time if he stepped over the line, not have this huge list of examples over a period of time added here, with no possible way to defend himself as hes already been blocked so cant post here. Thats unfair BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • (od)No, it really isn't He was blocked the last time for doing this kind of thing, then unblocked under the strict proviso he not continue what he was doing. He did, and now he suffers the consequences. Skinny87 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of review: The user involved has been indef blocked on previous occasions, in addition to the Arbcom remedy of a 12 month ban. The reversal of the block came about after extensive pleading and promises to adopt acceptable Wikipedia practices. These assurances have been reneged upon. I see no further reason to assume good faith with this user. The indef block has been reinstated. Manning (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Considering when other people bring matters to this place about editors disgraceful actions they get told to bugger off, the double standards is incredible. For example, every time an issue is raised about an editor who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her anti British pov pushing, people get told its a content matter and to get lost. Disgusting and offensive hipocracy from this place as always BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block Manning Bartlett continued disruption since return. BigDunc 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the re-block. As I pointed out to Theresa Knott, Yorkshirian had involved himself in eleven problems in only the first 48 hours since his unblock: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. I stopped paying attention after that but I know he was warned about various things since then, so I imagine things continued as disruptively after that time as well. From the beginning of this thread, that is obviously the case. This is a user who socked mercilessly for most of his recent ban with nasty threats and intimidation any time he was caught, so I was of the strong belief that he shouldn't have been unblocked in the first place. I was right. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, editors were dealing with this without blocks, and actually tackling the content issue (which is a content dispute, despite the framing here, and was directed to the NPOV noticeboard the last time that it came up at AN/I) at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere. It's somewhat misleading to frame English Defence League as Yorkshirian-versus-the-world, and to then treat it as such. For starters, there's another editor on Talk:English Defence League who agrees with Yorkshirian. And the diffs above are somewhat selective, ignoring edit summaries by Yorkshirian such as "seems to be talk consensus to mention labour, but not 'wings'", for example. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out to BW that the evidence regarding RA/AFA is from the last couple of days, and the other stuff is pretty recent too. Also the diff from Theresa Knott (it's right at the end of the post by ONiH) pointing out that Yorkshirian would be indef blocked on receipt of the next valid complaint, so he had ample warning in addition to having been banned for a year for what he's still been doing. BigDunc 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I endorse this block. Yorkshirian has made some decent contributions in his time, but the catalog of PoV-push edit-warring detailed here really do suggest he's poorly suited to a collaborative environment like this. Reinstating the indef-block does seem the only solution at this point - letting him back was worth trying, I think, but the experiment has pretty clearly failed. He's had his opportunities to reform, and has not. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Restatement of my decision - there seems to be some confusion about what went on here, so I will restate it.

• Yorkshirian was released from his block under very specific conditions which related to no disruptive editing, no personal attacks, and no POV pushing. The most recent warning he received from Admin Theresa Knott in late July was quite explicit in that a single act of reoffending would incur reinstatement of the block.
• There is clearly at least one incident of reoffending in the numerous examples given above. As a result I saw no option but to fulfill the warning already issued.
• I remind all concerned that Yorkshirian was NOT an editor in good standing who deserved the protection of WP:AGF. He was a user who had been released from an indefinite block under strict conditions. All of the demands for fairness above fail to recognise that all manners of fairness have already been extended.
• BritishWatcher - If there are other users being the beneficiary of a "double standard" then by all means inform us. We cannot act on vague statements of unfairness, but need solid evidence we can review. I assure you we treat all cases of misconduct with impartiality. Manning (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you manning, the next time a matter is raised here about someone who has been sanctioned by arbcom for their past actions i hope it wont simply be dismissed as a content dispute or their comments ignored. As Yorkshirian is not able to discuss this matter here as hes blocked, perhaps you could atleast try to explain your reasons to him on his talk page where he can atleast try to defend himself. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to dredge up the past, but he was only unblocked after an agreement with Theresa Knott made in January 2009 or so. By rights, his ban should have been reset to one year at that point since he had not served any of it (instead creating dozens of socks for the first half of the ban). If that had happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion - he'd still be serving the original ban until next January or so. So he got off very easy and has returned the favor by disrupting the project at numerous turns starting almost the moment he was unblocked. If ever there was a preventive block, this was it. Wknight94 ^talk 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher - I assure you that if such a situation arises and you feel you are getting dismissed on AN/I then please feel free to contact me directly. As far as Yorkshirian, this highly POV diff alone was sufficient to reinstate the indefinite block, as it is in clear violation of the findings of Arbcom. (There are numerous others which were equally unacceptable.) There is no defending it, so there is simply no point in discussing the matter further. Manning (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn between regarding him as (i) an example of an lovable english eccentric, who amuses (Fascist football hooligans described as innocent christians defending their faith against islamic terrorists to take one of this comments) and a useful editor on esoteric issues (recent material on England), or (ii) a major force for disruption as evidenced above. Overall I would endorse the ban. I'm not sure why BW is opposing this, OK there is an overlap in their political perspective but a disruptive editor is a disruptive editor. Also BW, I do think you should name names, making generalised accusations is not helpful. On Yorkshirian, It might be an idea to leave it three months and then consider allowing him back in under "supervised edits" ie requiring prior approval, he has done some useful detailed work, its just a pity he couldn't confine himself to that. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request - Yorkshirian has formally requested a block review at User_talk:Yorkshirian#ANI. As the blocking admin I obviously cannot conduct this review, so I'd be grateful if someone else could examine it. Manning (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very problematic block I started looking through the evidence and there were some problems. But the dispute clearly has two sides. The same person objecting to Yorkshirian's use of terms like "left-wing" keeps using problematic terms like "right-wing". The Irish British feuding has been very problematic lately. Some sort of mediation is needed. Perhaps some limitations like using the talk page and getting consensus might be helpful. But I don't see that this block before we've heard from the accused and before we've had a chance to discuss the problem and work through it is helpful. I support an unblock at least to allow Yorkshirian to post here. Asking him to limit himself to the talk pages while an investigation is carried out would have been a lot more helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• For example just looking at the EDL article I see the very first sentence is problematic as it uses the wording "professed aim". Clearly this is not NPOV and casts doubt on what their aims really are. We don't do that kind of thing. All the parties involved should slow down and we should work out a way to work through the disputes to address the issues of dispute one by one. This is in fact a content dispute with passions high on both sides. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So your logic is that both sides are in the wrong. Only Yorkshirian was already in a final final final last-chance situation. An Arbcom ban isn't just a time out, it's a message that such action will not be tolerated. Not only has he returned to the exact same stomping grounds engaging in the exact same activity, but there is good behavioral evidence that Yorkshirian = Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) which means he's twice been banned for the same activity! Maybe he's not edit warring with the same people as back then, but he's still edit warring. He is the common thread in all of the edit warring situations that he is blocked/banned for. And listen to him below with the thinly-veiled threat, "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". And the ludicrous socking claim, "which I have stopped completely". Of course he stopped socking - he was unblocked! He has probably been busy all day creating socks in order to pick up right where he left off. And the claim that he was indeffed last year "ONLY for socking" - not true, he was indeffed for socking to evade the year-long ban. It's just going to go round and round like this forever. It's all about community patience and he's worn it out for sure. Wknight94 ^talk 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is not just a content dispute it's a user conduct dispute. The finding of fact on the RFAR regarding Yorkshirian's conduct had three things - personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines. The first two are easy to show just by providing diffs which ONiH has done above, the third has to involve analysis of content to show that it applies. BigDunc 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't an agreement from Yorkshirian to limit himself to the talk pages of the disputed articles for the time being solve the problem? Other editors involved in the dispute should ALSO be trying to use the dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation is needed. Simply blocking one side or the other doesn't seem constructive to me. Where will it end? The last ones standing get to edit the article? Why don't we all agree to slow down, use the talk pages, and establish a mediation venue where the disputes can be worked out according to our policies. A little while ago people were trying to go after Irish editors, now it's an English editor, let's come together as Wikipedia editors. There are major differences in perspectives, but we can work through the content issues in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

COM - if this was in any way a content issue I would complete agree. However I have so far treated this as purely a behavioural and conduct issue. What I see from the evidence is a pattern of behaviour repeating itself - a pattern for which Arbcom has already issued a 12 month ban which was then circumvented via sockpuppetry. I don't see myself as going after any editor or favouring any standpoint. Manning (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - Regardless of the conduct issue, I think your suggestions about comprehensive mediation for the content dispute overall are highly valid. Manning (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Yorkshirian has agreed on his talk page to limit himself to the talk page of the Red Action article. He's also agreed to use follow the dispute resolution procedures by using the appropriate noticeboards and getting outside input when there is a dispute, instead of reverting back and forth. He's also been reminded to comment on content and not other editors. The same approach should be followed by other editors working on these articles. His "history" shouldn't make him more of a target or exempt others editors from following the same rules. Comments and edit summaries addressing other editors instead of article content, and revert warring with hostile edit summaries will result in interventions that are never pleasant. You've all been warned. :) Please try to work in a more collegial and collaborative manner and work through content disputes using the discussion pages and relevant noticeboards where outside opinions and perspectives from experienced editors can help resolve disagreements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Sounds like what he said in January. And again when he was unblocked. And again a few days after that. And what will his answer be in 3 weeks when it happens again? Let me guess - "Yes, I'll limit myself to collegial discussion"? And how about 2 weeks after that? The same? Ad nauseum...? Wknight94 ^talk 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Is that not what editors are supposed to be doing especially an editor who was given another chance after promises to change their behavior and when blocked for repeating what they had been sanctioned before on, they then say that they will do what they should have done since their unblock, bit late is it not? BigDunc 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also could I point out that while blocked he said vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing about the editing of ONiH. Hardly an act of contrition and could probably be seen as a personal attack at worse or a disregard for AGF. BigDunc 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

Yorkshirian has requested the ability to respond here, so I've created a section of his talk page in which he can do so. I am transcluding it below. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk.

Click to start a new section House of Neville Impressive work! Hope you don't mind, I've put in a few commas and so forth. Have you thought about putting it up for WP:DYK on the main page in the next few days? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) August 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Joowwww (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) How amusing. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) WP Syria I just wanted to personally welcome you to WikiProject Syria! Yazan (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Catterick I don't know if he's just following you around stirring up trouble wherever he can or if he has actually made useful contributions to the articles that you have been working on. But I figure that you would know that and given that I have just indefinitely blocked him on the grounds that he is far more trouble than he is worth I figure that you may wish to say a few words in his favor. So you are very welcome to contribute here if you want to but do not think that you are obliged to. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Old North Neither that website nor that book are reliable sources. I'll respond more fully at the article talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Let's take the discussion back to the article page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Done.--Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Nova Scotia I don't disagree with the sentiment of your edit but may I suggest you work up the text in the talk page supported by sources. Slanje va. Justin talk 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) DYK nomination of House of Neville Hello! Your submission of House of Neville at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Great Britain Probably because almost no-one looked at it. I did, but other priorities got in the way; I wasn't expecting you to act without giving people more opportunity; and, frankly, it would have taken me a great deal of time and effort to engage with you on every point where I think your version could be improved further. I would have hoped I could have helped you out over this over the next few days but, unfortunately, I'll be away on holiday, and I'm sure that at some point over that period you will face further criticism. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) PS: Tactically, I do think that you are much more likely to win people over by proposing one change at a time. Say, by starting with the biodiversity section which most people are likely to find uncontroversial, apart from I expect needing a few tweaks. Then, gradually, suggest the most important changes to the other parts of the article. One of the problems with adding 40K bytes in one edit is that it is simply too much for most of the editors involved in pages like this to cope with at one time, and their instinct will be to hit the revert button, perhaps even without reading what you are proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I agree it would be far better to add section by section at a time rather than a full change, certainly would make it easier to give feedback, theres just so much information and text to take in (for me anyway) and there are certainly some problems with the changes. I like some parts of the changes but am not sure about other parts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) DYK for House of Neville On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article House of Neville, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC) More Trouble with Naming Conflicts There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. In breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Naming conflict page Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, if someone else hasn't already done it, please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) No, that's meat puppetry and such a request is inappropriate. If there's a problem, take it to somewhere like WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC) You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. he has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. Xandar 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Power of prayer Hi, Just a note to explain why I changed back the power of prayer page. I had originally called that page Power of Catholic prayer and people objected, saying it was about beliefs. So the titled settled at that. In fact I wrote two articles, one on beliefs on prayer and the other on the Efficacy of prayer as an analysis of cause/effect relationships, so the words power and efficacy are really needed in the titles. I hope you understand the move back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Vatican template I don't see the point why you delete human rights and lgbt rights in Vatican City template when, as i have written, it is common that state topics template's contain these in "politics section". 79.163.220.176 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The first of all - Human rights is not Mumbo jumbo - at least not for the Vatican since they signed it John Paul II in UN, if you wanna say something, you should first get know what your Church says about it. :) I agree that this article doesn't exist so it is now unnecessary to fill it in, but i must disagree with your biased statement about LGBT rights article. Vatican City is sovereign State which is recognized by UN and its members and as I said in state topice template it is common to fill in LGBT rights article in politics section. If you claim that this article is gay lobbying LGBT rights in Vatican City, you can share your ideas in discussion but do not act like homosexuality doesn't exist because even Catholic Catechism discourse about it (I know because I'm Catholic and I have read it). So if you have any specific argument which is not "homosexuality is irrelevant topic" (what does it mean and why?!) share it with me and we can discuss it. Saudi Arabia, UAE are also theocaracies and they contains "LGBT rights section" and it doesn't bother anybody, I don't understand why Vatican City should. I restore LGBT rights. 79.163.220.176 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I see you don't get the idea of sovereignty. As Vatican is such a state and has the right to enact whatever they like laws. LGBT rights is still important part of civil code. I don't understand why you can't see that Vatican is not only 1000 people state but also one of the biggest tourist attractions in whole Europe, they have millions of tourists visiting every year, and believe or not some of them are interested what status does homosexuality have in that place, they have the right to know if they can be punished for homosexuality in this area and I strongly disagree with you that adding "LGBT rights" to this template what is in fact common policy, and you do not throw out this from over countries templates it seems more like you are leading subjective and propaganda. Our Great Pope John Paul II is dead in the matter of fact, but what he has signed is still recognized by Benedict XVI. And it seems you haven't read Roman Catholic Church Catechism there is nothing like you wrote "in fact it actively opposes it" if is, please quote this. Additionally you have written on your page: since this is an encyclopedia not a pressure group. And what you do seems to be a pressure, treating Vatican like it was overcountry. And for the last, I said that I agree that Vatican has no article about human rights, but it does have article about LGBT rights. Whatever you think it seems to be weird for me, because in the matter of fact article about LGBT rights in Vatican City does not stand that Vatican is killing gays or something but you can read there something astonishing like "legal". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) And another thing: I'm not lobbying for anything. So I request You to stop impute this to me. OK? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The IP changes because I'm now in another city. I will make an account to make our war easier. As I am A Roman Catholic and I am also homosexual I still strongly consider it is an important part of Vatican City politics and also Catholic Church politics. Otherwise I can not agree with your ad personam arguments and imaginary lobby. The only organisation I am member of is Catholic Church. I do not lobby for anything. I beg your pardon, in many countries as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Australia and so on, Catholic Chuch is the strongest opposition of LGBT rights so don't try to make me believe or acknowlegde in what you are saying: "since it has no effect on the life or politics there. It is not a significant issue". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) As I admire your work on Wikipedia, I think that momentary it goes to personal for You. As I don't say that Vatican is bad I just can't recognize your opinion that if something is not in accordance with your faith it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia like "LGBT rights". And I am not trying to lobby I just think that if there is common policy in state topics templates (like containing LGBT rights) every state should be treated equal not only for "equality for itself" but because you can not deny that LGBT people exists and as Vatican bans LGBT people as cardinals and so on policy concerning LGBT is important to Roman Catholic Church. 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) And the last thing: I strongly believe that we can reach some consensus. At least because we are both members of the same Holy Church. And maybe my life is not in total accordance with Catholic teachings but the you can not deny that Vatican does not approve LGBT people as priests which is significant part of it politics even only inside their 0,44 km2. Can You? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Vatican template Hi I have added section "Sciene" in Vatican City template. I think it is interesting thing about Vatican. I hope when you see it you won't have the willingness to revert this. :) A Man from Poland (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I have found only "Christianity and science" in article "Religion and science" but maybe "Science" could direct to "Pontifical Academy of Science"? A Man from Poland (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) England population density Of course, silly me. Thanks for the correction! Hayden120 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Cornwall I've proposed a splitting out and reorganisation of Template:Cornwall at its talk page, and would welcome your thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) England Hey Yorkshirian, I'm in the process of reviewing England for GA. I haven't finished reviewing it as of yet, but as I've mentioned on the review page, I'm going to be placing it on hold. See the review page for the comments I've made so far. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Standard hold time is a week, but as mentioned on the review page, I'm a bit short of time this week, so I'll probably end up dragging it out a bit. I think I should be able to finish up the review tonight (assuming I don't fall asleep at the keyboard), so I'll leave it to you to get to work on it and I'll check in when I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) House of FitzGerald Hi - just wondering if there was any discussion on this move of FitzGerald to House of FitzGerald. There are almost 16k surnames but only 3 with "House of..." in front. Thanks.  7  07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Ok - should we remove the {{surname}} template then? Thanks.  7  07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Kingdom of Desmond Sorry we disagreed on the Geraldines. I love the infobox you added for Kingdom of Desmond and we need its like for a few more. Would you consider adding one for Tyrconnell? Then we have to create an article for Tyrone, which should not be redirecting. Tír Eogain simply redirects to Kings of Tír Eogain and the other spelling Tír Eoghain redirects to County Tyrone just like Tyrone, which is entirely unsatisfactory. I'm not sure how to fix the mess. DinDraithou (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Nice. It looks excellent. I think going with maximum extent is good, like with Thomond, although the southern portion (mostly Uí Fidgenti) was long part of the Earldom of Desmond even though theoretically subject to the O'Briens since Domnall Mor O'Brien took it in 1178 and they remained capable of asserting their authority (Gerald FitzGerald, 3rd Earl of Desmond). As far as the Kingdom of Desmond, actually the maximum extent should be greater and cover part of the southern coast (Barony of Carbery too?), depending in part on the inclusion of MacCarthy Reagh territory. Compare http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_1300.png with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_1450.png DinDraithou (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) SIOE So Stop the Islamification of Europe isn't a far right group?! Ha!  Francium12  07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Folklore The outline I wrote for it (or modified the older form into) is not a mess, nor disorderly and it sticks to the facts more than the one you wish to see on the page. Originally it claimed that Arthurian myths pre-date the Anglo-Saxon invasions which should be blatantly obvious to not be the case when it features a character resisting the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Anglo-Celtic.org does not fit the criteria for a valid source, as a) it says many unverified claims (such as bagpipes being Celtic, Cernnunos being in Britain and becoming Herne The Hunter (which has been suggested but most scholars disagree with this. Cernnunos is a Gaulish God and there is no evidence of "Cernnunos" being in Britain), Morris Dancing being from a Celtic-rite (which flies in the face of most scholarship) and the Maypole being Celtic when it is thought by most scholars to date from after the Romans). It doesn't state its sources unlike the sources I found to fix the article that are from scholarly websites. What is more Anglo-Celtic.org does not say who runs it so for all we know it could be you (or another member) putting in weasel words. And lastly it doesn't state anything connected to King Arthur or the "Matter of Britain". Likewise the other source (which at least is a scholarly one) does not state or imply what is being implied in the article. The section as it is now loaded with weasel words that imply that the so-called "Matter of Britain" is far older than it is, is a survival from the Brythons instead of being a post-Norman mythos *inspired* by Welsh myths, genealogies and Welsh and to a lesser extent English traditional histories. The placing of the Arthurian mythos so prominently gives it undue weight as well as making it look like it is continuous and older than it is, and much of the information is lost. Lastly the section was not any longer than many of the other sections and contrary to you calling it a "mess" (thus deciding to insult (which is against wikipedia's rules in the first place) rather than being rational) it was far more orderly and less biased after my edits (as I don't personally consider it to be folklore, and I disagree with Michael Wood's analysis it does not conform to my views but agree it is of great value regardless that it should be unbiased and be based on current scholarship). I would be happy to trim the section (not that I feel it is needed) but you removing well sourced sections is verging on (if not) vandalism. I shall reinstate the section (which may give the article a better score in its assessment). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Well, I was going to make a new topic on this same issue. A summary should contain information about the contents, contexts and history of the topic in which it is summarizing and therefore, Sigurd's revision meets the criteria. And I would agree with the few that Anglo-Celtic.com is not a valid source of study as it contains little worthwhile information that can be used for an encyclopedia and in this regard it is similar to the new age wicca books and websites which are criticized by scholars. We know that Cernunnos is a Gaulish and not British good, we know that Morris dancing does not date to Celtic times and we know that bagpipes are common in the Scandinavia, Spain (which admittedly did have Celtic tribes, however, the oldest bagpipe found there was, I believe, pre-Celtic). And Arthurian myths, whether they are folklore or not, do not predate the Anglo-Saxon era but instead are from Wales at the same era with latter Anglo-Norman. I do not feel that the subsection, which is roughly the same length as a lot of the other subsections, needs to be shortened but I do not think it needs to be extended either. The current revision by Sigurd is informative and works well as a study whereas the revision that you, Yorkshirian, reverted to was not. The current one by Sigurd exists upon neutral grounds. whereas, the previous one did not and contained many claims that no historian, archaeologist or folklorist would agree with; the confusion of Gaulish and Gaelish with Brythonic is non-Scientific. The Mummy (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC) To Yorkshirian: The order gives a false impression for one thing, the Matter of Britain should not be at the top. It should give a summary of where it comes from and why it entered the mainstream. In fact the whole "Matter of Britain"/"Arthurian" section gives mostly half truths, no truths and distorted truths. It uses unverifiable sources and it is chronologically incorrect. The prose is not "tight or neat" and neat and I beg to differ on biases. I wrote my edits in such a way as they cannot be seen as biased and do not reflect my own opinions, the version you seem to be so intent on keeping is written with the author's views in mind. After my edits it now looks encyclopedic and should pass the GA. I doubt it should or will pass the GA review as it is. If there is anything you think should be included which isn't under my edit (which is only the unsourced statements and distortions of history) then by all means tell me which they are and I shall accommodate them. As for listing all of Geoffrey of Monmouth's sources, that is an intelligent point and I may trim it rather than listing most of them as they are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Now that you are giving sensible suggestions to why you think it can be improved, I shall see what I can do in those regards. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I agree that Geoffrey of Monmouths sources should be trimmed, aswell. I woul dlike to hear your suggestions, Yorkshirian, to see what else could be added or trimmed, however, the general and unbiased wording and layout should remain the same as Sigurd's edits as the previous version was biased and messy. The Mummy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC) far right and radical nationalism I have restored the prior position on both the article and the template to the position prior to your undiscussed moves on the 17th September. Please discuss such moves first. Just to make it clear, I acknowledge that you do a lot of good work here (many of the recent edits on England) but you really need to proceed with more caution and less polemic on political issues. --Snowded TALK 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) ANI Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I have reviewed all of the evidence presented in the above and see no reason not to reinstate the block alluded by Admin Theresa Knott on 30 July 09 in this diff. Hence you are being blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and violation of Arbcom directions. This has been noted on the Arbcom case. Manning (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Well, Yorkshirian, you can't say you weren't warned - but, for what it's worth, I think that the hasty decision to reapply a block without the opportunity for discussion was quite inappropriate, and despite our many differences I wish you well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) its disgusting how quickly some people are "dealt with" What really bothers me about this case is someone has chosen to document his actions over a long period of time instead of questioning him or telling him he should stop at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Quite. And anyway, I find BritishWatcher far more disruptive than Yorkshirian.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) LOL shhhhh!! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Concur with Ghmyrtle on all points --Snowded TALK 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) We can transclude this page on WP:ANI for a time. Wknight94 talk 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of creating a section below for that purpose. Feel free to undo me if you don't want such a section. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not declining this unblock officially because Yorkshirian has yet to clearly defend himself, which is part of the point. I believe that One Night in Hackney's report on WP:ANI goes into a lot of things that are a content dispute. But there are certainly some things in those diffs that do look to me like a violation of policy, and after Theresa Knott's final warning in July, and given that you were only unblocked after substantial promises to reform, the block is justified. Specifically, your repeated reinsertion of content at Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action, along with edit summaries that at least violate WP:AGF: [73] [74] [75] [76]. Even on just that basis, the block looks justified to me. Mangojuicetalk 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian, the dispute is disruptive. You are clearly not solely to blame and there are multiple parties involved, but you are not innocent either. I know you are editing in good faith, but you need to slow down and work through the disputes with other good faith editors and those willing to mediate. I respect your passion, but it's getting in the way of effective article improvement work. Would you be willing to lower the temperature and the intensity of the conflict by taking a more gradual approach and limiting yourself to talk page comments for a time? There are places where outside opinions from indepent parties can be obtained such as WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard. Short neutrally worded requests for input on specific issues, one at a time, would be most helpful. It's very hard for us outsiders to keep track of the long arguments. And of course soap boxing and comments on other editors should be avoided by all parties. Or do you have other ideas for a way forward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Hi CoM. Its mostly just the Red Action article content which is in dispute at present. The other one is from more than a week ago and has already come to a consensus. Yes I'd be willing to do what you said there. On the IRA boming thing, it seriously agitated me, because I'd found the information in books and news articles on the bombers, then to just have ONIH remove it completely was to me unjust. But yes, I'd be willing to do the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard things for it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me. Reverts with the edit summaries you were using (although they made me laugh) are not going to fly. So please 1) use the talk page and 2) seek outside input once a back and forth revert indicates there is a dispute and discussion bogs down. And please focus on the content and not other editors. If others act inappropriately leave a note for Manning or other admins requesting some help to keep discussion and editing focused. And try to be patient. It's going to take some doing to lower the temperature and to get collegial collaboration between the disputants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I think it will take a lot more than that, and its not about any particular article, its the style and nature of the edits coupled with the fact that you were under warning. My gut feel is that you would have as a minimum to agree to cease anything remotely resembling the edit comments etc. that you have been using, Agree not to go near designated articles, only participate on talk pages elsewhere (or at least take a 1RR restriction) and apologise without reservation. I'm not asking you to do that mind, just expressing an opinion that anything less is unlikely to get you back into the fold and even that may not be enough. I'd support a lesser version of that by the way if you need it. I agree with G, you are less disruptive than BW --Snowded TALK 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I think that's pretty close to what I was suggesting. 1RR sounds reasonable. And a short leash as far as comments and edit summaries is certainly understood as a condition of the unblock. Yorkshirian will you be able to comply with these rules? If you can abide by them I don't see a need for subject limitations. But you're going to have to mind you Ps and Qs for sure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) He needs to take the initiative to apologise CoM and he will need to sound like he really means it --Snowded TALK 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed, it seems reasonable to get the block lifted and be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Likewise, I hope this is the way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I apologise for commenting on the editor rather than the edit in the heat of the moment. The actual article content itself however, I feel is worth trying the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard process. For me what was unacceptable, was that after removing the referenced info, ONIH didn't even leave a message on the talk about it. After the hard working of looking all of these things up before I put anything in the article, this was what annoyed me. I'd try the 1RR thing Snowded said. - Yorkshirian (talk) But you said "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". That makes 1RR an empty promise - you'll just sock your way around it. Wknight94 talk 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) If he was just going to "sock around it" then his account here being blocked makes no difference, hes said he has not done that for some time in talks with the original admin who unblocked him. Surely if hes operating this account at the same time as running socks it makes him MORE likely to be caught out than if he wasnt using this account? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Since coming back, I haven't created any socks at all. Even when disagreeing with some content. I think its pretty well established that I have reformed in that area, since I've not created any for almost a year now. It would be pretty easy and obvious to spot a sock in such circumstances anyway, so its pretty difficult to circumvent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) You'll pardon me, but four attacks over a 19 hour period is not "heat of the moment" Times and diffs: 23:55, 21 September 2009 to 18:47, 22 September 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Action&diff=315396624&oldid=315285787 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Action&diff=315407758&oldid=315403058 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Action&diff=315557133&oldid=315468335 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARed_Action&diff=315557893&oldid=315431904 This is edit-warring, refusal to assume good faith, and personal attacks in furtherance of your belief that there is a "republican cabal" on Wikipedia that has it in for you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) As has been pointed out by some others here, there are very strong feelings by different sides over at that Red Action article (i think id best not even look at that one). As that seems to have been the main focus of the problems, Yorkshirian avoding that article completly and being unblocked to carry on editing other articles, many of which hes made productive edits to without major conflict, would address this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Section break </noinclude> Yorkshirian's comments First of all I would like to say that the block should be removed, (1) because the rationale which ONIH present is riddled with strawmen and this is about simply a content dispute, rather than specific policy or anything else. (2) Manning also rushed in with the ban before I had a fair chance to present a defence and answer the ANI and indef blocking for a mere content dispute when he doesn't seem to understand why I was blocked before, is incorrect. Two points on that; The reason I was blocked on ArbCom, for a year, not indefinetly, was due to pushing regional separatism.[77] Since returning from my block I have completely reformed on this. I have helped editors I previously had problems with, in their tackling of such POV in the project and have helped to build up the England article as a way to make up for past errors. In fact that article is half way through a GA process as we speak and I need to finish off a few things to get it through.[78] The reason I previously had an indef block by Theresa was because of sockpuppeting[79] (I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will). Once I agreed to stop socking for around half a year Theresa allowed me to come back. Since then I have reformed on this too, I have not created a single sockpuppet. Reinserting the indef block for an issue of a content is completely illegitimate. Since I was indefed last year ONLY for socking (which I have stopped completely), not content or ArbCom.[80] Now down to the rest: Red Action / IRA — This is the reason ONIH launched the ANI, the rest he just trawled through my contributions to try and create a strawman to bolster his argument. In 1993, two members of the British communist organisation Red Action, Jan Taylor and Patrick Hayes, bombed their own country at Harrods on behalf of the IRA. The full story for quick view is available on The Independent here.[81][82] One says; "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted [for the terrorist offences]".[83][84] Thus, I put such information, reliably referenced also by two books on the incident into the article on Red Action. ONIH (who happens to be a leftwing British, activist for republicanism in Ireland: see, COI) completely blanked this verifiable information from the article.[85] To give an American equivelent, it would be like an Islamist activist trying to get mentions of 9/11 removed from Al-Qaeda article. Seems an obvious case of vandalism, right? ONIH then preceded to create an extremely weak argument to rip all of the referenced info out, in the summary (other stuff exists) or that it gives "undue weight" because its a small article.[86] In summary, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No such policy exists to blank referenced information from articles, just because its an underdeveloped article. Lets just say sources for Red Action helping old grannies across the road, are rather slim on the ground. My stance on this is not based on Irish-vs-British; my own personal background is half-Irish, half-Italian. It is the referenced information for the Red Action article about their involvement in carrying out the bombing which I am saying needs to be included. English Defence League / SOIE — ONIH was completely univolved in discussing content or editing these articles around a week ago. He has just created a strawman on here, after furiously rifling through my contributions to try and find anything bolster his presentation. Ie - move attention away from the Red Action issue and his removal of media referenced information. As Uncle G said this was discussion and differing opinions between various editors on content, ONIH's framing & selective commenting on the diffs is complete strawman. I cited my sources & presented an argument, collaborating with editors on the talk, some editors presented similar arguments, some presented different opinions.[87] Even the two editors who most strongly disagreed with my opinion there, & I in some sense "know" & work with on different articles across Wikipedia (Snowded and Ghmyrtle) are not throthing at the mouth here, which is telling on the extremely dubious framing by ONIH. For instance Ghmyrtle says above: "in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles .. so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry."[88] I'll just give a couple of examples of the mischaracterisation of the diffs in this content dispute, presented by ONIH above. If this reply itself does not convince I'm willing to go through each one, till the point is got across. Keep in mind you do not have to be a communist to edit Wikipedia (thankfully). regarding left, far-left and so on. The organisation who have rioted with the police in protest against these groups (UAF) are described by the press as "socialists".[89] They are described by the Guardian as part of the "far left".[90] They were formed out of a group belonging to the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.[91] The article didn't mention the position or origins of their opposition at all, so I felt this relevent—I even used references from left wing sites, to present the argument.[92][93][94] ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting "We Hate Muslims". Yet the diff he presents shows that I did no such thing at all.[95] In the edit I added that some of the Islamist marches, where EDL protested (they claim to be opposed to "Islamism, terrorism and so on) were flying the yellow flags of Hezbollah. I used for reference, this video report the Guardian website, which you can see the yellow flags. And also this picture from the Associated Press.[96] Though again this is simply content, some editors agreed, some disagreed, we worked to come to a consesus (ONIH wasn't even involved). Based on all of this and repeating what I said at the very start, I should be unbanned, since it is completely unwarranted, completely unrelated to ArbCom, more importantly the sockpuppeting which I was previous indefed for. This is simply a disagreement on content, nothing "malicious", I'm always proving references, collaborating and discussing to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Reply to Manning below. You rushed in from my view, because you didn't even give me a chance to reply at ANI first before you formed an opinion (other editors have said the same). You didn't give other editors actually involved a chance to make comment either, rather took ONIH's dodgy propaganda presentation on face value, which has since been described as selective and dubiously framed by people actually involved (including ones who disagreed with me on the articles themselves). In the ArbCom thing you see there about "geographical and cultural". That is what its refering to, regarding my previous (now reformed) regionalist pushing. Read through the ArbCom case. In any case, I served half a year block without editing for it. As for "POV editing", I present verifiable sources, collaborate on talks and come to a consensus—all completely within editing policy. There are no rules against presenting referenced information some might not agree with. You don't seem to be assuming good faith on it, perhaps take into account comments above such as ChildofMidnight. If a block can be handed out on that basis, then you should block ONIH too, for vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC) So what you're saying is that because you're pushing an extreme English nationalist POV and not your former English Regionalist POV (if there is actually a significant difference between the two strongly overlapping camps), it is somehow not a problem? Sorry, that doesn't wash. You are soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, using mainspace to pursue a political agenda including against living individuals, and you seem unwilling to admit that there is much of a problem with this. The only way you are ever going to be able to edit without turbulence, in my view, is to steer clear on article where you have a strong POV. Perhaps you can give a list of articles not on issues of British politics where you have made significant positive contributions? Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't let that last slur pass unchallenged. Any cursory inspection of Yorkshirian's contributions since coming off his last block - or even just a glance at his talk page - would show major inputs of content on a whole variety of historical, ecclesiastical and European subjects, including a DYK. That's not to excuse some of his recent behaviour, or to suggest that I agree with all his edits or his manner of undertaking them, or for that matter his politics - but I do get the feeling that some people here are making comments based on the serious issues that happened some time ago (but which have now ceased), rather than on the relatively minor disputes (speaking as one who's been involved in some of them) that have taken place in recent days. I've had far worse arguments with "experienced" and "valued" editors than I've ever had with Yorkshirian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) It's been mentioned above, that you've (in the past) evaded a ban (via socks). To quote a Shania Twain tune - 'That don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) ..and if anyone can find any evidence whatsoever of recent behaviour by Yorkshirian along those lines, please make it public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I was closely tied, for my sins, with Yorkshirian's pre-2009 contributions, RfCs, ANIs, Sockpuppets, etc etc. We have locked horns and have had (I think it is quite fair to say) a turbulent, if not hostile relationship in former times. However, I really am with Yorkshirian on this; I share his views entirely on why he should be unblocked here and now. I do believe Yorkshirian is a different editor since returning, and has done some invaluable article work (a complete revamp of England for example) that proves him to be an asset. He has strong views, and can be difficult to persuade (hell, I know), but I don't see anything of this supposed bad behaviour that he's been blocked for, and so also agree with User:Ghmyrtle that evidence (diffs) should be shown together with which policies he has broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I too am of the opinion that Yorkshirian should be unblocked unless there's recent evidence of serious misconduct, despite not always having seen eye to eye with him in the past. I've been very impressed with his work and attitude on the England article, and if we're all required to be perfect here then wikipedia's going to run out of contributors pretty damn soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (EC) I was an uninvolved editor who has only encountered Yorkshirian since coming back from being blocked (a fact about which I was, until very recently, oblivious). I too have locked horns with Y. at the England talk pages, and have been trying to find a NPOV way forward at Talk:Red Action. I find Y. to be rather opinionated in talk contributions, but I have to back a couple of other editors here like Ghmyrtle and say that Y.'s contribs have been net positive. Y. certainly has a POV which is relevant to the articles where they've been an active editor, but this mostly has been managed successfully through discussion on talk pages, the way it should be. I'm not tracking the specifics of this incident, but i will say that there are POVs on both 'sides' at Red Action, and as a neutral editor on that topic, I wouldn't lay all fault at the feet of Y. I think Y. also makes a good point that the previous block was for socking, and there's no evidence of socking here, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to be relying on Y 'having form' in making the judgement calls on the current complaint (if that is the case: i'm not across the detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I've noticed Yorkshirian around since coming back from the block, and though he is obviously still very opinionated, his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically. I am completely unimpressed that the evidence given proves serious behavioural issues and it seems the ANI is being used as a means to silent an opponent on the issues. Quantpole (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks fot the comments everybody (including on my talk). Can somebody take the block off now so I can get back to seeing to England's GA? It seems most involved (or who I mostly come into contact with here) think this block was incorrect, its obviously a content difference of opinion and absolutely nothing to do with last years socking or anything else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I'll be willing to unblock you if there is no opposition...? Is there? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC) May be best left to the blocking admin - have you approached them? Keith D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Why should it be left to the blocking admin. He's cocked up once already. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I strongly oppose unblocking. I don't think it was cocked up at all. Theresa Knott made it clear that Yorkshirian was on a very short leash, and he has mostly ignored that. He's simply not allowed to play around in these controversial areas. Just like Guy said above - which was conveniently ignored like the rest of the opposition - all Yorkshirian has done is exchange one POV bias with another. If he is unblocked, we'll just be right back here in a few weeks, guaranteed. Wknight94 talk 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) And Jza84, you've made your stance pretty clear which makes you "involved". You unblocking Yorkshirian would be just as inappropriate as me re-blocking him afterwards. Wknight94 talk 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You seem to have very strong feelings on this matter Wknight94, Yorkshirian has apologised above, hes stopped using socks a long time ago, hes reformed. Avoiding the specific articles which has caused this dispute would resolve the problem and allow him to go on to contributing at articles where several respected editors have said hes done alot of good edits. Surely encouraging more reform is better than just giving up which means wikipedia loses out in the long run. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think that is a little odd, but you do right to put "involved" in scare quotes. I am not involved in this case, and all my contact with Yorkshirian in the RfC etc (which I hope you have read to have passed your judgement?) were broadly before me becoming an administrator. However, I concede this as opposition for me to unblock (though disagree with the rationale, and I'm still looking for what diffs are policy breaching, where his warnings are, etc) and will not perform it. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that Yorkshirian has contributed to the project in terms of improvements to articles. However, although his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically since his return from being (officially) blocked, his interaction with and lack of respect for editors who do not share his views is still, frankly, appalling. I would be in favour of the block being lifted only if his behaviour toward other editors is moderated considerably. Perhaps a probationary period with an experienced editor monitoring his contributions would be the answer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Since Jza84 can't find any policy violating diffs, I would just like to ask him if he's familiar with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPA being policy, as there's clear evidence of violations of all three in the diffs provided. BigDunc 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You're being silly: do you think I'm going to say I'm not familliar with those being policy BigDunc? Come on. I'm asking which diffs? That's what I'm asking, but I'll underline it incase you missed it: Which are the offending diffs? What policies have they breached? What steps/warnings were made to curtail distruption? I'm sure that something has happened, if a block has been made, but Yorkshirian's request to be unblocked raises serious questions, questions that you'd want answering if in that position, right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No I am not being silly, there's a large collection of them on ANI which most people have bothered to look at, but here's a few specific ones, Personal attacks, Addition of unsourced claim about the EDL protesting against the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", Lying about sources. Also could I point out that people who've been banned for a year for various conduct issues, and received a final warning after that do not have to be warned any further before being blocked, and there's no policy that says otherwise. BigDunc 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I don't consider the first a personal attack: who is being personally attacked (if you say republicans, and that it is a blockable offense then I'll be blocking half of WP:IR for the stuff I see against "the British", and let go by)? The second is a breach of WP:OR, but that's not a blockable offense, it's an editorial dispute. The third diff ([97]) is not a blockable offense, it's an edit that needs further input and refinement (and I presume you're not assuming bad faith that Yorkshirian forgot to add a source or misunderstood one of them?); its edit summary is, actually, more of a personal attack than the first diff as it names an editor, but it's certainly not raging hatred; it's a poor summary that Yorkshirian should've been warned about. Yorkshirian needs mentoring, not blocking. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You asked for violations and you have been provided with them that you chose to ignore is your own concern the fellow traveller comment is a clear attack. Also you say that individually they are not blockable but considering that this editor was on a final warning yet continues the behavior that got them blocked originally then the reblock was a good one. BigDunc 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) How exactly is fellow traveller an attack or offensive? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I didn't see that. Am I missing some context here BigDunc? I don't see who (editor or group) is being attacked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You asked for an example of WP:PA: here - noting a good faith edit with which he disagreed as Welsh nationalist vandalism. Here are other examples of Yorkshirian's style: here failing to WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors, here racial baiting. Mentoring would be good. But would it work? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but how an earth can "Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff" be called 'racial baiting'? Quantpole (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It isn't. Daicaregos, there's nothing wrong in those diffs and I say that publically, on record and with conviction, because it's so clear. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding with the WP:PA policy: nobody was mentioned by name and there's no use of derogatory language or slurs, or saying a particular editor is (wrongfully) harming Wikipedia without basis; so I ask again, who was personally attacked? At worst this is anglocentricism, but I think the truth is more like one editor sharing an opinion on a talk page. I don't agree with some of it, but, even as a half-Scot, I just see one perspective in a debate about lack of progress on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then say so, counter it with evidence, but don't say they should be blocked/banned for it, as that's not what blocking/banning is for. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Come on Dai, we can cope with that level of baiting, he can be amusing and he does his position not good with the stupid comments. On the other side he is willing to do some good detailed work to improve articles. He won't ever get another chance after this one, so lets go with it. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Unblock review OK, I'll bite the bullet. I've read through the various diffs and comments here and at ANI (where this section is still transcluded). My understanding of Yorkshirian's response above is that you'd be willing to accept ChildofMidnight's suggestion. To clarify, as I understand it this would mean you are agreeing to: a one revert rule on all articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly construed a temporary talk-page-only editing restriction on the above articles (two weeks?) Added EyeSerenetalk 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries seek advice on suitable noticeboards, such as WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard, where appropriate If I've misunderstood, anyone please feel free to correct me! If you can confirm the above, I'd be willing to unblock under those conditions and on the understanding that this is very much a last chance there will be no further chances. Your thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No, this was the last chance. You're offering a last last chance. At the very least, any unblock should include a topic ban of some kind. Otherwise, this will just be a merry-go-round. He clearly can't control his temper in certain articles and topics. Wknight94 talk 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Amended per your above. Did CoM propose a topic-ban? I didn't notice one being suggested above. EyeSerenetalk 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No, CoM did not propose a topic ban. Why does that matter? Wknight94 talk 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Because I believe Yorkshirian has already indicated that they accept in principle CoM's suggested restrictions, and my assessment is based on their acceptance. Given that, I don't believe it's entirely fair to start moving the goalposts. I also have no idea what areas Yorkshirian works in; if a topic ban amounts to a de facto site ban, there would obviously be little point in considering an unblock. EyeSerenetalk 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I accept the above terms as laid out by EyeSerene and agree to do that. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC) OK, that'll do for me, and the blocking admin has also agreed to an unblock under these terms. I have to say that if it wasn't for your excellent article work, I wouldn't have considered unblocking, but given the improvements highlighted by many editors above I do believe you come down on the right side of a cost/benefit analysis. However, just to reiterate, any infractions of the above conditions will result in an indefblock, and I'd imagine the chances of it being reversed again are vanishingly small. Play to your obvious strengths and, if at all possible, avoid areas where you might be drawn into conflict with other editors. If you must visit contentious articles, stick exclusively to their talkpages for the next two weeks, and 1RR on the articles thereafter. If you need advice, I'm sure many of the admins/editors that have posted here (including me) will be happy to help out. I'll head off now to unblock your account - all the best with the England GA :) EyeSerenetalk 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Postscript It seems to me that one of the lessons to be learned from this episode is that Y should recognise that the editors who interact with him on a regular basis on articles are, in many cases, much more tolerant of his behaviour than admins in the rest of the Wikiverse. So, when editors who "know" him start to object to his actions (whether on republicanism-related or other matters), that should be treated as a fair warning that he should immediately stop what he's doing, and move on to something more constructive. And, hopefully, over time, the "cost/benefit analysis" of his involvement (I'm assuming it's a "he" by the way) will continue to swing more strongly in his favour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Inappropriate edit? I am concerned about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:History_of_Cornwall&diff=prev&oldid=316006549 Is this appropriate? The Cornwall article provides a multitude of reliable external refs attesting to the fact that Cornwall is a nation. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Please explain what you mean by this comment you left on my Talk page: "Though by all means feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney and so on." --Mais oui! (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Now you claim (at WikiProject Cornwall) that User:Goustien "seems to have added it by mistake". Is there any basis for your assertion? Should we not perhaps ask the User if he/she was mistaken in his/her editing, rather than simply assuming? --Mais oui! (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You are now canvassing known supporters: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BritishWatcher&diff=prev&oldid=316021168 Would it not be better if you honestly adressed the substantive issue, rather than treating this as an exercise in gaming theory? Why is it inappropriate in your opinion to add the Cornish history category to the National histories category, and yet you say "feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney". Is this not totally topsy-turvey? We have a wealth of reliable ext refs referring to Cornwall as a nation, yet none that refer to Orkney and Shetland as nations - they have always been simply parts of other nations. And yet you tell another user to "feel free" to go around adding unsourced cats to Wikipedia. Do you grasp the grave inconsistency in your approach? Wikipedia must be based solidly on real life, as witnessed by reliable ext refs. Not on how one user or group of users would like the world to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Well i would have replied on that project page with or without that message. I have had the project on my watch list for sometime and been involved in a few conversations on there. As for the references, they show some view Cornwall as a nation. That is not the view of the British government, and theres no evidence that its the view of the majority of people in Cornwall itself. Many of the references are infact organisations or people that profit from advancing the "Celtic Nations" agenda. Anyway even if others disagree with the removal of the category and restored it, id hardly describe its removal as an "inappropriate edit", seems reasonable and understandable. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Color background I've removed the color background on your Talk page. Since it's being transcluded on ANI, it's messing up that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Untranscluding Yeah, I think just going to ANI and removing the transclusion, with an explanation, that should be no problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Update Just thought I'd let you know that I now have a copy of Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland. Haven't started it (I'm reading The God Delusion at the moment) but will do soon. Also managed to catch Jonathan Meades on BB4 the other night - there's a summary of his documentary here that dovetails with Trevor-Roper. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Re your question The restriction as I wrote it was just Irish Republicanism. Maybe that wasn't entirely what was intended by others, but no-one else objected at the time. However, if you feel it might lead to conflict or perhaps calls from other editors that you're obeying the letter but violating the spirit of your restriction, it might be best to voluntarily refrain from editing the EDL article too. I see no problem with your edit, and you've demonstrated good faith by self-reverting, so... your call. My personal opinion is that, although I have no intention of sanctioning you for editing EDL, I think as one of the articles involved in the dispute you should probably tread carefully for now ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I think the edit was a useful one, but not as a full box, just insert it at the end of the paragraph about the BNP as a quote with the source and reference. --Snowded TALK 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC) NowCommons: File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Irish surnames Just noticed some of your recent edit summaries. For future reference, O' in Irish names does not mean "of", it means "grandson" - see Irish name#Surnames and prefixes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC) No problem - outside my area of interest basically, but I thought from your summaries you were interpreting "O'" as "of". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) WP:NPA "Yet Mais oui! is doing the whole activist bit..." I think that you would greatly benefit from reading WP:NPA very, very, very, very carefully indeed. You will follow the spirit of WP:NPA, not just the law, if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC) You are canvassing, again This kind of behaviour seems to be your standard response to being challenged about your editing: running to a pal asking for their support. I strongly suggest that you desist from this behaviour - it will only end in tears. Note: I have removed a wild accusation that you made at my Talk page. As the founder of WikiProject Scotland I have every justification for take an interest in all Scotland-related articles, cats, templates etc. And of course your WP:POINT campaigns would be totally impossible to ignore in this regard. I spotted this new cat long before you edited it, but I refrained from getting involved in the CFD, as generally speaking the correct decisions get made at that forum. However, your removal of a cat that is supported by many tens of reliable ext refs at the parent article forced me to get involved. You would try the patience of a saint. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian - by now you should know that if you don't stick closely to the rules here, you'll be out. Please tread very carefully - some of us don't want to lose you, but to stay on board you must follow the behaviour guidelines rigorously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC) United Kingdom Did you ever plan to do an overhaul of the UK article? Having come back to it after a spell away I'm pretty disappointed. Might be one to collaborate on after the England GAC? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I replied on my talk page, but was also wondering what kind of things we're missing for "contemporary England" in the final part of the England article's history section. I was thinking maybe something about the world wars might be useful. Maybe something about the ensuing deindustrialisation of England too. Ending with something about post-devolution England might be fitting too; I remember reading that Euro 96 was an event that reinvigorated English national identity - that might be worth putting in. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) La Marseillaise des Blancs (1793) Bonjour Yorkshirian! I found the whole text of the Marseillaise des Blancs, transcribed in modern French from its original Vendéen form, with translation already done by a Franco-American author by the name of Charles A. Coulombe. To read it, please go to http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_real_bastille_day and scroll down to about 2/3 of the article where you will see the text, first in French, then its translation in English by Charles A. Coulombe. I do not know if Wikipedia allows the use of material found on the web, but here it is, probably OK to use as long as Mr. Coulombe is properly mentioned & given credit for the translation. http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:TdLWbYL_CQ8J:www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/index1.html+Charles+A.+Coulombe&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian, oui, I think that as long as Charles A. Coulombe is named & linked to the site where both text & his translation are given, it should be OK. It would also be nice to have the original text in vendéen. Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} Explanation of my edit to England: "Using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." – from here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Friedrich Nietzsche‎ Deciding to change Nietzsche into a writer rather than a philosopher (the information box) without discussing it on the talk page first is really pushing it. An editor of your experience should know that. Restoring that change after it had been reverted compounds the error. Your edit summaries were also misleading. Given that you are on probation I suggest you don't do anything like this again, it makes the position of those (such as myself) who supported your retaining editing rights difficult to say the least. --Snowded TALK 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Medici Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg You have marked that a commons file has replaced File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg, but it has a different name, so the two articles that use it need to be updated before we delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Nietzsche and Nationality Hi there. I've restored the fact that Nietzsche was a German to the Friedrich Nietzsche. The current wording is the result of a long discussion that is preserved in the talk page archives. RJC TalkContribs 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Risking life and limb I agree with your page move on RC in E&W, but you really should propose it first you know. I'd seriously think about reversing it and then saying on the talk page that you plan to do it. --Snowded TALK 07:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Roman Catholic page moves As you well know from previous attempts at removing the word Roman from articles on Roman Catholicism these moves are considered controversial and as such I have reverted the unilateral page moves you have made as there has been no discussion on any of the talk pages. All such moves should be made via WP:RM as they are controversial in nature. Any further such page moves without going via WP:RM will be considered vandalism and blocking will be in order. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC) England The Teamwork Barnstar For England. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Good article I just want to say how much I enjoyed your article, the House of Neville. You provided a lot of information regarding their ancient origins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Re: Passed I replied on my talk :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) slippers and.... Slippers and socks!!! Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The sandbox edit there is in response to my accusations towards that account, are you any good at sockpuppet comparisons? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot Yorkshire. Regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Leonard of Blakemore Hi Yorkshirian, I see you have reclassified Leonard of Blakemore as a West Saxon saint. Do you have a useful reference for this? Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) edits on some Catholic articles Hi Yorkshirian -- we're having some differences. If you look at the discussion page on Catholic Democrats (or was it Catholics for choice?) under "POV again") you'll see that the discussion has already been had; I view your contributions here as WP:GF, but there was quite a storm of WP:POV edits, and the reasonable conclusion was that cats are for networking information, not for affirming controversial inclusions and exclusions. Best,DavidOaks (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) November 2009 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholics for Choice. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) MigrationWatch UK POV issue Hi. It might help to explain your problem with the inclusion of the Tony Kushner quote on the talk page of MigrationWatch UK in addition to tagging it. I don't really understand the rationale for your addition of the {{clarify}} tag, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) OK, I see that you've edited the article further, which addresses my concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Continuation of unconstructive racist dialogue on talk pages related to Celtic topics You have been continuing on User talk:Sarah777 the incivility I first experienced with you on Talk:Republic of Ireland. This includes accusatins of whinging and crying, claims about how "99.9%" of republicans have "victim complexes", "don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with", "spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse", pulling out fanciful terms such as "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", further quotes.. "Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich", "Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s", "Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish", "Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem", "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on". Do you think that this carry on should continue and should I root out our previous encounter some months ago and any related material, which I now assume there is at least some, I can find in between? I cannot recall any openly Unionist/Loyalist contributors being even comparably offensive, Yorkshirian..? ~ R.T.G 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC) List of saints of Northumbria Please stop inserting references to allexperts.com articles into List of saints of Northumbria. These articles are simply copies of the Wikipedia articles, and therefore may not be used as Wikipedia references. If you have any doubt on this matter, scroll down to the bottom of the allexperts page, where Wikipedia is explicitly identified as the source. There may be some differences in the text, because the alexperts scrapes of Wikipedia may not be current. While other content on allexperts.com may be original, its encyclopedia articles are generally mirrored from Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please read Please read this. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You just don't get it do you? I did NOT claim that Aussies are ignorant. I asked why Ausseagull was talking about ignorant Australians on a talk page devoted to Neil Kinnock. Read it again - slowly. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) And while we're at it: this, this and this is a serious accusation of bad faith and, presumably, of a personal attack made by me. Please provide diffs to support your accusation that I was saying "North Americans are ignorant" last week. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) A belated reminder, but further to the above mentioning this diff, please take a step back and think about your comments before you click the "Save page" button. If what you've written might be seen by others as offensive, don't save it. As noted by Jongleur100, your editing restiction to "avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries"([98]) still applies. EyeSerenetalk 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Dear Monsieur Chateaubriand Its been over 200 years since you visited the Levant :P the blessed Marie-Alphonsine led me to you and I noticed you share my interest in the Levant. I'm running into a dead end mate, there is this fairy tale crusader castle in northern lebanon called the Mseilha Fort aka "le puy du connetable" , I was working on its article but i cannot further to more than a couple of lines since i have found no references relating its history. I know that the castle was a part of the County of Tripoli yet i cannot corroborate this data too. Where do you suggest i search????? Eli+ 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for trying mate, thank you for your time. i'm not giving up on the article, looks like i'm gonna have to pay a visit to a couple libraries :S. About Catholics in palestine, well i hope this frail community remains and prospers, but this is unlikely with the current Judaization/Islamization ambitions Eli+ 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC) CfD nomination of Category:House of Neville I have nominated Category:House of Neville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Neville family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) O'Donnell Dynasty v. O'Donnell of Tyrconnell ? With respect, this merger was a big mistake. The name O'Donnell in Ireland has several quite distinct origins, or septs, i.e. if anything, several dynasties. But the historically most-important are the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell - a distinct sept, of former rulers, indeed a noble family, of Tyrconnell. I recommend that you restore a distinct article which would indeed be better titled "House of O'Donnell of Tyrconnell", in line with prevailing wiki-practice for noble and royal houses. See the article Dynasty. Also, in creating a separate List of people named O'Donnell, you have failed to link it to the main article. By the way, "O'Donnell of Tyrconnell" is well-enough known to Europeans - and this "de/von" argument of DinDraithou rather shows a provinicialism that wikipedia should avoid reflecting. The O'Donnells of Tyrconnell have long-established records of historical roles played in France, Spain, Austria, and elsewhere. By the way, the so-called "O'Donnell" arms are only one variant - the one (ab)used by tourist souvenir shops. Arms as such are only borned by armigerous persons, and the armigerous O'Donnells have at least 5 variants. Furthermore, your map of Tyrconnell (maximum extent) is wrong in that historical evidence points to a far wider spread at its maximum, indeed almost half of Ireland, which is why the earlier O'Donnell kings were called "Righ Leath Cuinn". Seneschally (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I see what you're saying to some extent, but I agree with DinDraithou that the ones which reigned in Tyrconnell are the "main deal" so to speak and are worthy of primary usage of the main "O'Donnell" redirect; the later lines after they fled to different countries should probably have different articles created specifically for them. On the naming, I personally don't see why "dynasty" is used on these articles (DinDraithou's choice). When I made the O'Brien article for example, I put it as "O'Brien Clan" before it was changed. That is the title I'd prefer for these Irish dynasties; ___Clan. On the coat of arms and the map; the map was derived from a work by WesleyJohnston.com, there doesn't seem to be an abundance of material available on this period (for some reason everything before Cromwell gets criminally neglected). The map on the Tyrconell article is from the 13th century I think. The arms I haven't seen any others to create, isn't the symbolism of the cross one derived from the Habsburg allied Nine Years' War via Hugh Roe Ó Donnell? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The "latter lines" as you say, assuming you mean the noble O'Donnells, such as General Daniel O'Donnell and also Count O'Donnell in France, and the O'Donnells Dukes of Tetuan in Spain, and the O'Donnells Counts Von Tyrconnell in Austria, are all provably of the main "Tyrconnell" dynasty - and not descended from other septs (such as from Leinster or Clare). The Tyrconnell O'Donnells by the way, meaning the noble dynasty, should be distinguished from the wider clan of whom they were the rulers, so "clan" would not be appropriate. The coats of arms: the yellow field and red cross is a variant of the arms of Rory O'Donnell, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, although his registered arms depict the cross as blue in the office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. The O'Donnells of Trough Castle (descended from Tyrconnell's, and established in Limerick) have a different armorial, with fish and no cross. The O'Donnells of Austria have the hand and cross but also the Habsburg eagle. The O'Donnells of Ardfert have a cross-crosslet in gold against a blue field. all of these share the same motto In Hoc Signo Vinces and the general emblem of a cross with that motto derive from a legend (influenced by Emperor Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge) that Saint Patrick emblazoned the cross on the progenitor of the O'Donnells, namely Conall Gulban (son of Niall of the Nine Hostages). It has nothing to do with the Nine Years War (1592-1601), and nothing to do with the Habsburgs. If anything there is a possible influence by the MacDonalds of Scotland, but medieval Gaelic manuscripts that I have personally studied cast doubt on that, and pre-date any such influence. By the way I am Irish, and specialised in medieval history and can assure you there is an abundance of heraldic and genealogical information on the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell. Seneschally (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Catholic Church article Yorkshirian, thank you for coming to the page and offering your comments on the talk page. We have been having difficulty with some editors regarding WP:civil. I have not said anything to these rude editors in the past but have decided now that, since there are no admins doing it except occasionally Richard, I will remind these editors about WP:civil. I hope you are not discouraged by the rudeness and will come be part of the effort to help make the page FA. NancyHeise talk 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Christopher Monckton When you change this. Then you are not making it less POV ... You are rewriting reality. Since Moncktons arguments aren't with the policy (which he of course also doesn't like) - but are about the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The politics and the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax itself are so closely intwined that to separate them is impossible. Lord Monkton sits in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom and thus is publically known as a politican. His counter-activist involvement is a contribution to the political sphere. Nobody would be bothered about the hoax as such, if the far-left weren't attempting to manipulate political and economic culture itself with it. For instance the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK have spoke out strongly against Marxists trying to exploit the public in the name of the climate change hoax. Besides the intro to Lord Monkton's article being POV, it is also WP:SYNTH. After the far-left were essentially defeated at Copenhagen anyway, we should now make sure there is no POV or SYNTHy bias against biographies on Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) No, Lord Monckton does not sit in the House of Lords (thats just the first of the errors in your comment). And i'm sorry to say that the rest of your comments are so blatantly POV that it makes it hard to take serious. How do you define "far-left" for instance - is Gordon Brown far-left? (he was on the opposite side of Monckton in Copenhagen, does that make him a Marxist?). You need to differentiate between science concepts: Greenhouse gases will warm the atmosphere. And policy concepts: This is a problem that we need to do something about. Monckton is attacking the science and the policy - but mainly it is the science that is his focus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The Green Party are the most successful far-left party in the UK and are cultural Marxist on almost every position. In regards to Gordon Brown, he also claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the Labour Party are not above lieing to meet their purely political globalist ends and exploitation of the taxpayer. Lets put it this way; some people claim Bigfoot exists; this in the political sphere is largely inconsequential because nobody is attempting to extort billions in the name of the "Bigfoot threat". The adoption of scientific language to political concepts is at the core of the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax. If not, why would political heads of state from around the world need to meet in Copenhagen for a game of globalist chess, if the politics was just a tiny "side issue" to keep out of sight? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) sorry I think there was an edit conflict there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Can we keep this here? You are letting your political views taint your editing. And i'm sorry to say that your comments so far make you seem rather more biased than the viewpoints that you apparently disagree with. We have to describe things as it is seen by the majority (be it in science or in policy), that is what NPOV is about, it is not "equal time" to all viewpoints. As a side-note, what you are saying is also a false dichtomy, since the policy agreement on climate change transcends political barriers (at least in Europe), so that the Conservatives in Britain are also arguing for it - just as Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel do respectively in France and Germany. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Lessons learnt Hi Yorky, you've been doing some fantastic work. Remember the Labour immigration scandal article you made not that long ago, that got deleted? (Which absolutely should not have been deleted) The article was perfectly fine, and should eventually be rebuilt at a future, appropriate time. You know where you messed up in launching that? One of the first things you did after creating it was putting it in a Labour party template/infobox!! That was a very silly tactical mistake! Think about who likes to look at that grid, who travels through it, who built it. Answer: People who would not be fans of your new article. You walked into a 'kill-zone', with not enough friendlies about who knew about the new article, who could have provided support and assistance. Approached differently, and that article would be up there right now. You actually had MP's staffers all over your article, so of course it was ganged up on and wiped out. (Plus, it wasn't really the most appropriate place to put it for general information reasons anyway). Next time, build up any "future new articles" within a friendly ideological harbour. Build up projects you're working on slowly, make sure that other friendlies know about it, and you'll do much better. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillteache (talk • contribs) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) EP for Luxemburg Not Viviane Reding since 2009, She is a EU commissioner but not in parliament. The name of th EU politician is Georges Bach in parliament for CSV since 2009. GLGermann (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) BNP and C18 Be careful. You seem to be playing around in the BNP article with C18 and moving it to suggest that it is the same as the BNP's security force. This is not true (though I suspect that the one was in fact heavily dependent on the other). BNP has always denied links to C18, which is not the same as saying there are none. That's why C18 featurs as a section in the BNP article. I have taken the liberty of reversing these moves, and suggest you look a bit more carefully at the issue. Hoepfully, this will avoid a lot of problems later. Emeraude (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) You're stilll editing the article so I can't make the changes. There is a whole chunk of text that you moved from the C18 section into the 1990s, plus a pasting from the C18 article itself that need to be replaced. Emeraude (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed, but the sources may not be reliable. Tyndall always denied (publicly) any knowledge of C18, so he would also deny having had it set up (see here and [here], despite what the BBC reference says. My own view is that the BNP did set it up and disowned it when it got out of hand, and there seems to be some evidence for that. However, it is also plausible that C18 was set up unofficially by individual BNP members, supporters and hangers on (and there is evidence for that as well!). If you haven't already, read the rationale I gave on the talk page for removing some text from the C18 article. Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) You must stick to what the source says. It nowhere mentions the League of St George, so any mention in the article is unsourced. The article does not say Red Action attacked the Kensington Library meeting, anywhere, so that's unsourced. The interviewee mentions Red Action, but does not specifically name them as the hammer wielders, so that is unsourced, and would be even if he did mention them. His claims are not not proven and the Independent is simply reporting what was said - it makes no claim for the veracity or otherwise of anything said by its interviewees - indeed, how could it given the nature of the article? Everything said by the C18 members in the Independent must be taken with a pinch of salt. Yes, the paper is a generally reliable source, but it would not assume to be used as proof that what people it has interviewed have said is true, rather than what its own reporters have discovered. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Edit Warring You are failing to abide by WP:BRD please self revert your changes on the BNP page and discuss them as requested. --Snowded TALK 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Architecture of the United Kingdom Hi Yorkshirian, I hope all is well, On the trail of the success you had with the England article, and remembering you had some plans for Great Britain, I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User:Jza84/Sandbox3? I have 'pinched' some of the material you did for England and used it at the sandbox. I was motivated to do something about this important article, because a couple of bright sparks turned an article into a disamibugation page.... in good faith of course... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the pic Thank you for the interesting picture of Anne Boleyn on a hunting expedition. I have already uploaded it to her article. She was a keen huntress. As for Henry resembling the Jolly Green Giant; well, that's a good description of him. He was also known as Bluff King Hal. Green was one of the Tudor colours, the other being white. It's strange how a cruel tyrant such as Henry was highly regarded by the populace, whereas Richard III, who was interested in obtaining justice for the people was reviled-except in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Template talk:Infobox UK place Hello again Yorkshirian, We've disagreed in the past, as you know. I wondered what you thought about Template talk:Infobox UK place, specifically the part under the heading Dublin. I have no idea as to what your answer will be, but I know for sure that you will speak your mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Template:Roman Catholic theology Hi. I have seen that you remove some theologians from Roman Catholic theology template. I have previously added some names mostly important figures in 20th century Toman Catholic theology and philosophy. Some of them are included in book Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians by Fergus Kerr (like Bernard Lonergan). In article Karl Rahner write that Rahner is consider as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of 20th centuri among with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bernard Lonergan. Étienne Gilson, probably leading interpretor of Thomas Aquinas in 20th century also removed. I dont insist to put all Roman Catholic theologians but some os the most important are excluded from list. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I understand that recentism can be a big problem. but I thint that we can put same number of theologians in 20-21st cebtury box as in 19th century box. I think that 20th century was much more inportant for Roman Catholic theology than 19th. Especially related to Second Vatican Council and after-concil theology. Also I think that modern theologians are more interesting for thelogy students, for example, than theologians from other periods. I dont thin that we need to put 20 or more names, maybe several more like Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and especially Hans Küng (he is well known not only among theologians). Maybe article Roman Catholic theology in 20th century should put tham all together :) Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Have you visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Interesting idea about theologians per country. Did you mean on specific templates for Roman Catholic theologians per some coutries (of course not for every country just for some of leading theological centres if I can use such phrase like Germany, Italy, France, Italy etc). Also it would be very usefull to make List of Roman Catholic theologians. Modern theology, as I can see, isn't only concentrated around great names like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus but thre are many important writers on specific areas of theology who aren't well knowen so we need some more cooperator to do such job. I am interested to write on Roman Catholic topics but I am not expert so I cant do many things alone but I would like to cooperate. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil Hello! I have been working for quite some time by now in Pedro II of Brazil article. I've divided it in several articles (I've just finished Early life of Pedro II of Brazil) that goes from his birth to the the period beyond his death. The problem is that I am only one and can't do everything by myself. I've been trying to write on articles related to the Empire of Brazil (Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Platine War, etc...) but I could use some help. There is no need at all to know anything about Brazilian history. Do you know could I get some? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Snowded Hi. I see your exchange with user Snowded. I've had experiences with him. His behavior is really strange. What's going on with you guys, seems to be similar to my experiences. He doesn't get much involved in the discussions, seems to not really read the talk pages, and then just comes in and claims that there's no consensus or something like that, or reverts something without really explaining why, and then just interrupts the whole flow of progress that was taking place. It seems like he's just intervenes for the sake of intervening in order to see himself as some type of policeman or arbiter that swoops in to make sure nobody does anything without consensus, but he just makes things worse throwing a wrench in the progress that's been made. He'll revert things and in his edit summary say to stop edit warring, but not seeing that he's edit warring. It's a really strange thing. Maybe just bored. Can I touch it? (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) ANI report here. I see you have someone else who has been reverted against three other editors expressing sympathy--Snowded TALK 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Edit warring at British National Party, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks You are currently involved in an edit war at British National Party. Making bold edits to improve an article is laudable, especially when there is a broad consensus at the talkpage that improvements are needed. When other editors in good faith request further discussion of your edits, however, the onus devolves to you to engage in the specifics of that discussion rather than simply reverting to your preferred version and continuing to make controversial changes. Such discussion should be civil, focusing on the content of the proposed edits themselves to the exclusion of commentary on your fellow volunteers. Particularly to be avoided are accusations of bad faith, dismissive references to political leanings, and personal attacks. Your contributions are valuable, but please keep this in mind. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Before cutting any more text from any portion of the article, can you please propose/discuss it as you have been asked? It doesn't apply only to the History section. I have no problem with the correction of refs/dates/etc, it is specifically the removal of paragraphs of text without discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC) BNP article Thanks for your note. I saw the recent ANI thread, though I came to it late when it seemed that you'd managed to work things out (up to a point) so I didn't think I could add anything useful. Re the article, as an admin I can't get involved in content disputes; I have no more say than anyone else on content (as long as it doesn't violate policy), so my opinion would be nothing more than simply my opinion. As an editor, I really don't have the time to get involved in anything substantial at the moment, and that dispute looks like it would be a bit of a time sink! There are some suggestions on WP:DR if things come unstuck again, and I'm always prepared to help out with things like page protection if edit-warring becomes a problem. Sorry not to be of more help. EyeSerenetalk 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Your userpage I'm sorry to say that I've basically ripped off your user page, because it's one of the best I've ever seen, and my old one was shamefully bad. If you visit it, you will notice I've even stolen two of your userboxes, such is my poor Wikipedia-ing ability. I hope you don't mind - if you do, let me know SE7Talk/Contribs 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Seán Mac Stíofáin The article Seán Mac Stíofáin, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction as may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.--Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Triumph for the House of Savoy Hey, Yorkshirian, did you hear about Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont coming in second place at the Sanremo Music Festival despite the catcalling and yobbish behaviour from the anti-monarchists in the audience?! Ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church FYI, you've been mentioned in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#O'Brien dynasty Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this, I saw your interaction while looking at recent changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Your edits to Talk:Sinn Féin Firstly, apologies for missing your reply to my earlier post - I often check my talk page via the last change link in the message bar when I log in, and if there has been more than one change (especially to an older thread) I don't always notice the older ones. I found it just now while looking for a convenient link to your talkpage. Secondly, you need to be very careful about edits like this. It could be taken as trolling because it contains provocative implications that you must be aware some editors will find offensive; from a hostile perspective it reads as though you are actively looking for a dispute. As I've explained on RTG's talk page, I have cut you some slack in the past because you're on your final 'life' (and you do some good article work). It would be a mistake to rely on this though; other admins might not be so reluctant to reblock your account for minor infractions, and community patience is not endless. EyeSerenetalk 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Members of the EP I really appreciate your work on those navboxes—{{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, and {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}—but it looks like they're getting too large. --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC) So you don't want to reply, okay. But don't you think we should split up these templates? Like one for each country's MEPs. --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church I apologize for other editor's incivility on the talk page. Your question is very valid and I answered you on the talk page here [99]. NancyHeise talk 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The new version The old version of the article is now dead, and there was never really any consensus for it. Please discuss major changes in the talk page. The new version is now the baseline model: do not tamper it with it substantially unless you bring up your complaints in the talk page first and get consensus for your ideas.UberCryxic (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The straw poll ended 11-7 in favor of changing to the new version. Thank you for your understanding.UberCryxic (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter if I made a "bold innovation." All of that was part of the straw poll. That's what we voted on. Please do not tamper with the article in that manner until you gain consensus for your changes. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You are edit warring and I wish you would stop. I do not plan to follow in your path.UberCryxic (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This confrontational style cannot and will not improve the article. Do not take your concerns to my talk page, but rather to the talk page of the article. That's where these discussions belong.UberCryxic (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yorkshirian, a reminder that WP:3RR is not a license to revert, you don't have to revert three times to be blocked, and you should probably read that page lest you be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I want to thank you very much! Despite our differences, we came together to find a working compromise. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve the article. Thank you again.UberCryxic (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) BNP What are you doing? The claim has four reputable sources (all books) from political scientists. Refer to the talk page about WP:EXTREMIST, which you don't understand very well at all (in fact, you completely misunderstood what it means). "Extremist" can be included if it's sourced properly.UBER (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You are also changing the lead in a way that no one previously agreed to, substituting "right-wing" far "far-right" without any prior consensus. At the very least, until we sort out the extremist stuff, leave far-right in the lead. Again, I'll follow the same strategy as at the CC article: you can either make the changes yourself, or I'll make them for you if you continue your reckless edit wars.UBER (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You can not find reputable sources from political scientists calling Obama an extremist, so please do not attempt to make such a ludicrous and appalling comparison.UBER (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) What you will not find, or at least I would be shocked if you did, is a reputable source from a neutral political scientist calling Obama extremist. You're playing around with terms like "mainstream media" without identifying any specifics. Just so we're clear: the likes of National Review, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are not considered reputable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Again, stop bringing up this botched comparison before you further taint Wikipedia's good name.UBER (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Since you're constantly bringing up this tired mantra of yours, provide me one reputable source, as defined by Wikipedia, that explicitly calls Obama racist or extremist. Either do it or stop wasting our time and start being serious.UBER (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Stop wasting my time and see this.UBER (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Please don't link RL names to accounts, regardless of whether you think you may be right or not. It's not allowed per WP:OUTING and, in certain cases, can be considered harassment. You already know the rules on this stuff - Alison ❤ 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Mein Kampf.png ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again. If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page. Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Kingdom of Connacht Hello Yorkshirian. I was delighted to find illustrations of the kingdoms of Thomond and Desmond recently created, by yourself I believe. I have long since wished to create one for Connacht and its kingdoms but do not know how to do so. Rather than ask you to do it for me, could you advise me how I should go about it? Imagery construction is a mystery to me. Fergananim (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Again with the edit warring I appreciate and respect your "wikidragon" mentality, as you say in your userpage, but the lead sentence for the JBS was placed there through consensus and that's the same thing you need in the talk page before you can change it further. Thank you for your understanding.UBER (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You're doing it again. Unbelievable. The difference between the changes you propose and those that Haldraper proposes is that Haldraper actually has consensus behind them. You don't. Please take it to the talk page.UBER (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Haldraper has actually discussed his changes regularly in the talk page, and I advise you to do the same.UBER (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Hello Yorkshirian. All credit for your sterling work in trying to keep balance in the article. I have posted a critique of the recent drastic changes on the talk page, and have proposed a rather different solution that could set the article back on a proper track. I hope you will read it and give consideration to my suggestions. Xandar 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) My suggestion I hope I haven't annoyed you with my compromise suggestion of deleting the History section from the CC article and restoring all the rest. It was a suggestion floated to see if it could quickly resolve the situation - and would actually amount to just a de-facto splitting of the article between Catholic Church and History of the Catholic Church. This is in view of the sudden immense pressure to hugely cut the article. The suggestion has not generated great enthusiasm in any event. I very much appreciate your great work recently to keep the History section balanced and preserve it from the hack and slash that has been applied to the other sections. Personally I don't have a strong view on the History section being in the article now that we have a HoCC article. But with people saying that there's no room to tell people about the Church Today and its beliefs and Organisation, changing the History section to a link to HoCC seems an elegant solution. I don't like History at the top though, because it just makes the article look like HoCC, and hinders people reading the other material - which has been cut on the page to Stub level. Xandar 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC) ANI notice - Proposal on community ban of you Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) To amplify this - the discussion is a proposal to community ban you from Wikipedia for ongoing disruptive editing and source fabrication. As of the moment I am posting this, there is a 12-1-1 ban/don't ban/ban from all talk pages and reverts alternate edit restriction. It would be premature to call a consensus only 4 hours after the proposal was posted, but obviously there is some very significant concern being voiced by very senior Wikipedians. Please address the issues on ANI. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Result of ban discussion Yorkshirian, I'm enacting the very clear consensus here, and blocking you indefinitely; unfortunately, you have been banned from participating in Wikipedia. If I understand right, this can be appealed via email to the arbitration committee, but not through an unblock request, so I have also prevented you from editing this talk page to emphasize the finality to this decision. If you have any questions, you may email me; I've left the "email this user" function enabled. It appears you and Wikipedia are not a good fit for each other. Please consider taking your considerable talents elsewhere, rather than... you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Replaceable fair use File:Mein Kampf.png Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Contests User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Beverley Grammar School.png

A tag has been placed on File:Beverley Grammar School.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Ирука¹³ 13:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Klub Zachowawczo-Monarchistyczny.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Klub Zachowawczo-Monarchistyczny.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply

I did not rush in, I reviewed the matter quite carefully. I am very slow to make blocks.

1. The characterisation of the Arbcom's finding is wrong. I quote: "Yorkshirian has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines". The finding of fact makes no mention of "regional seperatism" as asserted above.
2. It is perfectly evident that there is a content dispute at the various pages referred to. This was not a factor in issuing the block. The block was made on the basis of disruptive and POV editing such as those I highlighted above.
3. You received a warning in July that one more case of misconduct would result in an indefinite block. Such misconduct occurred, and the indefinite block resulted.
4. As a compromise, I would be willing offer you that instead of the indefinite block, you simply serve the one year block that Arbcom originally levelled against you. As you sockpuppeted your way around it the first time you have yet to actually serve ANY of it. So I am willing to alter the block back to a full year instead of the current indef. Manning (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting We Hate Muslims. What was actually said was Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort. So ONiH didn't claim he removed anything, he said he changed the target of the chanting. BigDunc 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal block review

I have reviewed this case after a night's sleep and find my attitude has not changed. Despite the user clearly having made some positive contributions recently, I see this as a case of a long-term disruptive editor who has repeatedly abused policy, conducted sockpuppetry to evade a 12 month arbcom sanction and whose net benefit to the project is negative.

Regardless, Yorkshirian has formally requested block review on his talk page and I note that this has NOT yet been conducted. Due process should be followed and my comments above should be taken as nothing more than another single opinion.

In light of the heated content debate that exists parallel to this issue I would recommend that the review be conducted an admin with no prior experience editing in the related subject matter. I would also recommend that the review be conducted solely with regard to user conduct.

In conducting the review please also examine the alternate remedy proposed by ChildofMidnight on Yorkshirian's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ROC/China/Taiwan conflict

Werewaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a spree changing China/Taiwan/Republic of China terms in several articles towards the "One China" view. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I do know that it's a contentious area and no-one should make wide-spread changes without discussion. I've asked the user to discuss, reverted, and given him a 3RR warning. He has not replied so far. Some additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair there is a minority of editors (including myself) who feel the China/PRC split to be highly POV and rather ethnocentric. Although I don't condone vandalism even when I agree, to a limited extent, with the editors view, it should be noted that this is an emotionally charged issue that could be perceived as a problem spot on Wikipedia for about 1.5 billion people. (Most of whom don't speak english but, still)... Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Werewaz of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked Werewaz for vandalism when I saw that he changed "Myanmar" to "Burma" in a list -- then I found that our article actually is moved-protected at Burma. Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since before Wikipedia was founded? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Not a useful comment in this location, please don't discuss here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. With the Russians, Estonians and Poles all tied up at Arbitration, why not get into another series of geo-social-ethno-political move wars on China and Burma. Good times, folks, good times. Thatcher 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem with this user, and warned them here after several exchanges (see history page of List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. As happened later with Stephan Schulz, the user was invited to come to the talk page, and did not, not even making edit summaries. Whatever anyone's feelings, policy on this issue is very clear - see WP:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV and the section after that. Flags, as state symbols, should not be labelled simply "China" and "Taiwan". It may seem petty, but sadly it isn't, as evidenced by this user going through and changing all the names despite many requests not to. The account is more or less SPA, too.

(edit conflict) As a note, the Burma/Myanmar issue is a good deal more complicated, and cannot be compared to this more settled matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Werewaz (talk · contribs) has reverted again. I don't see any point in not blocking at this stage.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard 24-hour block for WP:3RR issued. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied; user was a block-evading sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside administrator needed

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin's Syndrome

It would be very helpful if one or more uninvolved administrators, and possible a CheckUser, could look over the AfD above. The discussion, article history, and related areas need to be reviewed for sockpuppets, bloc voting, conflicts of interest and soapboxing.

Other relevant links:

• Previous AfD in May 2009: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin Syndrome
• Talk page discussion: Talk:Harry Benjamin Syndrome
• More talk page discussion: Talk:Harry Benjamin's Syndrome
• Current arbitration request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitration needed for this article's dispute_page (permalink:[100])

Thank you in advance for any assistance. Vassyana (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have been, already. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, for example. I've also nudged one arbitrator to suggest a speedy decline to xyr fellows in favour of the existing on-going WP:AN/I incident discussion which is earlier on this very page. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Egg on my face. However, when I plugged the editor's name into the search, neither the ANI thread ("Crusade") nor the SPI came up in the results. In the future, I will endeavor to doublecheck my Wikipedia searches and do a bit of manual checking. Vassyana (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by anons

For a year or more there has been a pattern of anonymous blanking or deletions at Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization. The same IP address invariably hits both articles. In recent history, it has been 216.194.60.200, 216.194.57.137, 216.194.59.51, 216.194.58.233, and 216.194.57.108, so I am suggesting a range block as a possible remedy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the IPs suggests that a rangeblock would be impracticable due to collateral damage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an immense range (only a /21, so 2048 IPs), although I have not done much looking at how much editing gets done from that range. ~ mazca ^talk 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

216.194.56.0/21 would include all of the IPs listed in the original post, and would have some collateral (handful of users, looks like); whois seems to suggest 216.194.0.0/18, which would have far too much collateral. Looks like the problem only comes up every few months, anyway, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason protection wouldn't suffice? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of editing from these IPs is quite low, seven edits this year for one article and five for the other. That doesn't seem intense enough to merit protection or range blocks.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Resolved

 – Doesn't require admin intervention.

[101]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The more relevant diff is this one. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You're not suggesting we punish a good faith user for being comprehensive? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How exactly is this something for ANI? It requires neither administrators nor immediate attention. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • And....I've notified User:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow as ChildofMidnight didn't bother. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest anything, let alone some mysterious "punishment". But if you are looking for suggestions, talking to the editor first is a good one. I notice that, despite notifications and resolutions flying about, no-one has yet to actually say to the person concerned "That wasn't good tagging. Many of those issues didn't even apply to the article.". Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BakedFWS22

Resolved

 – Left a message on user page. Admin action is not required. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BakedFWS22 (talk · contribs) was warned about creating articles with content copy and pasted from the USFWS.[102] (I've posted a list of articles created or edited by the user that need to be deleted or rewritten here.) User ignored my warning on the 22nd, and a day later, continued to engage in the same copy and paste behavior.[103] (compare with this) I warned the user for a second time[104] and I bring the issue here for review. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If USFWS is from the US Federal Government (and I assume it is) then he's fine. While they may need to be tweaked, the US federal government releases all content into the public domain. Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the content is public domain. See: Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You have to say where you got it, and we don't copy and paste material from any website. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Copy-paste properly, it applies to non-PD stuff. Wikipedia:Plagiarism says that "Works that are public domain because they were never protected, or their copyright has lapsed, carry no legal requirement for attribution", unless I'm missing something. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no legal requirement for attribution, but it's still very important to Wikipedia that the source be attributed. There are two reasons. First, the ethical requirement to attribute sources still applies even if the legal one does not. Of more practical importance, if we don't know that the material is in the public domain we will be tempted to think that Wikipedia's standard copyright applies to it, and may even be led into trying to defend it legally. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources's first sentence states "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." I think that makes it quite clear that attribution is still required, even for PD sources. MLauba (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The text added by BakedFWS22 is in the public domain so the copy-pasting is permitted -- of course, that is said without regard as to whether it still needs tweaking to meet other guidelines like NPOV. Our guidelines for copypasting state that the text must be attributed by using either quotes, in-line citations and/or a reference section template (like Template:Catholic, for example). Additionally, it is preferred that editors note in their edit summary that they are making a copy-paste and what their source is. BakedFWS22 has clearly added some attributions to the text, but I think there should be more, especially in the cases where the added text was split into separate paragraphs. I'll leave a note on BakedFWS22 user page about this as well as remind them about including the edit summary. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor continues repeated personal attacks even while blocked

Cali boi16 (talk · contribs) was blocked earlier today for edit waring and failure to discuss their edits. Since the block, the editor has been on a long tirade of insults and personal attacks on their talk page against anyone and everyone who offers to explain Wikipedia's polices and why they were blocked. I fell that this editor is not going to be productive when the block expires tomorrow. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked w/ talk page editing disabled. I don't want to extend the time because of post-block ranting. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead are moved some of the more recent personal attacks, especially the one where he goes all-out in attacking my character. —Farix (t | c) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Take care to do so only where absolutely necessary, since s/he is technically unable to respond. The best bet is honestly to remove the page from your watchlist. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only not able to respond, was not even notified about this ANI post. Par for the course it seems. Exxolon (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since his block expired, Cali boi16 has returned and apologized for his conduct, and is behaving much more civilly, just so everyone knows. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Pinochet request

Resolved

 – Unprotected as per request, message left at talk page to alert AN/I in the event of ongoing disruption. Manning (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who was largely responsible for the edit warring on the Pinochet article, I would request that the page be unlocked. I am voluntarily not editing Chilean articles for a week after my rather regretable behavour there. The protection will prevent others from improving the article. I thnk the issue is now resolved. Pages are protected to prevent disruption, and diruption there will not be a problem (as far as I am concerned) if it were unprotected.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comment above. Manning (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:216.165.132.252

This user is adding unsourced defamatory information into Michele Bachmann's article.[105] User was warned and has included again after warning. User has also now violated 3RR. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User self-reverted. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When one comes across an edit to a BLP that is potentially libelous or defamatory, it is WP procedure for the editor discovering it to revert it, with a statement in the edit summary that there were WP:BLP issues with the reverted edit. Then one goes to WP:UTM to locate the appropriate warning template to place on the offending editor’s talk page. In this case, I would suggest placing {{uw-biog1}} on their talk page and escalating from there. The normal procedure is to add one warning Level to each occurence within a certain time frame. When it hits Level 4, one then files a report at one of the notice boards, which I believe to be WP:BLP/N, in this case. It is my understanding that one does not bring the matter here to WP:ANI, but I may be mistaken. — Spike (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I haven't really had the time to keep up to date with the myriad of procedures that are to be used. I also wasn't sure if this was a simply vandalism case or a strict BLP issue. Arzel (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record - NOTIFY OTHER USERS IF YOU POST ABOUT THEM HERE - I've done this for you. Exxolon (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BRFA needs more eyes

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT needs more eyes and input. If you have a moment please give your 2 cents. β^_command 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

69.225.3.119

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. — Jake Wartenberg 03:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please talk a look at the recent contributions of 69.225.3.119 and give him/her a warning about canvassing and/or pointy edits, if appropriate? He/she has cross posted the same thread accusing a BAG member of abuse to several user talk pages and Wikipedia discussion pages. The alleged abuse was asking if my bot was ready for trial. 69.255 has been very vocal in opposing from the beginning and is very emotional about the issue. I, obviously, am too close to the situation to make an accurate assessment about what, if anything, needs done. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I was about to report the same user, for similar reasons but edit conflicted on save. My report is as follows:

69.225.3.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started or commented in several discussions ([106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]), assuming bad faith, and accusing myself and several other users of various things:

slap dash approvals of bots ignoring community input

encouraging personal attacks

poorly thought-out bot, with unmonitored data, without community consensus

as well as making downright wrong comments as "evidence," saying that I worked through the BRFA backlog in 28 seconds, when it was actually 28 minutes, and saying that I "approved most outstanding requests" when I only approved 3. This apparently all stems from a (what I thought was, and intended to be innocuous) single question by me. However, 69.225.3.119 has continued to attack myself and other, even after I clarified what I meant by my question, several times - [113], [114], [115]. (note that this is somewhat related to the above thread). Mr.Z-man 02:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, let's get approval for the bot this way, by blocking me! Now, did we include Abyssal's hissy fit comments, his passive aggressive comments, all the baiting? Probably not. But I'm impress in general with the amount of discussion, if not the article content. Since I'm a 13-year-old hissy fitting ignoramous I won't be adding to this conversation. Do whatever is necessary to get approval for ThaddeusB's bot and Abyssal's name calling. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, the bot doesn't even need approval to edit 23 pages one time. So let's all back away from the BRFA and let it die in peace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois article and User:WikiQc

Hello,

In an attempt to bring some civility to the conversation at Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois, I hosted the page at User:Frmatt/RRQ while it was blocked to try and bring an NPOV to the whole thing. In the course of this, User:WikiQc made some non-npov changes, which I reverted. Upon being informed of my reversion, the user then accused me of racism and being anti-quebecois (which is a little amusing as I'm a proud bi-lingual Canadian!) I would appreciate it if there could be some more eyes on this article which has been the subject of some major edit wars and non-npov wording by both sides. I also issued a warning to the user about their behaviour at User talk:WikiQc upon which they promptly denied having made any personal attacks. At this point, in order to avoid further inflaming the situation, I am excusing myself from any further involvement with either this article or this user. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review both sides of this incident (not only the user above, but also my own behaviour so that I can be aware if there were things that I should have done differently. I am always open to hearing from people with suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Thank you very much. Frmatt (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried other methods of dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion (WP:3O) or Wikiquette Alerts (WP:WQA)? Those noticeboards may be better suited towards a first attempt to resolve this problem. Admins are more likely to act when other avenues have been exhausted first. --Jayron32 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I had considered WP:WQA (I wasn't aware of WP:3O, however given that I am now involved in a personal attack, instead of one over content, as well as the ongoing problems with this article, I felt that it was a little too comprehensive for simply WP:WQA. The issue is not solely with the user, it is also with on-going pov-slanting at the article mentioned as well. If the majority feel that it is better dealt with at one of those boards, then I'll take it there. Frmatt (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also made a try at that article, so it did get a 3O, and i agree with Frmatt that another view might be desired. This might be one of the cases where someone other than the present editors should work on the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution isn't needed, in my opinion. User:WikiQc is undoubtedly another sock of User:Philbox17. Other socks can be seen here. They're an aggressive, single-purpose sockmaster whose entire purpose on Wikipedia is to push the same agenda at that article, and is constantly edit-warring to do so. They keep making new accounts then accuse the person blocking them of opposing "every French Quebecer". -- Atama頭 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I've confirmed that WikiQc is indeed another sock of Philbox17, and I've blocked the account. I'm sure he'll be back with another sock in short order. The range of IPs he's coming from is too large for an effective range block (without collateral). --Versageek 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism of Ranma Saotome

Will someone please check the revert I made to Ranma Saotome. In the infobox a edit was made to modify this text "Megumi Hayashibara (female)" to this "Megumi Hayashibara (female/child)". I am uncertain how to respond to this editor. -- allen四names 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can't help with the specifics of the edit, from their edit history the IP has been contributing for a while and seems to be operating in good faith. The address looks to be stable, so I'd drop them a friendly note on their talk page asking why they feel their version is better. EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked at the related character articles and they seem to fit my lost sheep criteria, viz. there seem to be no involvement of an experienced editor to watch for and correct undesirable changes. It is likely that these articles will have to be converted into redirects. Again thank you for your help in this matter. -- allen四names 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's a possibility, though we musn't WP:BITE too hard ;) If you (or someone) has the time to provide some guidance though, perhaps the IP can be encouraged to bring their work into line with our editing policies. They are clearly keen, so if we can harness that enthusiasm all the better. It might be worth mentioning the benefits of creating an account, and pointing them towards WP:ADOPT? EyeSerene^talk 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a little green myself but I will keep your suggestions in mind. -- allen四names 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done You can see the message I left here -- allen四names 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for your assumption of good faith with the IP too - it's something we unfortunately don't see enough of, and it does you great credit :) EyeSerene^talk 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Casasgaspar

This one is slightly too complex for AIV, but not much. I gave Casasgaspar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a final warning last night for introduction of false and unsourced material. I've reviewed his edits, and it consists of a long, long stream of figure tampering. I first noticed him last night at I Kissed a Girl, inserting false certifications]. Tonight, he decided that every figure in that article should be slightly higher. As I review, I find nothing but this kind of edit: unsourced changes to movie grosses, unsourced sales reduction for The Fame, corrupting procession boxes, more figure tampering. It just goes on and on.

Since he repeated after final warning, I think a block is in order. I don't think a timed block is appropriate: given the chronic nature of it, I would recommend indef until the editor explains that he understands the concept of sourcing.

For the record, this edit looks constructive. It's the only one I found.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird one. I agree with Kww's assessment of their edits, and have indefblocked Casasgaspar. I'd be interested to hear their reasons for doing what they've been doing (from a merely behavioural point of view; it would have to be a very convincing unblock request before I'd consider an unblock). EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Earlier today I reverted a blanking of a talk page while doing recent change patrol [116]. The person responsible for that edit, who evidently owns a business related to the article subject, subsequently contacted me on my talk page, expressing concerns (see User talk:RayAYang#Can You Help Me. I referred them to the OTRS email address, and they have issued a legal threat. I think this is beyond my depth, and I refer it here for further action. Ray^Talk 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP user for 3 months for WP:NLT violation. He can use the unblock template to redact his comments if he chooses. That is a clear legal threat, and I have blocked per WP:NLT. --Jayron32 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, can't get much clearer than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The single-purpose account Elggup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the one-use account Janed203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are likely the same user as the IP. Elggup ("Puggle" backwards), in particular, says others are "lying" about his website, and he should probably be blocked for personal attacks. Obviously, any hint of legal threats from a registered user that might be forthcoming, should be met with an immediate indef. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reported this user to WP:UAA for attention regarding their username. Should an SPI be started as well? Frmatt (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, especially if he/she/it/they try to retaliate. I should point out that the "lying" stuff was posted in April. The editor began in 2007 and has only edited sporadically under that name. The Puggle article creator, in 2006, was also a short-lived account, whose user page was vandalized (mildly) 3 years ago by a still-active user. Such a deal about a dog. I wonder, if they sue, whether some Puggles will be called upon to testify. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not a particularly helpful UAA report, FrMatt. Spelling a dog breed backwards does not violate the username policy. The user seems to be running afoul of enough actual rules that there's no need to try to overextend the username policy like that. rspεεr (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If they do, they should be careful, especially as the treatment they receive may be ruff, and they may have an arf-fully bad time. And seeing as my jokes are now arf-ful, I think I'm going to bed! Frmatt (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is because of editors like Frmatt that Wikipedia is going to the dogs. Manning (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, when times get tough, we can always count on Mr. Godwin, wikipedia's Legal Beagle, to nip any threats. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP's threats and allegations continue, even in his unblock request. Someone needs to 'splain a few things to this cat. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP also makes it clear, if there was any doubt, that the link in question pertains to his own company. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I use the block button or a rolled-up newspaper? (OK, I'm off to attend to it... :) Manning (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I recommend you put the known dogs in this pack into the wiki-kennel. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's barking about is the claim that the only free "content" on his website is advertising, and that any "useful" content requires registration. Someone should confirm or refute that claim. I might just do that. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The site seems to be fully accessible without logging in. Perhaps it has been modified recently. Of course the content is... um... perhaps not encyclopaedic in nature. (Watch this video only if you have lost the will to live) Manning (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The original complainant needs to comment on this matter. If the site is accessible, then the IP's complaint might have some merit (in a general sense, not the stupid "liber" (libel?) charge - and that doesn't say the site itself is of any value as a source). →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Mplating

Mplating (talk · contribs) left a message at WP:BLPN stating "We are in the process of contacting the attorney for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] so that the issues on Wikipedia may be resolved fully." Per WP:NLT he should be blocked(/prevented from editing) until the legal threats are resolved fully. ƒ(Δ)² 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him to retract it or he will be blocked (not by me, as I'm not an admin). He's also quibbling over specific details that hardly seem to be BLP violations. Helping things out, he admits to being directly connected to the article's subject, so he's got a COI thing going on there too. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, he's removing reliably sourced material (from the Ghana Business News, for example). I reverted his removal, and I'll try to discuss this now. Thanks for your help, btw. ƒ(Δ)² 07:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Article in question seems to fail WP:BIO too. Ref: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kingsley Fletcher. Article concerned is Kingsley Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), user concerned is User:Mplating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Whoosit (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I take that to mean he's a non-notable who's being promoted by the authors and protectors of the wikipedia article. "His Royal Highness"? Right. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also inclined towards a non-notable speedy. Any seconders or do I need to go to AFD? Manning (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A legal threat has been made. Perhaps better to wait until an admin can attend to it, so as not to muddy the waters. Decision on the article can wait.--Whoosit (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin needs to block the guy immediately. Legal threats cannot be tolerated. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so keen on deletion -- the article is properly sourced. It was started by a PR company working on behalf of this guy and was pretty ridiculous at an early stage, but a few of us worked it into shape, removed the absurd parts, and came up with what I think is a reasonable version. The "His Royal Highness" stuff is ridiculous, but it does appear that he has been given an honorary title by a particular ethnic group of some sort in Ghana, and I think that satisfies BIO. It can be argued out at AfD, but not deleted via speedy deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any content-related merit to his complaint that led to his legal threat? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(drop indent) - Nomoskedasticity: reluctantly I agree. I suspect wholesale puffery, but don't have the ammo to prove it right now, so AFD is more appropriate. Manning (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think this article needs to go to AfD rather than a speedy. This claims that he is a traditional ruler of Greater Accra, and he has also claimed to have advised the UN Martin451 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A slight correction: It says he worked with "United Nations Development Programme for Africa". My brother in law (a ghanaian) worked for them as did/do thousands of other people. That's a LONG way from "advising the UN". (Am not disputing that AFD is more appropriate however). Manning (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And if my math is right, his "kingdom" is equivalent to a square about 35 miles on a side. I can only guess at the size of Lesser Accra. AFD might be better than speedy, just to evoke a few laughs. Also, I think M-plating has been blocked, so dat's dat unless he appeals his conviction. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs: The complaint is about being "knighted" -- he got suckered by one of those "false" orders, and Plating wants to remove the (reliably sourced) stuff about how the event got some attention in the news (from his point of view, the wrong kind). Keep in mind that deletion is now exactly what they are trying to accomplish (in the absence of the version they want). I'd really prefer that this article is not deleted. As for small "kingdoms" -- there are smaller, how about San Marino? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How about that little island off the coast of Britain? Principality of Sealand, that's not much bigger than a houseboat. That's pretty funny. An organization that awards knighthoods? Better he should have gone to that company that will name a star in your honor, for a slight fee. Keeping the article or not, based on what the complainant wants, is tempting but is not really the correct way to do things. AFD would be the way, provided someone wants to go to that effort. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 35 miles on one side is around 1000 square miles -- more than ten times the size of Liechtenstein. I'm not saying that size matters... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Grand Fenwick, roughly 15 square miles. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Although Fenwick dwarfs the Principality of Sealand, the entirety of which can be seen in a normal photograph contained within the article. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice one of this guys titles is "Nene". It must be interesting to be titled in honor of the Hawaiian Goose. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, even "those who inform" can be fooled? I dare think I should write Roland S. Martin and ask him what he _now_ thinks. ouch! (check the comments from Ghanians) Then again, he might be able to point us to references that don't all trace back to "TBG Media" (Ghana) or web sites registered to Kingsley Fletcher. Shenme (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just called my Ghanaian brother-in-law and he says its nonsense too. Hence I've listed this at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingsley_Fletcher. Manning (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Backup admin: look at this issue?

There is a rather new user (less than a year), User:Cameron_Scott, who has done some nonsense edits to Comparison of vampire traits on really vague terms. After being warned (check the history of his talk page), he blanked his talk page, re-added the content, and then threatened me with a 'Welcome to Wikipedia' template (heh) and 'informed' me that me removing them again would be vandalism (really). I don't have time or desire to get into anything resembling a wheel war, could someone else take a look at it? I believe I was correct (as his intent seems to have been to undermine the page during the recent AfD), but since I'm ticked I figure I should leave it and have someone else to back me up (or tell me I'm wrong). --Thespian (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong. How's that?

First of all - do you read the top of the page, the bit where you inform users that you are bringing a matter to AN/I? Because I never got a notice. Secondly the page say "Vampires in fiction", it does not say "only serious vampires in fiction" I am adding vampires who exist in fiction, one that have their own pages here and are covered in multiple reliable sources. As for 'vague', what is vague about adding the vampires from 30 days of night? Characters who have been in over novels, comic book series and films.

Lastly, I templated you because you template me - it's not nice is it, you know to template the regulars, they see it as an insult - like you did, like I did. At best, this is a content dispute and here you are asking for administrator back-up to enforce your version of the article - an article where I have simply added links to a table to other articles. Have you started a section about it on the talkpage, have you asked for other people editing the article to take a look? have you asked for an outside view? no you warned me and now ran here. There is nothing here that warrants or indeed invites admin action.

Oh and as for blanking the page - blanking the page is accepted as the user having read the notice and it is perfectly acceptable (unless they are removing block or ban notices) for users to remove content after they have read it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I templated you because you have been here under a year, and you started messing with an article that was up for AfD in a silly (and inconsistent, by only adding it in one of the lists) fashion that supported the AfD. It was a newbie mistake, and I noticed that you had several complaints against you in the last fortnight that you had ignored, threatened the complainer, or undone their mistakes in a WP:OWN fashion. You showed no real sign of being a 'regular', and it's about your behaviour during a contentious AfD, and not the content itself. Following it up by threatening a mopholder admin with vandalism was newb-like. --Thespian (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thespian reverted edits that weren't obvious vandalism, thereby abusing rollback. I can see no involvement in the AfD by the user, or any evidence for what thespian claims were efforts to undermine the AfD. What I do see is incorrect reversions and assumptions of bad faith by thespian. There were no attempts to discuss why the edits were problematic. And characterising someone who has been here nearly a year and has over 8000 edits as a 'rather new user'?! Cameron Scott's response was petty, but that's about it. No admin action has been requested, so I'm not sure why this is even here. If further input on the content issue is wanted then do an RfC. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Or simply start a discussion about it on the article talkpage - admin intervention should be the last action (and Thespian is involved so an editor rather than an admin for this discussion) rather than the first and the next step should be discussion on the article talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved article to "Traits of fictional vampires", since all references were to works of fiction. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me we are all operating from the assumption that all vampires are fictional. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DARKNESS OF MY SOUL!. Seriously, we have an argument over vampire traits? We have an article about it? What?--Tznkai (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have looked at WP:LAME at some point? Arguments over vampire traits are nowhere near the nadir of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There actually have been some serious folklorists who have wrote about how vampires have changed over time. I'll see if I can dig any of them up. In the meantime, is there any serious reason this needs to be at ANI? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but I would think that could be subsumed into vampire or what not.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That article is already quite long without that and has generated a lot of spin off articles. It shouldn't be that hard to find that much well sourced material on this subject. Give me a few days. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 66.245.250.185

This IP address seems to have been making several observably disruptive edits to user pages, though apparently no action's been taken. Just an early warning that this might be indicative of disruptive future behavior also. 72.51.35.208 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV, which appears to be backlogged. No admins awake at this hour. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours; I've also cleared the more urgent-looking stuff from AIV (without my precious autoblock.js due to being at work!). There are still unaddressed reports at AIV and I need to head off, so any other admin reading this may wish to take a look. ~ mazca ^talk 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV now empty. Baseball Bugs- there are admins awake at this hour you know - just less than at some other times of the day! A good recommendation if you need very urgent assistance from someone with the admin tools is to look at the block or deletion logs and find someone who has just performed an action. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. In some few seemingly urgent cases (which this really wasn't) I have been known to go straight to a particular admin and ask for help. And I know the admin corps isn't really asleep. Is it true what they say, that the sun never sets on the wikipedia empire? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking for audio is harassment campaign?

Resolved

 – Administrators does not have any power to compel SH to release the file. The case is closed. Ruslik_Zero 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Back in July, about 10 people devoted two hours of time to an audio interview of WMF Board candidates. For a couple of months now, the audio file has been deliberately withheld from public sharing. Despite both myself and Sage Ross offering to lightly edit, or to simply post unaltered, the audio file, the user who holds the file patently refuses to release it to the public, choosing instead to withhold it for "a year or so" to prove a point. User:Shoemaker's Holiday also has described the requests to post the audio file as a "harassment campaign", which is really over-the-top and borders on deliberate defamation. Harassment is a serious crime, and no crime has been committed in asking for an audio file to be posted to Wikipedia. Could some uninvolved admins please look into this situation? I am not going to inform Shoemaker's of this request, for fear that it be taken by him as further "harassment". I just want the audio file posted, to show some respect to the 20+ person-hours that were committed to this engagement and are now shown disrespect by this silly gamesmanship. -- Thekohser 11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this en business? It's not clear from your post if this is connected to a en project? Surely this is to do with the foundation and between the individuals concerned. What can admin or indeed any of us actually do in this situation? go to his house and rubberhose him until he posts it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The program that sponsored the discussion is Wikipedia:Wikivoices. I don't know how much more "en business" we can get. Also, it is expressly not a Foundation issue, as I was told it has "nothing to do with the WMF." As for what any admin could do to persuade cooperation and peaceful resolution, see my comments below. -- Thekohser 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to hear that audio as well, but I was away during the summer, and may be confused. The election ended, yes? Is there some drama surrounding it that I'm unaware of? It'd be a shame if someone (or someones) took that much time to put something together that won't see the light of day, but I doubt there's any cause (or means) to compel its release. There may be some historical relevance, but not enough to make a fuss over it, I would think. Per ANI rules, I have notified Shoemaker's Holiday, since they are under discussion here - we can't discuss them and hope they don't notice their name on the highest traffic noticeboard on the project. Besides, as Cameron Scott notes, this has little to do with EN apart from you bringing it up here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was conducted in relation to .en - what could anyone do? Even though it's connected with the WMF, it didn't happen here and regardless of what was previously agree, how could anyone compel him to upload the audio? They can't and he committed no "crimes" on en. that require or indeed allow for any action. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekosher has sent me e-mails constantly, accused me of conspiracy, posted on and off site, made attempts to blacken my name, and generally, blamed me because the user who had actually agreed to edit the episode backed out, and I was the only other editor available. I did agree to attempt it once that editor dumped the task on me, but was too ill to - one cannot edit sound when one hasd a severe headache - and could not before the election ended. After it did, he then tried to get me to give him the raw audio - which other candidates specifically said they were not comfortable with, and threw a fit when I said no because of that.

Thekosher is fully aware I have health problems, but has now decided that if I do anything else but what he wants, he has the right to lambast me over it.

The episode is about 4 hours long. Audio editing, unsurprisingly, requires listening to the episode at least once, editing as you go. I'd estimate 8 hours as the minimum, with about 12 to 20 being realistic. As the election is over, the usefulness of the interviews is now minimal.

I am a volunteer. Thekosher will be surprised to learn does not have the right to say that I must spend an entire day on a task which now has merely historical relevance, particularly when I was not even the user who had accepted responsibility, merely the person who had offered to do a small part of the editing, then had the person who WAS responsible lie and tell Kohs it was all my responsibility when he decided not to do it. Kohs is fully aware of this. I will forward e-mails where he comments on this to anyone who asks. He is also fully aware of the health problems I had at the time.

However, instead of being nice, and asking me to do it as a favour, he has decided that this is part of a massive conspiracy theory to suppress an interview which was so good that it might have allowed him to get elected.([117] " I'm chalking it up to their fear of my winning a Board seat, thanks to how appealing was my contribution to the verbal discussion. It's a cover-up, folks. I'll bet it gets posted about 24 hours before the Board election polls close.") He also thinks he is entitled to tell me how to spend my time, and demand that I spend an entire day editing the file. Indeed, he has put me into a situation where, if I do what he wants, then I demonstrate that harassment works - a completely counterproductive situation for him. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would everyone stop pleading for someone else to be banned? The simple fact is that the owner of the audio files refuses - for whatever reason - to release them. These files constitute someone's private property, and short of a court order there is nothing you (or anyone else) can do about getting access to them. Unless you can provide evidence of a contract where Shoemaker's Holiday was formally bound to release the files then no-one at Wikipedia (or Wikimedia for that matter) can do anything about it either.

Furthermore to complain repeatedly about it here WILL constitute harassment, as it does not concern a Wikipedia related issue. Hence sooner or later the admins will be forced to take action and then you'll be angry at us for having to adhere to our policies on user conduct.

Feel free to bad mouth Shoemaker's Holiday in private or elsewhere, but do not do it here. Go and construct a voodoo doll if that helps. But please do not come seeking remedies that we cannot possibly provide. I don't wish to sound like a jerk, but that's the deal, sadly. Manning (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Manning has it. You've made your request, and it looks like you have a response. The English Wikipedia lacks the authority to compel Shoemaker's Holiday to do as you request, and I don't see any rationale for doing so even if we could. Shoemaker's Holiday clearly considers the matter closed, so I'd ask that you let the matter drop. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

People aren't being very creative in thinking of how Shoemaker might be compelled to release the audio file (note, once again, nobody is asking him to personally spend more than 3 or 4 minutes to simply upload or electronically deliver the raw file). If I am not to be trusted with the file, then certainly User:Ragesoss or new Board member User:Sj -- both of whom have expressed willingness and interest in taking the file -- would suffice. Here are some ways to compel cooperation:

• Deny Shoemaker participation in the Wikivoices program until he transfers the file to any other willing volunteer.
• Publicly rebuke Shoemaker for hoarding free content, against the wishes of at least several of the participants whose voices were captured.
• Appeal to the original user (Promethean?) to share the file with the public, thereby side-stepping Shoemaker altogether.

I'm not trying to troll here. I'm trying to lift the standards of accountability, professionalism, and just common respect for others. What we're seeing right now is trolling by Shoemaker, in that he will continue to participate in Wikivoices programs, and there will be the overhanging threat, ever in the future, that he may pull this sort of stunt once again. I wish him all due health and recovery from whatever sickness ails him. In fact, wouldn't this be so much stress off his plate if he were to just simply accept the generous offer from User:Ragesoss to edit the file himself? Don't make this a political battle. It's really a simple matter, and you're playing directly into Shoemaker's drama trap. -- Thekohser 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser - Dude - I'm not kidding. This is NOT a Wikipedia matter. You are consequently harassing a Wikipedian in good standing. Even if Shoemaker had slept with your sister and run over your dog, he remains an editor in good standing at Wikipedia because this has nothing to do with us'. Seriously. Let it go. I respect the fact you are annoyed, but I would really hate to see you subjected to administrative action for harassment on Wikipedia over this, and that is where it is heading if you don't let this go. As I said, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you how it is. Manning (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Topic ban? Dual block? Off-Wikipedia conflict spilling over

• Symiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Symicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is complex. Please bear with me, and I will be as succinct as possible. I request that you not ignore this section even so. :)

There is a dispute between User:Symiakos and User:Symicat about the article Symi that is evidently about to spill over into a courtroom. The legal threat has been issued solely by Symiakos, but Symicat has violated some policies himself (and been briefly blocked for one of them). I'm requesting assistance determining how this should be handled.

I first became aware of this matter following a BLP complaint through e-mail (visible to OTRS volunteers at Ticket:2009090110068278). At issue were edits like this one, in which the Symicat account edited old comments by Symiakos to suggest that the editors of the SymiGreece website were libeling people and to imply pedophilia. When this was cleaned up by Symiakos, it was repeated here and again, later, at my talk page. Symicat was cautioned about BLP issues, but was subsequently briefly blocked when it was revealed to be a shared account. After the account owner agreed to change his password, he was unblocked.

Both users were counseled to seek dispute resolution, and though some civility issues persisted Symicat did so at the content noticeboard after a third editor became involved (Background, not essential, reading: User talk:Lmoench, [118]). This seemed to be working until it flared up again at my user talk page yesterday with a civility complaint, here, by Symicat. Now Symiakos indicates that Symicat's comments are part of a criminal investigation. Symicat denies being in charge of the account when certain comments were made, but the implication of his first comment (diff again) is pretty clear, as are the veiled legal threats about "model releases" in one of the comments made in the recent thread at my talk page.

Given an outright statement of criminal investigation by Symiakos (supported by another letter to OTRS, same link as above), coupled by what seems a clear agenda on the part of Symicat from his foundational edit and his own implied legal threats, I don't think it's in Wikipedia's best interests to permit these two to engage one another on the project until issues between them are settled elsewhere. I would propose either that a topic ban be imposed on both of them to avoid articles related to Symi as well as direct interaction with one another until this matter is mutually concluded or a block on both until any criminal proceedings are completed.

As I have been heavily engaged with this, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the best approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the Symi page in its current iteration seems to show a fair representation of the island, I am quite happy for it to remain as it is. Symiachos is of course free to take whatever action he wishes - I would welcome the chance to discuss the matter before a court should he choose to bring an action - although I have received no indication from him or his legal representatives that he is in fact planning to do so. However, while his threat of such action remains, I agree that it would certainly be best to keep this sorry matter from spilling onto Wikipedia pages. I am therefore willing to agree not to make any edits to the Symi page, or accept a ban, until the matter between Symiachos and myself is resolved elsewhere. Symicat (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl for your summary; I think it perfectly sums up what has happened. I will not be responding to Symicat any more on Wikipedia; it has been incredibly difficult to bite my tongue in the face of some of the comments that have been put up and I apologise that this has caused issues here. I expect a reasonably speedy resolution to the matter now that the process has begun.--Symiakos (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the above from the involved editors is to be taken at face value it looks like they are both OK with the situation and willing to stand down from the dispute, so to speak. If they are willing to observe a self-imposed restriction against editing the page in question there may be no need to impose any formal sanctions. Is there any reason to suspect that they won't hold to their word? Shereth 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be an ideal solution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another IP legal threat

Resolved

 – User blocked, FBI alerted as per TOV policy Manning (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. I am assuming this warrants an instant blocking. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is a repeat offense from this IP, I've blocked for 1 year with a note saying unblock if the legal threat is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat to sue WP, though, but the movie studio - and what's this thing about holding 5 people hostage and blowing up Air Force One? Tim Song (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to wikilawyer but as the threat was not actually directed at Wikipedia or anyone related, I don't think we're entitled to block. Of course getting blocked for being a terminal whack-job is another matter. As there is a threat against Air Force One we are sort of obligated to alert the FBI I believe. Manning (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:TOV will get you blocked too. Unfortunately, I have an early meeting and I don't have time to contact the FBI this morning. https://tips.fbi.gov/ is the place to start. Can someone initiate this? Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To say what? Someone said something silly on the internet? best of luck with that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, reality check. The block was good, but don't overreact here. This wasn't a legal threat, it was vandalism. The 1 year block is good, as a {{schoolblock}}; nothing but vandalism, from (obviously) the same person, for the last year. But don't waste the police's time on idiocy from a punk. Please don't unblock if the threat is revoked, but instead insist on {{second chance}} or some other evidence the IP will not vandalize anymore. It's a vandalism issure, not a legal or FBI issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Have to disagree, ALL TOVs have to be taken seriously - its always been that way. In the (highly unlikely) event any of this is serious and we fail to report it, Wikipedia could be criminally liable. Todd - I'm reporting it now. Manning (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly your call, as an individual, if you really view this as a credible threat. But I disagree that an obviously vandalistic threat from a bored kid obligates us somehow to report it. I guarantee that dozens of similar attention-seeking "threats" are simply reverted every day. If it were a real TOV, or even a possibly real TOV, I wouldn't argue, but this isn't even close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Best to also inform NATO and the UN since this user has also started on a course leading to World War III.[119] Do they have a hotline? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with manning. I am not sure if he filed his complaint or not but I did as well. Air Force one has to do with my president and I will not allow terroristic threats made towards him.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report this to the proper authorities, instead of to ones on completely the wrong continent, the the ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for Astley Bridge Police Station, Crompton Way, Astley Bridge Bolton, Greater Manchester BL1 8UN, is +44 161 856 5729. Anti-social behaviour, which almost certainly covers getting a lot of people around the world upset with kidnap and extortion threats, can be discussed with the neighbourhood team on +44 161 856 5761. Greater Manchester Police general non-emergency number is +44 161 872 5050. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't stop to insult me.

Nr 1:

• Keysanger is a highly biased POV.
• Keysanger think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases
• Come on gentlemen! Wake up

I twice reiterated please for a civile ton (I signed my last 2 postings)

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, comment this questions without personal attacks. Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He continued his attacks in Nr 2

• Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions, Keysanger.

Here I asked him to cooperate with the relevant text of the reference:

Keysanger: You must write the text passage supporting your statement.

He answered here:

• You must learn to read

And again in Nr 3 he calls me a lier:

• You're lying on what has been thus far agreed.

(by the way, he retired his statement "The treaty was only used defensively." here and accepted the first three)

And He insulted me again in the edit summary of following Nr 4

• (Here lies the truth about the War of the Pacific. Hopefully someday this will come to the light of others.)'

Here he call me a nationalist fool Nr 5:

• I explicitly blame Keysanger and the rest of the nationalist fools who focus on promoting their nationalistic POV instead of focusing on presenting the true history. The lot of you are not even worth to be called "Wikipedians." (Bold by MarshalN20)

I think that is enough, someone have to explain him how works wikipedia. As you can see, he doesn't believe me. --Keysanger (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really find this to be quite ridiculous. First, what you're presenting here is such a mess that I don't even understand half of what you've written. Second, every one of the statements that you present have been taken out of context (which might certainly account as to why they don't make sense in the first place). Third, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, several other users see Keysanger's WP:OWN of the article as a destruction of a Wikipedia article. To further check on Keysanger's "Ownership" of the article, please feel free to check the War of the Pacific's history and take note of all of the edits done by Keysanger. Fourth, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, User:Dentren proposed a chart of problems that would be fixed one by one in order to make the article factual and neutral. That being said, we did not get to even half of the chart before Keysanger decided to edit the article to his liking. As such, in the final statement that Keysanger provides I state: "I explicitly blame Keysanger[...]." Need I explain more?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia Administrator sees this, I urge them to take a look at the War of the Pacific article and take note of the destruction caused by Keysanger. The article has been changed from a neutral POV to an explicitly Chilean POV. Once again, I explicitly blame Keysanger for the destruction of the article, and would like to see a Wikipedia administrator to try and explain to Keysanger how a Wikipedia article should be written. Me, User:Likeminas, and User:Dentren have tried our bests to work with Keysanger; but after a series of pointless discussions with him we have all decided to leave (At least me and Likeminas have posted open statements in the talk page about it; Dentren simply went on to do better things than to argue with stubborn people).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of the Chilean POV inserted by Keysanger in the article: "The defeat engendered a deep revenge desire among the ruling classes, which also led to a skewed view of the role of the armed forces; this attitude dominated society throughout the 20th century"

Keysanger bases this statement on the opinion of two Peruvians, and yet he talks about the "ruling classes" of Peru. He also inserts an unreferenced statement of the "skewed view" of the Peruvian armed forces "throughout" the 20th century. There are plenty of other examples of Chilean POV in the article. I deleted this in the War of the Pacific article, and gave an edit summary as to why I deleted the information. Keysanger reverted it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass PROD/AfD/Redirects from new user

Resolved

 – That was probably due to a burnout - something I could understand from reading an e-mail from the user. Account retired and blocked. No further administrative action needed. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

A new user Moral Authority has set about nominating multiple articles for deletion, PROD, or simply redirecting established articles without concensus (example). The account was just created today and is causing major disruption to BLP articles. This is obviously not a new user and they seem to be going through the articles trying to fulfill a personal agenda (not entirely surprising given the username). Could someone take a look as I can't keep up with the edits. The user is nominating an article for deletion or redirecting every 2 minutes! I will go notify them of this thread now. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this user has mass-taged many articles in his first day on Wikipedia. And has put on Deletion tags on a number of articles within minutes. Making it impossible that he actually read them trough and established notability or not. I request that all his edits are reverted. I can also say that i dont think ll the users edits are in good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that springs to mind is that it's WP:POINT by a sock in connection with an ongoing AFD, because the 'point' they are trying to made would nicely tie in with that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what Cameron mean.. i guess this is a sock case.--Judo112 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a sock case, but all the edits should not be overturned -- there were some IMO valid nominations there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone has socked in order to prove a point the edits should be overturned en masse, especially in a case wherein they have obviously not even read the articles in question. If you throw enough darts simultaneously at a dartboard you're bound to hit a bullseye. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's an interesting theory. I did notice this comment to delete per BLP1E "which always wins against notability". I can see how you might interpret that as a POINT crusade by someone angry that a rationale of that variety was being used against a favourite article of theirs.  Skomorokh  15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to block the nominator as an obvious sockpuppet, though- if she has something she wants to say about notability and BLP1E, it seems like she could say it with her existing account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think such a block would be out of process as I've done nothing wrong. This is my only account that I use, and I have no blocks hanging over my head. If I was some illicit socker wouldn't I have been a touch more subtle? All my edits are in good faith. This discussion is frightening in the lack of the same, sadly. Moral Authority (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience doesn't lead me to think of sockers as 'subtle.' They are more usually the opposite. You have it in your power to explain to us what you're doing, and why, and how you happen to know our rules and our terminology. I accuse you of nothing; I invite you to explain, so we can understand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I explained this on my talk already.[120] I've literally done nothing wrong, beyond laying out a variety of PRODs and half a dozen AFDs, some of which are progressing just fine. Again, is there a problem with my edits themselves? Or the fact that I know what I'm doing. As I said, there is absolutely no prohibition on me, the operator of this account, being here and editing. Is AGF totally dead? Moral Authority (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While your edits may have been in good faith, surely you have realized by now that your strategy has backfired? If you are really serious about wanting these articles deleted, it is unfortunate that you could have actually set that cause back by your actions, because you have drawn negative attention to yourself by using a new account in this way. If you are serious about the problem you are trying to tackle, you would do well to slow down, use a bit more tact, and be less single-minded in tagging and nominating articles, especially if you are determined to start over with this account and not return to your main one. Dominic·t 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys are making me out to be Spartacus here. I saw a handful of articles that I thought were crap per notability and BLP, and tagged them up as such. Moral Authority (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just giving you some advice. Even if you have done nothing wrong, if you act in a way that is likely to attract suspicion, then you are unlikely to actually achieve what you set out to do with this account. If am I am to believe that you are being serious and acting in good faith (which I do), then you should think little bit more about your methods before continuing on. Dominic·t 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User now "retired". --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Wow, this is just ridiculous. Since when is tagging and nominating for AfD an issue that requires immediate administrator action? Did anybody try any other form of dispute resolution before running here to tattle to the teacher? The very first post on Moral Authority's talk page is the notification of this thread, there seem to have been quite a few steps skipped on the way here. If these AfDs are inappropriate then the discussion at AfD is the place to hash that out not here, if tags are inappropriate then the article's talk page is the place to discuss it not here. L0b0t (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the individual who brought this to the board I can explain my rationale - the editor, since the moment the account was created, had decided to nominate a large number of articles for deletion without reading them thoroughly to evaluate their individual content and merit. As the person was obviously not a new account and was also redirecting articles without any discussion or concensus, I brought the issue here so that we, as a community, could determine whether the edits were legitimate and halt them until that could be determined. I find your comment regarding "running to teacher" personally insulting. I work on BLP articles for hours every day and saw an issue that raised major alarm bells for me. I'm not a frequent poster here by any means and felt out of my league with the swiftness and apparent single-purpose nature of the edits. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I apologize for hurting your feelings and have struck out my comment. However, the point still remains, there are several steps in the dispute resolution process that were needlessly skipped. Had they been attempted, drama and hurt feelings would have been far less likely. Seriously, talking to the editor in question would have been a much more appropriate way to begin. L0b0t (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Stealth canvassing on Wikipedia Review in AfD discussion : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miriam_Sakewitz

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

---

Resolved

 – no admin action required or forthcoming

This hotly debated AfD is being likely affected by a canvassing case involving five users, among whose threefour admins: The canvassing took place on an external forum, Wikipedia Review see thread. The editors involved are:

• User:Alison (AfD nom) (admin)
• User:RMHED
• User:Law (admin)
• User:Jennavecia (admin)
• User:SirFozzie (admin)

This looks like a serious case of canvassing, since it meets at the same time three of the four WP:CANVASSING cases:

• 1. Biased message by User:RMHED on the forum:

What a fantastic BLP and DYK about Miriam Sakewitz, a woman who has issues with rabbits! Da 'pedia just gets better and better.

(given subsequent thread and actions, clearly sarcastical tone)

• 2. Partisan audience . Wikipedia Review is not a neutral forum about WP. On its FAQ section it states:

This is an open forum is provided for people to talk about issues related to Wikipedia and sister projects like Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons without the possibility of censorship by the Wikimedia Foundation openly-undemocratic administration

The Forum Usage section reports:

General Discussion This is a kind of catch-all, Front Page News section, containing the latest horrific and scurrilous Wikipedia-related events as reported by our members.

I want to make clear I have no problem at all with the existence of WR, and editors are obviously entitled to their opinions. It is also clear, however, that it is a clearly biased forum, especially about BLP treatment, WP policies and administration, etc., and as also evident from the thread in case. As such, opening a thread there to ask for deletion, and where editors flock to intervene in a deletion, looks like canvassing to me.

• 3. Stealth. After User:RMHED started the thread, and User:Alison, from the same forum, subsequently nominated the article for deletion, and other parties joined the AfD, there has been no disclosure of the AfD being monitored and followed by WP editors on the forum, until User:Aboutmovies stumbled upon the thread. Most importantly, the forum is even not googleable: a header says Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines. The only way one has to protect a WP discussion on a BLP from WR is actively monitoring WR.

• 4. Not really a problem with WP:CANVASSING, but I want to be noticed that the editors involved in the WR thread made uncivil and AGF-dismissing remarks about other editors on the thread. Just two examples:

• This AFD is a clusterfuck. (LaraLove on WR, User:Jennavecia)
• (Quoting a comment of mine on the AfD) *facepalm a go-go* (SirFozzie on WR, User:SirFozzie)

After User:Aboutmovies comment, I opened a sub-discussion on the AfD, and a brief discussion with User:Jennavecia made clear that she openly admits the canvassing, only dismissing the policy as "silly" and that it is "widespread knowledge" that she posts on WR. User:Alison only today added on her user page that she edits on WR.

Finally: I didn't discuss with editors on their talk page for the following reasons. First, it is not a case of me asking to some editor to "stop canvassing", because it is more complex than that: it's that several editors with similar views stealthily discuss AfDs between themselves, recruit similar-minded editors and intervene, without giving the WP community notice. It's unclear what discussing on the talk page would have been solved: it seems there's a deeper problem here. Second, four of the five involved editors are admins, and the other do not seem to be a new, unexperienced editor at all. I don't think I have to remind them of basic guidelines and policies. Third, I opened discussion on the AfD, and at least one of the editors involved openly admitted the canvassing, only to dismiss it as irrelevant and silly.

I hope, in this regard, not to have mismanaged this too much. I feel the situation is serious because, while the existence of WR per se is completely fine, the fact that several like-minded editors and admins meet there and discuss editors and AfDs stealthily is, in my humble opinion, a serious problem for the WP community.

I hereby courtesly ask for uninvolved, experienced admins to comment on the issue and suggest what the best course of action is. Thanks a lot. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for canvassing for the AFD as well, though not your intention. And no, I'm not even being sarcastic. Lara 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are we really going to basically assail these people for using WR? Protonk (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I would just appreciate they at least disclose they are discussing there, if they come in numbers to an AfD. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(triple ec) Appropriate action to take is : do nothing. So someone commented on an external site that there was a crappy article and nominated for AfD, and others who read that site come along and !vote in the discussion. Is there anywhere where anyone said "Hey, this article is up for AfD, come !vote to delete it"? No. The existence of AfD'd articles gets advertised all over the place: AfD log itself, on the article in question, and often on interested WikiProjects. No canvassing going on here, get over it. There's also no incivility going on - if you really believe someone referring to a discussion as a "clusterfuck" is incivil, I fear for your sanity on the internet in general. We also cannot be censuring people for their "incivil" edits on other websites. Shereth 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere where anyone said "Hey, this article is up for AfD, come !vote to delete it"? No.  : Technically true, but posting the mere existence of something on a forum biased about that is equivalent to the above hypothetic sentence. A (somewhat silly) but hopefully clear example: Imagine there is "WikipediaCreationists.org", and I comment there "Someone posted an AfD of Charles Darwin" -what reaction do you expect? --Cyclopia (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. You (referring to the person who opened this ANI report) spend the entire AfD haranging every single Delete voter on the AfD, to the point where I had to wonder why you are so vehemently defending this article? (in a vast minority, EVEN IF our votes are somehow tainted.) I actually learned of this through Alison's contributions. I can state conclusively that it wasn't the WR thread that attracted me to the AfD, nor was their any canvassing on this in the way I voted. I read the article, realized it was a WP:BLP hitjob. And then the *facepalm* comment for your Decency is not a criteria to decide what goes in WP or not. See WP:CENSORED crack was my honest feeling. BTW, it couldn't have been too stealthy if you picked it up, you know. The actual good thing is that WR hides its BLP discussion forum from the google spider.. WP proclaims it for all to see. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

↑ What he said. – iridescent 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to answer: I am actively (maybe too much, I admit) opposing the deletion not because I care of the article itself, but because "moral" grounds for deletions are plain harmful in my opinion. But that's not the point in case, I am here to discuss of the canvassing incident. As such, I appreciate your statement about having known of the AfD elsewhere. Still, it has IMHO to be explained why at least didn't someone of you disclose that you were discussing about that on the forum. I feel WP is an open process, and discussing about AfD in a non-googleable subforum is pretty much the opposite of open.--Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, what you're not getting (and what may be the core of the differences we see here), is that many many people believe that Wikipedia can be used to harm living people. Look at the Siegenthaler incident, for gosh sake. I'm not just talking about random "X Killed Kennedy" vandalism, although that's bad enough! That's why the BLP policy is as strong as it is. Would you consider people appearing in newsoftheweird/Darwin Awards columns to be notable? After all, both are carried far and wide by newspapers, radio and the like. WR believes (if it can be said to have a monolithic belief at all) that WP has the possibility of doing great harm to living people, and while it merits discussion, WR has decided that they're not going to "pile on " with additional googlejuice. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but could you at least disclose the existence of your threads on the AfD's etc. you discuss? Why are you unwilling to do that? It would help everyone. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because at the time, I didn't know about the AfD thread. As I said, I was made aware of the whole kerfluffle after I viewed the article and decided that it should be deleted on its own merit. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter. The AFD is about the weight of arguments. In that people are discussing it elsewhere is wholly irrelevant. Lara 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Lara here. It isn't canvassing because people are bringing in good arguments as to why the article should be deleted. And it is WR, not a group of friends doing one friend a favor. –túrian^patois 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not canvassing - why? Because that Forum is dominated of people with conflicting opinions and more often than not drums up the opposite reaction. I, for instance, have disagreed with quite a few AfDs or other statements posted at WR. If I agree, I agree. But everyone knows that I have a long standing antagonistic relationship with WR, so there is no way to claim that at least my actions are based on a canvassing prejudice (as canvassing only applies when there are not well reasoned votes by people who think objectively and independently). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, there has been not a single post against in that thread (while the AfD shows several keep for example), which makes me wonder how much "conflicting" is in this case the coverage. The forum POV on BLP management is pretty explicit. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do nothing. While the standards of behavior are significantly different, and arguably beneath our own (please oh please do not start that argument here, there, or anywhere), there stated position on Biographies of Living Persons is well established, reasonable, and in the best of faith, and is not all the different from our own (do no harm). One can make the argument that the heightened awareness of the difficulties BLPs pose is the enduring and most positive contribution the forum has ever made to the this site.--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yayy - WP:BADSITES is back. I'm so glad I unretired :) Nothing much else to say really as I'm primarily interested in BLP issues and not petty WikiPolitics™ - Alison ^❤ 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've got a lot of respect for you, but I don't think one person's accusation followed by (currently) unanimous rejection means that BADSITES is back. Rather the opposite, wouldn't you say? Protonk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think the bigger issue is how this got through DYK. Grsz¹¹ 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Indeed. Anyway, what administrative action are you asking for here? I don't see anything to do. Black Kite 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know. I am not an admin, and I am not sure what should be done in such cases. To me this looks pretty serious, but I don't know if banning/deadmining(?)/whatever is the course. I'd like some uninvolved admin (someone not on WR) to comment and decide. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I'm uninvolved (I posted on WR once, but only to reply to a thread about me), and I can definitely confirm that no-one is going to take any action here, for the reasons posted above and below. Black Kite 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, and I removed the rescue tag, which I'm sure even the ARS would be embarrassed about. Black Kite 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• We shouldn't care about WR. We should concentrate on the AFD rather than what goes on an external website. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't go that far.. there's a fairly major ArbCom case right now about actions external to Wikipedia (a mailing list) and its actions ON Wikipedia.. But as I said, even if our !votes were somehow tainted (and which I firmly believe their not), there is a consensus that this article should be deleted. SirFozzie (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Briefly, and with apologies for redundancy with previous comments: I believe that any observers of Wikipedia Review will conclude that the main intention of the editors in question in discussing the article was to call attention to serious BLP problems we are confronted with as a project, not to get their way in the AfD; there is no imperative to declare where one learned of a discussion – and there plenty of editors of opposing philosophical stances to the above named on WR; finally, Wikipedia norms, policies and guidelines, do not apply off-site people may do as they damn well please off-wiki without our getting involved, as long as it does not damage or intend to damage the encyclopaedia, its contributors, or its readers.  Skomorokh  17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I have no account on Wikipedia Review.  Skomorokh  18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. --Jayron32 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• People offered opinions on a an open external forum, so that seems quite distinct from canvassing where a solicitation to involved parties. If a pointed request was made on a website that had an interest in advocating one way or the other on the AfD outcome that would be different. But this just looks like people discussing the article and AfD quite openly off site. So I don't see how that's canvassing. Anyone is free to go there and post their view. If you do, please remember to mention how charming and wonderful I am. Appraisals of physical appearance and likability are a key component of what seems to be discussed there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Do nothing, in case it wasn't clear from my comment above. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• I votes delete in the AfD, but the canvassing is pretty blatant. It looks like all the people above me are trying to shout down Cyclopia because WR is the place where the Wikipedia in-crowd get to canvass at will. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, no one is asking others "hey you, come vote in this AfD", it is more like "hey you, look at how irrevocably fucked this article is". Calling attention to a bad article in an off-wiki place where other users may be on the conservative side of what kind of BLP articles the Wikipedia should be hosting is not "canvassing". Tarc (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Can you give us a single example of "canvassing" on that WR thread? (When you're done with that, you can do the same for Exploding tree, too.) – iridescent 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• At this point our canvassing policy is a complete clusterfuck. We have a checkuser who has canvassed and that's ok. But we're frying some people for having a mailing list. Moreover, despite WR being an open forum, the general preference of users and readers is clearly deletionist in regard to BLPs. Finally, when non-Wikipedians post on blogs and fora about deletion discussions we get annoyed. This is a host of contradictions. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Posting on a publicly-viewable website is not normally "stealthy." That said, thank you for bringing that atrocious BLP to my attention, Cyclopia. Cool Hand Luke 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: May anyone taking part in this discussion disclose explicitly if they have a WR account or not and if they are active on that forum? Otherwise it is hard to decide if there is a conflict of interest. Me:I just made one, practically only for the purpose of noticing the current AN/I and monitoring the situation on the forum. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • They may if they like. I don't think it is necessary because all that will happen is that someone will come along and count heads. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I publicly and fully disclose that I will make no such statement about whether or not I hold an account or read or comment at Wikipedia Review or any other such website. I may, or I may not, but you will never get me to disclose such information. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow. Did you really just ask that sort of question? Tarc (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Amongst all this one wonders why you haven't considered that whoever commented on WR about this bunny lady might actually have a brain of their own to decide themsevles whether or not the article is accpetable regardless of what anybody else thinks. Maybe the people commenting at WR actually genuinely believed this article is an embarrassement which is why they could not believe people wanted to keep it. As it stands people viewing this ANI report can make up their own minds about it as is clearly happening at the moment but probably not in the way you had expected.. Himalayan 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can we archive now? I'd already explained the situation to Cyclopia before he opened this thread, I think this confirms it, and considering his expressed intention is to get me and the others banned and/or desysopped, I think it's time to close shop on this one. Just my opinion. Lara 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not my "intention". It's one of possible outcomes I could think about, but I am not an admin and I do not know. I feel that this is a really serious problem; admittedly most people here think otherwise but it is funny that only a few disclosed their WR status (sincerely sorry if this is a bit not AGF).--Cyclopia (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

TfD

Resolved

 – User:Ruslik0 knocked it out, and I learned about a cool closing script! Protonk (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

this item is now ten days old, would appreciate if someone could close it or relist it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing that as well. However as one of the parties participating in the TfD, I cannot resolve it. Anyone else up for a TfD close? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna sound really, really, really lazy, but the reason I didn't close it as keep last night was that I didn't have a one-click javascript closer. Does anyone know of one for XfD's (I have the AfD/DRV one from lifebaka and Mr. Z man)? Protonk (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js does the job - it seems to be modifications of Lifebaka's DRV one for the other types. ~ mazca ^talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I already began taking the long manual route in deleting the templates but I can restore if you want to use the java closer. Also, I wasn't sure if this has screwed up Huggle or Twinkle. Can someone with Huggle check that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin

Resolved

 – User:JamesRenner has agreed to stop editing the article, all parties advised to use dispute resolution methods such as WP:RFC or WP:3O to seek wider input on the use of sources. Since this is now a content, and not behavioral, issue, there is nothing left for admins to do here. --Jayron32 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

JamesRenner (talk · contribs), who is apparently James Renner, has been edit warring at the BLP Kevin Coughlin to add details of a lawsuit Renner filed against Coughlin. There has been discussion on the talk page, but there is no consensus to add the content that Renner wants to add. Needless to say, this is inappropriate due to the huge conflict of interest. JamesRenner has been warned not to edit the article. There is likely sockpuppeting too, considering the single-purpose IPs whose only edits have been to push Renner's interests. Peacock (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• You should always notify an editor when you open an ANI discussion -- I've done so for you this time. I'm not an admin, but my opinion is that the behavior would justify a block if JamesRenner (talk · contribs) had been given a sufficiently direct and recent warning, but that doesn't seem to have happened. He has received serious warnings in the past, but the most recent talk page section is "friendly advice" from SlimVirgin on September 10. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making the notification. Peacock (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As an otherwise un-involved, outside admin, I added the article to my watchlist as per the previous AN/I thread as well as the BLP/N thread. In the two days since protection expired on the article, falsely sourced and BLP-violating content has been added five times. As such, I have reverted [121] the article back to its pre-dispute state, fully-protected [122] it for twenty days, and informed the involved parties [123] that I will lift the protection early if consensus forms around a fully and properly sourced and cited version. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear up a few false bits of info being thrown about by Kralizec, who I do not believe to be an unbiased admin in this case. One, I'm not just some joe blow with a beef. I'm a journalist and editor of a newspaper, The Independent [124]. I understand, quite well, libel law and proper sourcing, especially after my recent suit with Coughlin. If you'll read through the discussion page at Kevin Coughlin you'll see that I have provided a valid sources to support the inclusion of this incident. This lawsuit with Kevin Coughlin was covered by the Columbus Dispatch, which Kralizec inaccurately describes as a blog, the Akron Beacon Journal, and several smaller publications. I agree there is an inherent conflict of interest here. However, I also feel this incident was large enough to merit inclusion in Coughlin's bio, especially in light of the fact that Coughlin announced his retirement from politics during my lawsuit with him. There are also court filings where Coughlin, through his lawyer, admits my story about his alleged affair and altering of petition ballots was not defamatory and that his threats of a lawsuit were bogus. My point is, maybe I'm not the one to write it into his bio, but the sourcing is there and someone else should. "JamesRenner (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"

• James, per WP:COI and your clear involvement with this individual in real life issues, you should NOT be editing his article. Perhaps you should leave info about the sources you describe at the article's talk page for other, uninvolved, editors to evaluate and decide what to do with, but the level of your conflict of interest with this subject makes it impossible for you to make an objective, dispassionate assessement of the source material and how to properly incorporate it in the article, if it needs to be added at all. That the conflict of interest centers on an article about a living person (see WP:BLP) makes it doubly important that we tread carefully here. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, I agree. I would love for someone to read the sourced articles and take a stab at an edit so we can move on. "JamesRenner (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"
    • Well, since James is agreeing not to edit the article, I can't see what admins can do in this situation. If necessary, someone can start a WP:RFC or WP:3O discussion at the article's talk page, in order to attract more attention, but unless James, or someone else, starts up the edit war again, there is nothing else for admins to do here. I'm going to mark this one as resolved. --Jayron32 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the protecting administrator the last time around, I fully endorse the re-protection. Although I suspect that further administrator action will be required, as it seems that the blocking tool will become the more appropriate tool to address this problem with, rather than the protection tool, since the repeatedly-reverted edits are clearly coming from one person.

During this protection period, I suggest that the people involved in the talk page discussion answer the elephant-in-the-room BLP question: Why is information about James Renner's lawsuit against his employer for unfair dismissal, and subsequent settlement of that lawsuit, being repeatedly put in Kevin Coughlin in the first place, and not in the obvious place for information about James Renner, James Renner? Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of spin going around here. I had not read the Coughlin page in over a week, so was not a party to most of the reverted edits. [Violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons removed. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)] In Ohio, this is sort of along the lines of the Lewinski drama. Big story. More Coughlin's than mine. But if you want to include it on both pages, fine. But it really merits inclusion on Coughlin's page. The reason I became personally involved in this, is because the first person to revert edits here was a proxy of Kevin Coughlin, himself, which I believe you can verify by looking at the history of the article to see who reverted those first edits. Coughlin asks him on his talk page to help him out. I need help from you guys to see through the spin Coughlin and his sock-puppets are creating here in an effort to keep this info off his page. Any help would be appreciated. This is what wikipedia is all about. Don't let them get away with censorship. "JamesRenner (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"
  • That's enough. JeffBillman (talk · contribs) is not a sockpuppet of some politician that you don't like, and this noticeboard is not for repeating the BLP violations that you couldn't get into an article. The very next time that you make an edit like this, M. Renner, your editing privileges will be removed, permanently. Wikipedia is not your battleground for an external dispute, nor is it a platform for getting your own allegations against a politician published. Do I make myself crystal clear? Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 69.77.136.161 - returning sockpuppet

This sock-IP and one other (204.84.96.201) from North Carolina have returned to add the following nonsense to the Viggo Mortensen article: "In 2008, Mortensen wed Boomer, NC librarian Christy Earp." De728631 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither IP has made any other vandalisms since that one, so a block is inappropriate, and two instances of vandalism probably does not merit semi-protection yet. But I have watchlisted that article, and will promptly take action should this ramp up further. --Jayron32 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at MTV Roadies

This edit contains what appears to be a threat of legal repercussions. Not sure how it can be redacted given it's in an edit summary. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Superduperblah of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have left a link to WP:No legal threats on their talkpage, and strongly hinted that they should withdraw their comments (although, as an edit summary, it cannot be easily removed). If they don't, then I think the next admin who reviews this matter should decide whether an indef block is due. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• As that "next admin", my opinion, given this edit, in particular its edit summary, as well as the edit history of the article concerned, is that Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats applies here. Taking the self-profession of working for MTV at face value (an assumption that may well be false, note), the problem here is that some people are repeatedly changing all of the external links on the article to point to a FaceBook page. Superduperblah (talk · contribs) is not the only editor to tackle this. See this edit by A3RO, for example. Legal threats are not the way to address this, of course, as A3RO demonstrates. And as LessHeard vanU points out, there should be not a single one more from Superduperblah.

  And whilst we're at it, there should be no more promotional content such as "the community sees the best action on Roadies outside of the TV screen!" and "this community is the one stop shop to discuss Roadies". No wonder other editors are editing this content. It's MTV advertising copy, for which Wikipedia is not the place. A conflict of interest is causing unverifiable claims that are not in accordance with the Neutral Point of View to be added, here. This, too, must stop now. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of cutting the section out of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Huge great muddle with Ottava Rima and others

Hi. Coming here after a Wikiquette alert which was closed as not appropriate for that board, and advice by the closing editor to come here. Big out-of-hand stuff with Ottava Rima. I should say that I have had a run-in with him before. This one has developed in the last few days. Someone posted a query to WP:RSN, and it was already getting heated before I weighed in, supporting use of a text he didn't agree with. If there's a substantive debate it is about the use of a book chapter that everyone agrees is published by a reputable scholar with a reputable press. There is a difference about the interpretation of a sentence. But it has blown up way beyond that.

On RSN

• [125] My “blatant disregard for standards”. My comments absurd and improper. “RS is a secondary component to Fringe” (?) My comments highly inappropriate.

• [126] “a severe promoting of something that goes against our policies”

• [127] “making directly false claims” (he disagreed with my reading of an academic text)

On his talk page

• [128] me “promot[ing] things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity”

• [129] I deserve a block for disruption.

On my talk page

• [130] a topic ban would be necessary to stop me from disrupting.

• [131] User: Antandrus and I are engaged in meat puppetry.

• [132] I’m engaging in outright disruption, am a troll, am damaging Wikipedia.

• [133] My claim he is “angry” with me is preposterous.

• [134] He says my failed RfA is relevant to the discussion. He has emailed ArbCom because I have a history with Antandrus and others involved in the Persian Empire dispute. There are retaliatory practices going on.

• [135] He has approached ArbCom about long-term tag teaming and domination of the Fringe and RS noticeboards, promoting violation of the rules and bullying those who disagree.

• [136] I’m part of a group led by User:Folantin , we are “friends”.

• It then gets into accusations against Antandrus and Use: A3RO and others, with threats of ArbCom and blocks and much more stuff without my involvement at all. Some people are incivil and sarcastic towards Ottava Rima.

On the Wikiquette alert page

• [137] Recommends I be blocked for 24 hours for “outright disruption”. I am pushing outright falsehood on a noticeboard, which is disruptive.

• [138] The call for a block was sarcastic.

• [139] Itsmejudith clearly makes it seem like they don't understand the basics of logic, reason, or what reliable source means let alone what "expert means". If they do know any of these, then the only other explanation is purposeful disruption and they should be banned as a troll. Either way, their posts were completely inappropriate

• [140] I am a troll, absurd, disruptive.

• Similar accusations made against uninvolved respondents to the Wikiquette alert.

Request: Im hoping that you will agree that all this was incivil to an absurd degree. I don't want Ottava Rima blocked or banned. I'd like someone who he trusts to sit down with him and explain that people can agree to disagree, that it is possible to de-escalate. Also that it is possible for people to have different readings of a text, and that patient discussion can shed light and lead to a resolution. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With Ottava Rima's history, no sensible administrator would take this lightly... Something MUST be done to stop this editor from getting away with such problematic editing.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DO not expect Ottava to be open to changing his tone here. He has long taken an unneccesarily incivil tone in many of his interactions, and refuses to acknowledge when he has done so. Every time someone calls him on it, he states something to the effect of "False accusations of personal attacks are themselves personal attacks" and never actually makes any attempt to control his own behavior. I expect nothing to come of this, except Ottava Rima to respond with further incivility and to accuse every (including me) who commented here trying to attack him in some way. --Jayron32 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedure Note Ive left a note on Ottava Rima's talk page notifying them of this thread. Please make sure in the future that if you open a thread on ANI about another party, you notify them. Thanks. Livewireo (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Was this somehow inadequate?  Frank  |  talk  20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed it since it was in the middle of the talk page and continued from another thread. Whoops. Livewireo (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then it would be more appropriate to make your original comment <small> rather than your response, or else strike it out entirely, or collapse this exchange entirely? It doesn't add to the discussion, and casts the editor who posted the thread in an unfair light.  Frank  |  talk  21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided many diffs and other bits of evidence to ArbCom about a group of 9 members who use RS and Fringe in order to bully others and other such things. They constantly edit war, wheel, answer for each other, and out and out ignore policy violations and false interpretations in order to defend each other. These members include Moreschi, Dougweller, Antandrus, Dbachmann, Folantin, Fullstop, Itsmejudith, and Paul B. It is clear that Itsmejudith is wasting everyone's time with the above, as you can see from different things she is complaining against - "[141] My claim he is “angry” with me is preposterous." Is this an "offense" now to make it clear that one is not angry? The absurdity is through the roof, and an ArbCom is way over due. It seems obvious that they want to waste as much as my time as possible and that they aren't satisfied with having completely destroyed the Persian Empire page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote is dissimulation - "There is a difference about the interpretation of a sentence. But it has blown up way beyond that." This individual is attempting to claim that an individual who has no scholarly publications about an author is capable of making a claim that the author is a -pederast- without having any evidence or any sources for such a claim. This is directly against WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. It is hard to believe that they are pushing such a claim for any reason besides disruption, especially with her history, her close relationship to the group, and the fact she failed her RfA because I revealed evidence verifying that she works too closely with this group in a disruptive manner here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone is curious as to how long this disruption and tag teaming has dated back against just me, see this. I am not the only one to have this happen. More is on Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Antandrus, who is close friends with Itsmejudith, was also involved in later problems here. They refused to stop the attacks from Folantin or speak out against him. I have emails on the matter from Antandrus. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that all of them talk to each other, and their constant support of each others positions, constantly verifying each other, backing each other up, refusing to correct or chastise each other, and disrespect for our policies during this is only further evidence that this is severely disruptive meat puppetry. More can be found on Talk:Persian Empire, and in where Antandrus, Akhilleus, and others stepped in to defend Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop even though those three meat puppet edit warred with a large consensus against them. These same people defended Itsmejudith even though she is pushing for a claim that Oscar Wilde is a pederast without a legitimate source to claim such. It can be seen here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Persian Empire ANI thread. Antandrus's attacks on my talk page. Antandrus, who is friends with Gwen Gale, encouraging a block that is clearly against both the letter and spirit of NPA and had nothing even close to consensus. Their judgment is clearly skewed towards pure aggressiveness without care for policy. You can see Antandrus's close defense of Itsmejudith in the current incident suggesting the close connection between them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You will see the fantasy in all this. For info, I have always got on very well with Moreschi and Doug Weller, who both nominated me for RfA. I have immense respect for Dieter Bachmann without always agreeing with him. I haven't had much to do with any of the other editors mentioned. I have hardly ever had anything to do with Persian history related articles, but I did do some wikifying on an article on a historic city in Iran, and I am currently having a go at unpicking poor sourcing and probable nationalistic POV-pushing on the Kambojas page, which is distantly related. This was after dab pleaded on FTN that he should not be the only person trying to sort these things.

Ironically, I may be coming round to Ottava's view on the Oscar Wilde article. He has recently shown a diff which shows that the article was slanted towards the view that Wilde had an interest in young men specifically, rather than in men per se. This is indeed a fringe and unsupported view. It's not the question that was referred to RSN. I have read and re-read the pages in the Maynard source available in Google Books and still cannot see that there is anything whatsoever that supports such a reading. I tried to make it clear that while I maintained that this source was potentially RS for the article I thought it should be used with caution. I'd be happy for further opinions and for this to go to experts in literary criticism, LGBT studies etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It only takes one glance at Itsmejudith's failed RfA to see my statements of her being too close to comfort with a group of people at RS and Fringe were accepted by many of the opposers. The actions of these same people on your talk page, and on the RS board with Paul B, is problematic. Itsmejudith, you do realize that it is one thing to have an opinion but it is something completely else to hold someone else's opinion and operate in a manner that avoids consensus and causes disruptions? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all bullshit.

I have had no previous contact with Itsmejudith that I recall, save for a support for her RFA.

I have never edited either Persian Empire or its talk page.

I have never edited Ludovico Ariosto or its talk page.

It only takes one glance -- albeit a long one, for you are long-winded in your rants -- to see that you are living in a fantasy land, if you perceive this to be an "attack", rather than what a Wikipedian assuming good faith would see -- that it was an attempt to talk to you about your behavior in a calm, kind, and reasonable way. However, I have become skeptical that such a thing can be accomplished any longer, Ottava; whenever anyone contradicts you, on any matter however small, your usual modus operandi is to immediately personalize the dispute, and close your ad hominem rant with some permutation of the words "disruption" "troubling" "cabal" "block" "banning" "desysopping" "problematic"; and then most mysteriously you cannot see that such ad hominem behavior is a direct violation of our behavioral policies. The core of them is you may not attack other editors. You can't have it that way, Ottava; you can't live in a fantasy land where you can call people trolls, disruptive, destructive, and then turn around and claim that the people telling you that you are making personal attacks are themselves making personal attacks. It's nonsense.

It would do you well to acquire enough humility to see that everything on your block log was well-deserved, and that you should attempt to behave in such a way that we do not need to add further entries to that significant record. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude you need to chill and practice what you preach. Caden ^cool 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, before you claim that things on my block log were well deserved, please note that at least one of those individuals was desysopped because of their bad blocks, another was making indef blocks against CoI and was edit warring the NLT page to justify a block, and that others were equally claimed as inappropriate by many people. Antandrus, I have pointed out quite a lot about how your behavior was inacceptable. If you were willing to not protect people against any kind of objectivity and promoting direct contradictions to our policies, then there would be no problem. There are many, many people I work with and spend time with all the time, and I, for instance, have a strong reputation of independent thought and there is almost no one that I have agreed with in every situation. I have stood against people who I work with and like when they violate policies because friendship does not mean ignoring what Wikipedia is about. And Antandrus, you don't have to edit those specific pages to operate and bully for other people. Your comments on my talk page, for instance, were inappropriate. And if you do not have a relationship with Itsmejudith, why were you on that talk page along with Folantin even after people have pointed out multiple times that your judgment in the situation is biased against me? You aren't acting objectively in any kind of manner. I have already provided substantial evidence to such problematic behavior. I also have email evidence in which you admit that Folantin's behavior was inappropriate but refused to actually do anything to stop it. I am prepared to forward it to any Arbitrator if they wish to read for confirmation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass violation of WP:ITEXISTS at AfD

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

---

Resolved

 – No admin action required here, nothing to do Shereth 22:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At this AfD there seems to be a great amount of !votes for keep simply because the subject matter exists or has "been confirmed". This is clearly agains WP:ITEXISTS and I hope I'm not breaking WP:CANVASS by asking admins to put in their two cents? Thanks, Dale 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• You can't really "violate" that essay. you aren't breaking canvassing rules but you aren't about to get a response from administrators. I suspect that the article will be kept, the best way to go about the debate is simply to make you case persuasively, calmly and once. After that just step away. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would submit that the best way to go about it is to not go about it. Clearly, there will be an article about this compilation. What's the benefit in temporarily deleting it? Why not focus on the more egregious stuff that needs to be deleted and will be uncontroversial? Friday (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Before complaining, its helpful to ask what administrative remedy do I want applied? --Tznkai (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crystal was used in the nom. So, "Itexists" seems to be the specific counter argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

and yes I see this as a violation of CANVASS. There is nothing specific for an administrator to do there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

58.69.73.209

Can someone take a look at 58.69.73.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) please? The external link appears to be bad; it rants about Scientology and accuses people of various things. I want a second opinion before a block, though. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)