Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fngosa (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 3 October 2009 (→‎Legal threat: user blocked indef, asking if it could be reduced to 1 week though). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:Vintagekits and User:Mooretwin

    Resolved
     – I'm calling this one. No admin action forthcoming, situation too unclear. --Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No baiting, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Interesting precedent for those reported here - cause as much confusion as possible by posting about tangential issues and trying to sling mud at the complainant. Then there will be no admin action forthcoming due to the confusion caused. Mooretwin (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Mooretwin on User:Vintagekits

    I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.

    On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.
    The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.
    The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ’Bout ye! 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support long or indefinite block. The incidents submitted are not very problematic individually, but as part of a pattern of conduct, they are. We are much too tolerant, in general, of editors who are (as the block log shows) incapable of observing basic rules of civil interaction. The disruption they cause generally outweighs the contributions they make.  Sandstein  05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mooretwin is causing disruption over many articles, and must be tackled. This[1] is the genre of tendentious editing he is involved in. He must be called to order. Tfz 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LessHeard vanU says there is much amiss regarding the body of my complaint, because "VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles". He misses the point. VK has not shown any interest ever during my time on WIkipedia in editing articles relating to Irish League (i.e. Northern Ireland) or amateur/intermediate-level football in Northern Ireland. He had never posted on those sites and the only way he turned up on those sites was through following my edits. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that I have been "altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland"". It is the other way round - VK has been altering these to change them from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", presumably for some kind of political reason, based on the odd claim - supported by a small number of like-minded political editors - that "Northern Irish" is somehow "POV". The essence of this complaint is that the apparently sole purpose of VK's editing now is to pursue me and revert my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Stu, it all totally depends on who is slinging the insults. Rock has a high tolerance when it come to certain editors, but since he has stalked and hassled Vin enough to be told to leave him alone, pushing GD's comment out of the way to address LessHeard’s points an example of their want to counter a constructive comment. Sandstein, you ability to act as an impartial Admin is already being questioned, and your contribution hear is possibly one of the reasons why. While admitting that the incidents hear and not very problematic, they try to suggest that as a patter of conduct they are a problem. That again depends like Stu has said on who the editor is? For example, here is a pattern and compared to Vin’s not very problematic posts a very clear pattern, but its ignored. Or the whole heap of accusations being made in the course of this discussion with multiple abuses of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and being spread across a number of pages [2] [3] [4]. Now neither Sandstein or Rock have mentioned Mooretwins pattern of behaviour at all, which again bears out Stu’s comments, and until such time as they do, ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes or as a form of harassment. --Domer48'fenian' 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you understood what I meant Domer, and I'm certain that I have no idea what you are talking about. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise. I have no clue what Domer is claiming Sandstein I have done (Until we mention Mooretwin's behaviour - which I did - "ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes" WTF?); if you would like to me address your concerns, then you will need to clarify what you mean. Rockpocket 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until the close of the Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case, any comment supporting Sandstein's views must be viewed with suspicion and discounted. Sandstein has been asked (and seems to be refusing) to lay down his tools pending the outcome of that case. I think this especially necessary when Sandstein takes it upon himself to comment on editors who have been involved in controversial political matters, as has Vintagekits. Sandstein's presence is at present guaranteed to exacerbate and confuse issues. Giano (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vintagekits has no relation to Eastern Europe. His initial political interests (now protected by a topic ban) were on Ireland. Unless you're suggesting Sandstein is involved in a Secret British Mailing List as well this is completely irrelevant. Regardless, Sandstein is expressing his opinion as an editor, not as an admin. He'd be out of place to institute the block now he's "voted" anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are certain similarities between the Rusavia's persecution by a politicaly operated mailing list and Vintagekit's persecution by a similar group of now banned users and socks, in both cases Admins have been fooled and tricked and Arbcom cases abused. My point is that it is concerning that Sandstein, with his history, is dropping by and advocating long blocks on subjects and editors of whom he presumably knows nothing. One wonders why? Giano (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, of a "similiar group of now banned users" persecuting Vintagekits. If you have evidence of this, feel free to drop it in at any time. Sandstein may well be familiar with vintagekits - he's at ANI so often that one doesn't need to work in the same content area to see his "work". Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you so ignorant of VK's history - or are you trying (badly) to be amusing? You "have seen no evidence" - are you newly arrived of just trolling for trouble? Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen Vintagekits around here before in relation to the baronetcy thing, but I'm not aware of any cabal-esque action taken by other users to smear him. It's neither total ignorance, humour or trolling, simply a lack of (oh the irony) encyclopaedic knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will VK still be aloud to work on the Boxing articles? I hope he'll be. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, this discussion pretty much sums up why I dont really edit here anymore. Mooretwin is possibly the most disruptive editor on wikipedia at the moment and consistantly ignores concensus and refuses to answer simply question with regards his interpretation to policy. Yet he comes he to bitch and provide a completely one side view of whats going on - totally slanted and without any balance at all but he still gets unquestioned support from the individuals that have pretty much driven me off here. Sandstein calls for an indefinate block - God you are laughable - please explain to me why I deserve an indefinate block (this should be good!) have you even looked at the links that Mooretwin has provided which he says breach NPA? Here are a few examples 1. correctly challenging calling someone "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" - is that a personal attack on Mooretwin? No! It's removing a POV and potentially BLP comment and replacing it with something that is neutral and factually accurate. 2. [5] telling him he was canvassing - which he does often and gets away with it despite multiple warnings - thats a personal attack? Saying he is editing in a POV and disruptive manner which was confirmed by admins - thats a personal attack? Asking him why he is using a blog as the only source for multiple articles! is that a personal attack?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironholds what do you mean by Sandstein has "voted" anyway? With baseless accusations like this tread, no wonder some editors are here so often. --Domer48'fenian' 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Domer: His "support long/indefinite block" comment is similar to the sort of thing used in block/ban discussions here. Giano was implying that he shouldn't be taken into account because of his actions with the tools elsewhere, I was pointing out that he wasn't offering to use the tools here, he was simply "voting" (which would prevent him from "tooling up" altogether. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Though it goes against the spirit of Collaboration, perhaps an agreement between VK & MT can be reached. Howabout each editor not showing up at an article where the other is at? Also neither editor post at the other's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh - no! I was forced away from the Baronet articles to appease Kittybrewster and the issue I was there for still hasnt been sorted. Mooretwin is busy pushing his POV on wikipedia there doesnt seem to be anyone keeping an eye on him. I've done nothing wrong - just because the usual suspects - Rockpocket, Sandstein and Ironholds turn up to back up Mooretwins moronic rantings here doesnt mean that what he says are correct - because it isnt - thankfully others here have been quick to point that out. Mooretwin's objective is to try and some sort of topic ban or such other tools put in place so that he can carry on pushing his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured it would serve both of you best, if you both avoided each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Vintagekits' topic ban as listed at /terms has been superseded by another topic ban, and the Arbitration Committee confirmed that ban by motion /terms is historical and should probably be deleted. It is in any case, not topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a user who is on the cusp between problem and "vested". Laughably, here Vintagekits asks how it is possible to sort out an issue if an editor deletes a comment, when inded s/he reverted my attempt to sort out an issue. Not an impressive stance. This resulted in a block (one that was supported by many other I might add). My patience has already been exhausted but I feel the community may wish to give this editor "another chance". Regretably, I think that this is consensus and that this thread probably is not going to go any furher. Arbitration is, I feel, likely to be unproductive. Bluntly - give Vintagekits enought rope. We don't do vested conributors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coming at this with no previous interest in football or Vintagekits (but of both British and Irish background, so familiar with the issue), can I just point out that Mooretwin is either POV pushing or (unlikely, but en-Wikipedia is occasionally edited by folks from such as the Far East who occasionally make such faux pas) ignorant of the issue. "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - one group of occupants of the six counties views themselves as Irish, the other group as British. Neither would use the term to describe themselves, and reversion by somebody is inevitable. Mooretwins protestations that the reversion is by Vintagekits is therefore without merit, and should be at the minimum (if Mooretwin xyrself is not to warrant examination) be disregarded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Excuse my frankness, but that is complete nonsense based on entirely fallacious and simplistic reasoning. It does not follow that because someone views him or herself as British or Irish that he or she therefore does not view him or herself as Northern Irish. There is no evidence to support such a fallacy. It is, ironically, a POV.
    • Vintagekits succeeded in getting a category (or categories) changed from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", but with the express outcome that no precedent had been set. I created some stubs and wrote them in the "house style" which refers to "Northern Irish" (or "English" or "Scottish", etc.) footballers.
    • In any case, this all misses the point. It doesn't matter what particular edits Vintagekits is reverting: the complaint is that, in addition to the personal attacks and incivility, his sole purpose on WP now appears to be to follow me around in order to revert me. He has turned up out of the blue at various articles on which he has never edited, solely to revert me. He has logged on to Wikipedia, checked out my contributions, reverted my edits, and then logged off.
    • Ironically, in attempting to defend himself, Vintagekits has continued to attack me on this page, calling me a "POV pusher", (ironically) saying I am "possibly the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia" and referring to "moronic rantings". I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I wish to remove POV from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here[6] is Mooretwin using the system for more of his disruption. He's perfectly entitled to do that, I know, but it's edit after edit after edit. Someone has to watch his tendentious editing. Tfz 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment appears to have no relevance to this section, which is about Vintagekits. This is the third intervention that TfZ has made here, each time to attack me, with odd examples of edits that he doesn't like, and at no time to comment on the subject of the incident. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because it reflects on your motive to rid opposition from other editors. I attacked your continuous disruptive editing, and not you. You claim that you are removing pov, but in my experience that is the worst form of editing that can happen here at Wikipedia. You basically remove edits you wp:idontlikeit, and there is much that can come under that heading for almost all editors, but they don't do that. You are already making tendentious edits[7] to Ireland related articles when the linking is still being discussed at IRCOLL. Tfz 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please restrict comments here to the topic. Your accusations are not appropriate here. Mooretwin (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The comments are appropriate here. This discussion should be closed and you should be told that your use of Northern Irish, or a loyalist flag to represent NI must be discouraged. --Domer48'fenian' 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please for that last? --John (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read the discussion you would notice they have already been provided. You did read the discussion before commenting didn't you? --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the absense of any diffs to back up Domer's accusation, we should warn Mooretwin, block Vintagekits indef, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warn me for what?? Mooretwin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't seen reason to indeff vintagekits yet either. This thread seems pretty incomprehensible as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tznkai time to close this spiraling mess. BigDunc 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you reckon that if you have enough like-minded mates to turn an incident into a "spiralling mess", you can get away with personal attacks and stalking. I see. I suggest instead that admins deal with the complaint itself and not be distracted by off-topic personal comments. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Close this off now, as per BigDunc and the other editors. Agree broadly with LessHeard's insight. Tfz 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears John did not read the discussion, and still they want Vin blocked! Close this down its going no were fast. --Domer48'fenian' 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone explain why the term "Northern Irish" is a BLP violation or POV or extremely sensitive? Briefly and with a couple of wiki references, if possible? this and this by VK appear to be disruption, but I am willing to listen to an explanation of why it might in fact be sensitive before making final judgement. I believe the term is in use in the United States in common parlance, even among Irish immigrants to the US, but perhaps it is legitimately sensitive elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its a politically loaded term and can indicate sectarnian/religous/plitical/ethnic allegency.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, what term isn't politically loaded in NI VK? So yes some people find the term offensive. You would have to ask them why. It doesn't stop 29% of people in NI describing themselves as such. That's 4% more than describe themselves as Irish, and even 25% of Catholics identify as Northern Irish. The term is currently avoided on Wikipedia as it is not a nationality. It is however a valid denonym and identity. But if it is not a nationality, then neither is English, Scottish or Welsh - just British. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so less than a third of people from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "Northern Irish" - I dont think you would get the same response for "Scottish" or "Welsh" - do you think less than a third of people in the US describe themselves as "American" or those in the "Republic of Ireland" as "Irish". It is potentially BLP and should be avoided as a label that is slapped on people "from Northern Ireland". Mooretwin knows this and has done for over a year (at least) but still attempts to try and sneak it into articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And even less people describe themselves as Irish. So following your logic describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP. Yet many articles do so, simply because the subject is Irish. Yet you're not bothered about these BLP concerns? Stu ’Bout ye! 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is potentially BLP to simply describe someone from NI as Irish - and British for that matter. Best practice is that it should be sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain how the two links you have provided could ever be construed as disruptive. If you knew anything at all you would know that it was removing a POV label and replacing it with a neutral description.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP in the absence of sources which support this. Again, this is not the forum for content discussions, and should be closed. --Domer48'fenian' 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that edits like the two GWH highlighted are disruptive too. Coming from an editor who is supposed to be editing under a restriction, with a block log as long as my arm and proud of it ("28 and counting!", he boasts on his user page), these seem like grounds for a block. Vintagekits has led a charmed life here because his supporters traditionally have cried out against supposed British bias, and pointed to his (supposedly) stellar article writing skills (I don't see it myself, but there you go). Now that Vk has "retired", which in his case seems to mean retired from any constructive work and devoted himself purely to disruption, per Rockpocket I see no reason to continue to allow him to edit here. I support an indefinite block. --John (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You make me laugh! Please explain how replacing a POV label with a neutral, factually article description could be construed as disruptive? You've been hankering after an indefinate block on me for years and not got one - is this because I mocked you after your faux retirement?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "POV label". There's no evidence to support these claims by a small group of editors campaigning, for whatever reason, to revert all mentions of "Northern Irish". Vintagekits succeeded in getting a couple of categories renamed, but only with the express statement that no precedent had been set in doing so. Regardless, he took it upon himself to follow me around and revert on any articles which used the term. Mooretwin (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mooretwin is being deliberately dishonest there. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#Category:Northern Irish association football clubs shows him replying to a post by Vintagekits with this link in it, which states that "Northern Irish is . . . politically loaded in Northern Ireland". Mooretwin's insistence on using it in favour of more neutral phrasing such as "from Northern Ireland" shows how tendentious his editing is. O Fenian (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The view of one obscure author in a footnote in a single book, who displays his own ignorance about citizenship in the same footnote, isn't very convincing evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, though, for digging out confirmation that there is "no precedent viz the wholesale elimination of the term as part of category names. That decision was specific to the area of people-by-nationality and there appears to be little consensus to extend it", and "This rename ... does not mean that if (sic) you can't use the term "Northern Irish".. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    O Fenian, thank you for pulling out that source proving that it is politically loaded! I think that proves my stance.
    Mooretwin, would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some recent edits (28th September) by VK, in pursuit of his campaign (note these do not relate to "BLP"): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Mooretwin (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, and I and others will continue to make them because they are correct NPOV edits. Now do you want to answer the question posed above or are you just going to ignore the substantive issue like you have in the discussion below.
    • Lets put the cards on the table and stop of this politiking and effing about.
    • A. Would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?
    • B. What are you trying to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish" - i.e. what does it mean.
    • C. Why are you using a blog as the only source to create articles?
    I dont think I can make this muddied issue more simple than the above - now are you prepared to give some straight answers and sort this issue out or is just a campaign to create more of your drama?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Without wanting to cause even more drama here, I think that once you strip away all the shouting, you are left with the following objective truths:

    1. ArbCom has held "Decorum" as a guiding principle in dozens of cases, including where User:Vintagekits is named as a party. They have held that a record of good contributions is not a shield to hide behind to excuse bad behaviour, and that Wikipedia expects both good contributions and good behaviour.
    2. Vintagekits has been a solid contributor. They have also shown very poor behaviour, and demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute.
    3. Blocking aims to prevent disruption and damage, rather than to punish poor behaviour, but it is expected that if someone is causing disruption and/or damage, that they will not repeat their poor behaviour, hence poor behaviour is a fator, and lengths may escalate as appropriate.
    4. Vintagekits' behaviour has not substantially improved (as evidenced from the ever-growing block log). They wear their block log as a badge of honour.

    In summary, we have a limb with an infected wound, and the infection is not responding to the usual treatments. The only recourse is amputation. It seems reasonable that no action the community takes is going to change Vintagekits' behaviour, the only things we're left with are a topic ban, which would effectively exclude them from making any useful contributions in article space (and just risks moving the problem), or an indefinite block. Note that I'm not taking sides here - User:Mooretwin is another matter. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vintagekits "demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute" - have you read this discussion? Despite a number of attempts to bait me I havent risen to it. Kind of proves you wrong doesnt it! Thanks for your "well thought out" addition to this discussion though eh!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vintagekits on User:Mooretwin

    Recently this user has been creating a number of articles with the sole source being a blog which does not satisfy WP:RS. For example see, Clancy McDermott, Eric Treverrow, George Dunlop (footballer) and Sammy Hughes (footballer).

    I attempted to raise the issue on his talk page but my comment was deleted without reply. When I restored the comment it was then removed by another editor who outlined that I should not restore comments on another editors talkpage if they have deleted them. So I have come here to get an admin to step in and sort it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you take it to Articles for Deletion? Don't see what this has got to do with ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that your response to why you are using a blog as the only source to create an article? It is precisely that kind of answer what I am here and why you cause so much trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    VK - even assuming you are entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here, this would be a routine page deletion discussion. Unless you are asserting he's inserting intentionally false material (creating hoax articles), creation of poorly sourced articles is not an admin noticeboard issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe its part of a multi fronted campaign of general low level distruption. I am not calling into question the notability of the individuals to which the articles relate I am highlighting Mooretwins use of blogs to build articles and his refusal to discuss to issue or even answer simple polite questions as to why he is using it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    VK is assuming nothing, he is entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here. Mooretwin is inserting intentionally and knowingly, contentious information, be it on flags or the term Northern Irish. I agree that this is not an admin noticeboard issue and should be closed. --Domer48'fenian' 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The usage of 'Northern Irish' should be discouraged, as it's a very sensative term. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still waiting for a response to this (from either an admin or Mooretwin) - which is really the only issue here with any substance to it. It seems people (John and Sandstein in particular) would prefer to focus on the non existent personal attacks that Mooretwin has dreamt up. Typical wikipedia eh!Vintagekits (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion can roughly be summed up as: this entire thread is a confusing mess and is going no where, in any direction.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this site as a WP:RS (something Vintagekits has raised above), I personally view this site as reliable. Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Were any of the contributions outlined above submitted by George Glass? Can you tell me who submitted the details to the site for each of the articles outlined above?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, none of the blogs on the four players you highlighted have named authors, so no. But that doesn't prevent it from being a reliable source. Sources such as the BBC rarely publishes authors names, and yet that is still higlly reliable! GiantSnowman 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, thats because its a recognised source with a editorial code and policy and not a blog that anyone could add to. It's like saying some recognised experts contribute to wikipedia so all contribution to wikipedia consitute a reliable source!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know full well that contributing to a blog is NOT the same as editing Wikipedia! GiantSnowman 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is very little difference - except if you are talkin shite on wikipedia someone will correct it - whereas on a blog it aint.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if there's no difference - go to that blog then, or any blog for that matter, and try and edit it. What's that, you can't simply edit any old blog? So there is a difference! GiantSnowman 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. The point VK is making is that there is no fact-checking going on.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you guys are missing the point - it is a blog so only invited people can contribute to it, right? And as I have said, established and trustworthy researchers contribute, right? So that implies that there IS fact-checking going on - the administrators of the blog aren't gonna have George Glass contributing one minute, and Joe Bloggs the next! GiantSnowman 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't, it means you think there's fact-checking going on. There is no evidence that there is, there is no disclaimer verifying if they are experts or not.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way you can verify if the people that wrote the blog are experts or not, therefore, you cannot assume there is fact checking going on. For all you know, it could be a single person making up a hoax. There is no possible way to verify anything. Therefore, per our various policy on such matter, it cannot be used. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, and if we can't verify this information, it can't be used, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but I still see it as reliable, and so we'll have to agree to disagree! For what it's worth, whenever I use the NIFG blog as a source, it is always with another source as well for extra-verifiablity. I'll try and find some more sources for the 5 players you have sent to AfD to show notability. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please demonstrate how it is reliable then.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you not read my earlier posts that established & respected editors contribute to it?!? GiantSnowman 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim one guy (who I've never heard of) is a recognised author - I doubt that that conveys WP:V to the whole blog.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read your posts, but I don't see where on this site it is asserted that anyone that is established or respected contributes to it. All I see is authorless posts.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This blog contains research by George Glass - the same George Glass who is a contributor to the respected and reliable IFFHS. GiantSnowman 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should go start a blog and reference George Class, then use all my own information. After all, anyone can cite something to someone, but there still remains no proof it was his information, or is there?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I'm getting bored of this now. The reliability of this blog doesn't matter for the five players you have AfDed - as I said earlier to try and put an end to this conversation, we'll have to agree to disagree - because I have shown notability in other ways, using other sources! GiantSnowman 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about notability or other sources, we're talking about your apparent idea that this blog is reliable, except that you have no proof that it is. The fact of the matter is you have no ground to stand on, you can't back up your opinion. You're not agreeing to disagree, you're refusing to admit that you're wrong. As I said before, I could create a blog and say that it contains information from 'so and so', but there is no proof that it does in fact contain information from that person, so, again: prove the blog reliable.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that in my experience, information from the NIFG about other players matches information in other, established printed sources. And as I have shown on these five players' articles, info on NIFG matches info on other sources. Fact. Now drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. GiantSnowman 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you can't admit that the source is unreliable, despite the heavy evidence to the contrary.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reindent, getting ridiculous now! How does me saying "NIFG says X, and RS also says X, therefore NIFG is a RS" show that it is an unreliable source?!?!? Surely the opposite has just occured. I'd like to suggest that you can't admit that the source IS reliable! GiantSnowman 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. Like I said earlier, one can say that information is gathered from X, but without any proof to back it up, it doesn't count. In order for this blog to be used in the way you suggest, it would have to include a link to the NIFG article which states what the blog reports. Simply saying Information has been obtained from X isn't good enough.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've lost me. I'm not talking about the article with contributions from Glass, I'm on about other articles on that blog. They have the same information as other reliable sources, ergo it is reliable! GiantSnowman 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the hard-to-miss notice at the top of this page, is there any administrator assistance required here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Global Consciousness Project

    Unresolved
     – Needs admin intervention. Could involved/uninvolved users please not interfere with ANI process, this is an admin issue and needs to be resolved by an admin. Logos5557 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – I'm no admin but I am uninvolved, and a request was made to close this thread. And it doesn't look like any admin action will occur. -- Atama頭 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is severe POV pushing, edit warring, OR and synthesis from user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn by recursively adding irrelevant/unsourced/OR/synthesis statements into the article. user:Simonm223 was so emotional and in win-lose behaviour while editing that he needed to go out, to have some bike and steam off, as he mentioned here and here while searching for recruits on fringe theories noticeboard, which of course is a violation of WP:Noticeboards.


    Timeline:

    1- I challenged pseudoscience categorization several times, by first engaging in discussion and then by asking a reliable source from the editors claiming that the project is certainly pseudoscience: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14],

    2- While the "debate" continues, user:Simonm223 decides he became too much emotional and takes a break here, but in fact, as I mentioned above, he asks "help" from "like-minded" users by posting that emotional message to fringe theories noticeboard.

    3- While the "debate" on pseudoscience issue continues, user:Simonm223 thinks that he/she presented sufficient valid arguments and before publishing his/her arguments/findings/conclusions through a reliable publisher (and referring to afterwards in wikipedia), he adds "pseudoscientific experiment" phrase to the article and justifies his edit by stating in edit summary that "as per discussion on talk page" here. I am sure, we can't find any other superior example over such disruptive contribution. I undo the damage done. user:Simonm223 insists on that his damage should stay. I undo the damage once again.

    4- user:Simonm223 adds a material based on an article by physicist Stanley Jeffreys, which is in fact about the first group of experiments carried out by PEAR in 1982 here and here. There is no connection between PEAR and GCP, even if there were a connection, Jeffers' article can not still qualify to exist in GCP article because it is not about GCP. I object the addition of the material and present my argument here. Then I undo here and here

    5- Without bothering to present any source, user:Simonm223 distorts the industrial "identification/naming" of the type of random number generators used in the project here. If any reliable source questions such thing, it should be mentioned either in hardware random number generator article or as a separate statement in GCP article. Removing "truly" is disruptive. I undo here.

    6- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article once again here. Adds a bit more POV pushing here. I undo here and here.

    7- user:Shoemaker's Holiday comes into the scene and removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article one more time here. I revert here. user:Simonm223 intervenes once again here. I undo once again. user:Simonm223 reverts once again here and claims that the irrelevant material provide neutrality to the article. How can an irrelevant, clearly POV push be presented as warranting the neutrality? Removes "truly" one more time here.

    8- I remove irrelevant material once again and bring "truly" back here and here.

    9- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly", adds the material about Jeffreys' article and adds "pseudoscience categorization" one more time here. I undo by presenting "evidence" on talk page here.

    10- user:Simonm223 gives me 3RR warning here and warns some other collaborators here about edit warring as if he was not one of the edit warriors. He/she also "restores page to consensus version" here; what consensus he/she's talking about is another mystery.

    11- I give "original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material" warning to user:Simonm223 here.

    12- Some other strange ideas from other users arrive with some accompanying accusations and wikilawyering here, here and here.


    I believe above collection of misconducts, edit warring, inappropriate behaviours such as adding OR and synthesis by especially user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn should properly be balanced with correct measures like topic ban, block or any other sanction that I'm not aware of right now. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Logos5557 believes that aliens created the Egyptian pyramids, along with the "face" and a pyramid on Mars. He also believes NASA is covering up evidence of UFOs. Clearly, that is the kind of editor we need to carefully retain in order to make a quality reference work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors' beliefs aren't particularly relevant -- what they can show through citations to reliable third-party sources is. More problematic could be if an editor, regardless of belief, doesn't abide by WP:3RR, WP:BRD, etc. Rational skeptics who work in research can be just as "wrong" as believers in the paranormal when it comes to editing practices. Rather than whacking at Logos5557's beliefs, time'd be better spent ensuring the disputed article's content stands up to WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I concur with that point. However the only user who has violated WP:3RR is Logos5557 (talk · contribs) he launched this ANI when he was warned about edit warring against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual Timeline of Events
    Full page history here
    25 September, final edit prior to edit war. [15]
    27 September: Logos5557 (talk · contribs) breaks WP: 3RR: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]
    27 September, 1912: I warn Logos5557 about edit warring [22]
    27 September, 1914: I make my most recent edit to page [23]
    27 September, 20:03: Logos5557 warns me about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (disregarding the fact that what I inserted (and left in after first reversion) was all derived from cited WP:RS. [24]
    28 September, 00:29 (I have made no intervening edits to Global Consciousness Project) Logos 5557 notifies me that he has opened the WP:ANI here. [25] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me concur with EEMIV's points, too, if that will get some sort of support. I do not agree, unsurprisingly, with your assertion about edit warring. Is there anything wrong with launching an ANI after some sort of magical warning? I take Hipocrite's comment as a "declaration of concurrence", as an "endorsement of the case" since he/she concentrates on my "beliefs" instead of addressing the facts of the case. Logos5557 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I guess being the second (and third ... which is a minor edit to my previous comment) link in point 12 makes me involved despite not being notified. On to the OP's points:
    1. Please read WP:Edit warring. There is no WP:TRUTH exception.
    2. A neutral notice to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard is perfectly acceptable as a means of attracting outside eyes to an article.
    3. One editor alone cannot edit war, but please see WP:Vandalism and avoid describing other editors' good faith contributions as "damage".
    4-11.  Stop edit warring and call a request for comment. Notifying another user of the three-revert rule (and that it is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring) is considered evidence that that user is aware of the issue. Please avoid templating the regulars, as it is more likely to escalate the dispute and rigidify positions than just talking it out on the page dedicated to that purpose. A friendly (or at least neutral) request to usertalk that points at an issue on articletalk you wish to be addressed is fine.
    12.  Logos5557, please consider that if a significant number of other editors think that you are wrong, then you should at least evaluate your points. Edit warring will not achieve consensus. Incivility will not achieve consensus. Throwing around wiki-acronyms will not achieve consensus. Talking it out should lead to consensus, though it may not match your opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about not notifying you and other editor (voiceofreason) personally, about this ANI. I thought it would be sufficient to place a notification on article talk page for those who would like to get involved, here.

    1- I guess you should read WP:Edit warring, too. It states here that "If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption."
    2- I don't think that Simonm223's notice to fringe noticeboard was neutral at all. Fringe noticeboard is not a "military trench" for "recruits" to get some rest and to look for some relief.
    3- "Damage" happens when a user base his/her edits (which he/she makes in article) on discussions (actually Simonm223 based on his personal opinions) made in article's talk page, without presenting the sources verifying the information added, because that contradicts with very fundamental principles of wikipedia. I'm just calling a spade a spade here.
    4-11- I believe my "trials" in article talk page are sufficient evidences of "trying to resolve the issues by communication".
    12- "A significant number of other editors"; can you define "significant number" and guidelines on which numbers should be accepted as significant in which cases? Is 3 enough? 4? Or is this some sort of confirmation of your non-neutrality in this case. Logos5557 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS does not apply directly to talk page discussions. So long as it stays within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I am free to express my opinion on a talk page. If I can not find a RS for my opinions and put them onto the actual article page then, at that point, these statements enter into the WP:RS policy realm. Am I honestly being attacked for holding an opinion in talk space? Can any indications be made that I edited the article in any way counter to Wikipedia policy? Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I object against the qualification POV pushing concerning this edit. That is simply a corrected and improved summary of the source. Logos5557 has a clever way of turning things around. He makes us believe that PEAR is something completely different then Global Consciousness Project, and that because of that, the criticism of Jeffers does not apply, therefore reverting it, reverting it, reverting it. But PEAR is an acronym of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab from which the Global Consciousness Project originated. This is simply his way of taking out a major point of critism, namely the critisism of Jeffers. I can imagine that Logos5557 does not like what Jeffers is saying, because it pulls away the very foundation underneath the Global Consciousness Project. It were Jahn and Dunne from PEAR who made the false assumption that in a cumulative random number generator the baseline hovers around the zero line. But it doesn't, just like in coin flipping the chance does not increase for heads, after a large sequence of tails. It is this fallacy that crawled into the project as a means to distinguish between normal random and abnormal random behaviour. And the random number generators are the bricks in the building of GCP. Pull them out, and nothing is left. So Jeffers has to go, and Logo5557 does anything to achieve that.
    As for the term random number generator: there are in real life random number generators and pseudorandom number generators. One generates random numbers, and the other doesn't. But what are truly random number generators? In what way do they differ from random number generators? In nothing, therefore this is a pleonasm, only suggesting some devine extra quality that is not there. In literature, truly random number generators only point at flaws in practical designs of previous random number generators, or are part of advertisement language. So call it edit-warring, but I just like to get the text right.
    Is the Global Consciousness Project pseudoscience. Yes, because the solid criticism of Jeffers, as far as I can see, was never taken up. Yes, because independent scientist, May and Spottiswoode, looked at the GCP's flagship, the 0911-attack, and concluded that despite the hailed results of GCP, no anomaly was there. Yes, because there is no independent confirmation of GCP's results. May and Spottiswoode advised to, at least, split up GCP's world wide network into two halves, so if an anomaly would occur in one network, it could be tested in the other network. GCP, as far as I know, never took that up either. And even if they will, they will not have nulled design flaws (Jeffers), and they will not have nulled the possible bias of human interpretors, because it would still be the same team with the same prepossession that would do the analysis. Only when an entirely different and independent team, with different equipment comes up with the same result, we may be talking about science. Untill then it's not. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jan Arkesteijn for confirming my assertions of OR and synthesis. GCP has certainly no connection with PEAR, and with Jahn and Dunne. Do you see their names in GCP team list? Even if they give any support/contribution to GCP, criticisms should be about GCP studies/experiments/papers, to be included in GCP article. Why didn't GCP never take Jeffers' "solid ciriticism" up; because it is not related to GCP. Why Jahn and Dunne didn't answer Jeffers? I really don't know. but my guess is; they publish a paper in 80's, somebody wakes up after 20 years and criticise their paper to "rebutt" whole PEAR. I wish they "answer the call" some day if they haven't retired yet. You present May and Spottiswoode as if they had crumbled "GCP's flagship". This is not true, either. I didn't search extensively (may be some people from GCP have published a detailed paper on their criticism as well) but GCP replied their criticism here [26]. What Simonm223 and Jan Arkesteijn do not understand here that we can't synthesize things out from sources (things which those sources do not say), and put in wikipedia articles. There are two main types of random number generators; hardware (or truly random) and software (or pseudorandom). When "truly" is removed, it becomes unclear which type is referred to. It seems I should better have launched this incident on administrators noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the above response to defend myself against your false accusation of POV-pushing. If you look at that edit you will see it is not.
    Now you accuse me of Original Research. I went through the article and there is no contribution of me in the recent or not so recent past, that could be named Original Research.
    Could you please stop this harassment!
    In the talkpage I asked to stop the pointless discussion that was going on, only to let myself drag into it for just a while. I am not going to continu that discussion here. There is only one person that is creating a lot of fuss, and that is you! Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simonm223 launches a proposal for merge here, I guess in order to justify his/her addition of Jeffers' article about a PEAR experiment into GCP article. Logos5557 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming worse day by day. I don't think I have to get "permission" (he/she "succeeds" to present that as "consensus") from Simonm223 to make any unproblematic contribution/edit here. This is also an example of WP:OWN. Logos5557 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does any other user need to "appeal" to Simonm223 to get him/her to "change" his mind, to revert his inappropriate contributions, like Fencesandwindows did here? Well, unless this case is not resolved with proper outcomes, I'm afraid Simonm223 will be inclined to think so. Logos5557 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a mischaracterization. He inserted some dense jargon. I removed it as it would not provide any elucidation on the subject to a layman. I told him that if consensus approved the inclusion of this jargon I would not block it's reinsertion and suggested he take the issue to talk. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As all can see, the "dense jargon" he/she refers to is two words "bayesian" and "p-value" which were wikilinked properly. Logos5557 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [27] [28] [29] [30]

    Just look. I didn't break WP:3RR nor did I violate any other policy. I reverted an edit I thought did not improve the article and suggested that the editor who made it go to talk and get consensus since we clearly disagreed. I'm sorry, I didn't intend to post here until admin had a chance to look through everything, honestly, and I don't intend to post again on this issue. The difference links tell the story. But I'm tired of defending myself for editing appropriately. Can a non-involved admin please weigh in on this matter? Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Civility Issues

    Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of WP:CIVIL some related to this issue and some not. The tendentious debating, peppered with personal insults and slights is making it very difficult to dispassionately edit any article he is involved with. This is an ongoing issue with him. Can we please wrap this up? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you care to state where are the proofs that I breached WP:CIVIL? Logos5557 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    user Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of wp:civility here, here, here and here, many of his responses to these concerns have been flippant and/or rude. His conduct on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project page show much of the same behavior. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And where are the diffs for my flippant and/or rude responses? By the way; you should click "prev" link in related history page and present the resultant link as diff here. Logos5557 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't a complete list but it should be sufficient to demonstrate a continued trend:

    Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And then there is the other issue - Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR before:
    So the pattern: Incivil comments, edit warring and when it's clear consensus is against him he goes and asks for Admin intervention, characterizing the other involved parties as violating Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate Simonm223's efforts to preserve civility in wikipedia despite the majority of the diffs he/she presented are some months old (there are even a year old appendices here), however could we please confine ourselves with global consciousness project. Although I wonder why he/she (as being one of the participants of those discussions) didn't use his/her warning/reporting abilities at the times these occurred, I suggest Simonm223 to raise these in the proper venue. I promise, I will not name his/her reporting as "complaining" as he did here and I will be happy to participate and defend myself for each and every case. Logos5557 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref WP:SPADE. I called you WP:ANI complaint a complaint. You throw around insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns regarding civility are that you participate in a repeating pattern of behaviour. Thus past issues are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to caution users to evaluate the incidents they think are the violations of WP:CIVIL very carefully, by quoting "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." Logos5557 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    {edit conflict}Well that's the whole point, this is not an isolated offense but rather a continued pattern of behaviour on your part. Part and parcel with this is taking up content disputes where consensus is against you and where you have been warned off edit warring to Admin in hopes of getting intervention - which you have a past history of doing, along with insulting other editors and breaking WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can proceed however you like, I'm not worrying for anything, but my concern is irrelevant issues may extend this ANI case unnecessarily longer. Logos5557 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If this case were just a content dispute, I would have taken it to RfC or other dispute resolution processes. This case is more than content dispute; there are some users on skeptic side who distorts the facts and puts wikipedia in a humiliating position, not to mention other minor side effects. If I couldn't convince those users by myself to stop, then some admin tools should intervene for the sake of wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in taking this case here, I'm just pursuing the utmost reputation of wikipedia. Consensus, if there was any in this case, does not mean that the facts can be distorted however the group of users like, otherwise cabals become legal. Logos5557 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? In a discussion about concerns regarding your civility you say that the editors you disagree with are humiliating wikipedia? Then you accuse of us being a cabal? Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a noticeboard, not a battleground. Everyone stop arguing, and let some admins wade through this lot and see if there's any need for admin action, that being the point of this noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure?

    Could someone uninvolved please review and close the above thread? It is degenerating away from productive discussion, and it is my experience that bickering from the usual suspects rarely leads to any conclusion, satisfactory or otherwise. The likely to be productive options, as I see them, are: archive this discussion with a recommendation to seek and adhere to consensus at the talkpage, with recourse to page protection as needed; move this discussion to a request for comment (user or article) or remand it to mediation; or open community ban proceedings based on Simonm223's difference links above. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § Help with editor assuming bad faith

    Note: I've made absolutely certain User:JBsupreme is aware of this AN/I discussion. He removed the notification from his talk page. [33] --Tothwolf (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made two previous AN/I reports and this is still unresolved. Since the first two reports, User:Miami33139 has continued to wikistalk/wikihound and has even attempted to bring others into their own efforts. I seem to have come to the attention of Miami33139 due to tagging articles for the WP:COMP workflow.

    The first AN/I report that I made on September 15th can be found here. The second AN/I report that I made on September 17th can be found here. Miami33139 refused to participate in the second AN/I discussion.

    Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [34] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [35] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

    Furthermore, Miami33139 seems to consider the lack of action over the last two AN/I reports indication that their actions are acceptable. See [36]

    Timeline of interaction

    I do not believe Miami33139 has any intentions of disengaging as they were asked/told repeatedly in the WQA [79] [80] [81] and the above diffs and Miami33139's contribution history should speak for itself.

    In addition, after these edits by User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill on 5 of the AfDs and the TfD Miami33139 initiated, it appears as though there may be some off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry occurring. I do not believe there to be sockpuppetry involved but given Miami33139's attempts to bring these two editors into their own efforts against me, [82] [83] I do not believe these !votes cannot be considered coincidental.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This timeline of edits does appear to be worrying, and I think Miami needs to explain the apparent correlation between the two edit histories quickly. If none is forthcoming, some remedies spring to mind, such as interaction bans. Comment from Miami is, however, what is needed at this point. For transparency, Tothwolf notified me of this thread as well as at least one other administrator - the notification was neutral in tone, and I am unaware of any significant involvement with either editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was almost certainly notified because of my article rescue of UMSDOS (AfD discussion), which tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist. I found it quite easy to find sources in that particular case. Possibly my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer) — a little bit of AFD patrol to try to eke out a good rationale that a closing administrator can hang xyr hat from — is relevant, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G, you rescued the UMSDOS article by changing the topic to FAT Filesystems and Linux. I was perfectly happy to remove my nomination with the expansion from a single topic to an umbrella topic. This does not "tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist" because you changed the subject matter to find sources about. You changed the subject, managing to include the previous info, and I withdrew the nomination. That is good faith from both of us and fairly normal process. This has nothing to do with Tothwolf either, yet you seem to be using it here to hammer me about bad faith in a discussion about Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • False. The subject matter did not change. It expanded, and sources were found by the simple action of sticking the word "UMSDOS" into a search engine. As I said, I found that quite easy. And since I didn't mention doing this, either in the AN/I discussion or the AFD discussion, it was tacit by the very definition of the word. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be happy to go back to my regular editing pattern of working on technology, Linux, and IRC-related articles, and doing occasional deletion tagging for WP:COMP when other editors get bogged down but I'm currently unable to do so as something as simple as a vandalism revert or a minor template change will cause User:Miami33139 to AfD said article. [95] [96]
        Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [97] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [98]
        I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.
        Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [112] [113] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.
        Their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits are as equally worrying and it seems as though my raising concerns over those removals may have been what led Miami33139 to step up the level of their actions against me.
        Given the history I see in Miami33139's contributions, I personally would support a restriction for Miami33139 barring them from using any sort of JavaScript (monobook.js, Greasemonkey, etc) or other forms of automated editing tools as it would appear that they have a long history of misusing them.
        --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally discussed some of these issues with User:Miami33139 following his report to wp:wqa. I was disappointed in that, even as I was advising him his best bet was to disengage, he was taking concrete steps that appeared likely to unnecessarily escalate tensions with User:Tothwolf. Like Fritzpol, I was troubled by the number of instances in which User:Miami33139 tagged articles for deletion only hours after User:Tothwolf had last edited said articles. At some point, the sheer frequency of those occurrences being happenstance begins to stretch the assumption of good faith to its limits. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's up with you and assuming bad faith? I didn't talk to them off-wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    response

    Tothwolf is crying wolf. Note [116], [117], [118], are not about me. Tothwolf has been accusing JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and probably others of bad faith, retaliation, and targeting him in the last several days in deletion discussions. These accusations from him are getting stale.

    It may be tl;dr, but I have thoroughly answered this here: User_talk:Miami33139#Wikistalking. I also requested intervention here, Wikipedia:WQA#User:Tothwolf, over the weekend, because Tothwolf is accusing multiple people of harassing him. Most of this "evidence" is nothing more than saying I have been involved in PROD or AfD discussions for software that is not apparently notable. It has nothing to do with him and I have been doing this for a year! except for the fact that he works or is somehow involved with a company that makes products that have to to with IRC so he feels invested in this area. Any examination of my deletion discussions over the last year, will show you that this last week has been absolutely routine.

    To the extent it is about him, I looked at his contribution history when I first encountered him, in a public deletion discussion opened by someone else. I opened the category of Linux file systems, opened all the articles, and if they didn't have any usable references, I tagged them in various ways. I didn't look at Tothwolf to find them. I can look back to June to find my first interest in deletion/notability of the IRC category. I didn't find this via Tothwolf. Note that the suggestion to look at more IRC articles [119] here, did not come from Tothwolf. When he accused me of stalking him, I did not open his contribution history afterwards, but found the same articles and discussions via JBsupreme, Joe Chill and just opening the AfD page.

    The most interesting things I have looked at have been things in AfD nominated by other people, not Tothwolf, then opening up the category of the article, or the contribution history of the nominator. This is an example, not involving Tothwolf, that AfD discussions happen totally rationally, in good faith, with my ability to recognize a fixed article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS in his absence.

    Since Tothwolf has a COI in this issue, and his "keep everything philosophy" about software is diametric to mine, it is just plain destiny that we will butt heads in this arena. Since he puts the Computing project wiki-banner on articles en-mass, there is no doubt he will have edited articles I start looking at. This is an open and transparent project without article or area ownership. Contributing to Wikipedia is under the assumption that contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that includes deletion. It's part of the Wikipedia charter. There is no personal crusade against him.

    This is too long already. Miami33139 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added point by point discussion of each bullet in Tothwolf's list, about half of which do not actually involve him: User:Miami33139/nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's surprising that what Tothwolf is doing is considered acceptable. After my ANI post ended with him calling me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, and admitting that I didn't break any policies but was only breaking his belief about them was over, it started up again with him calling me a meatpuppet. I don't understand why people think that this is acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it's surprising that people get so pestered by users that they get chased off the project. The only difference between this and the high-profile case is that a phone hasn't rung yet. I'm not commenting on the merits of the case (though I am of the opinion this seems like harassment), but I would wisely advise all parties to use common sense in regards to each other. Toth, Miami, TSC, etc. That means no harassment, no stalking users (TSC), and no accusations of harassment. Disengage. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Further evidence of wikistalking and harassment

    I did some additional WP:COMP workflow tagging (see article talk pages) and it brought additional wikistalking evidence. The workflow bot has not updated yet (it won't update for approximately another 24 hours) so everything below was clearly taken from my contribs. Note the timestamps on the edits.

    Since User:Theserialcomma has been attempting to stir things up with regards to this AN/I report and Miami33139 [127] [128] (as they've done with other things in the past), the sudden !vote by Theserialcomma in the JollysFastVNC AfD was not a coincidence and their contribs [129] are quite telling.

    User:JBsupreme is also becoming increasingly aggressive in his attempts to escalate things since I started this AN/I discussion.

    • Got involved in the Quiet Internet Pager AfD User:Miami33139 initiated (see above) [130]
    • Endorsed the prod of rcirc that User:Miami33139 placed (see above) [131]
    • Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [132]
    • Nominated E2compr for AfD after seeing my de-prodded and addition of a merge template as part of the WP:COMP workflow. [133]
    • Nominated BitchX for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. [134] (The nomination of this one is actually downright silly as it has references and we can easily find plenty more things with which to improve this article.)

    With regards to the two AfD nominations, JBsupreme does not edit at all in this area. The E2compr and BitchX AfD nominations were pulled directly from my contributions and are blatant attempts to escalate things. Note that JBsupreme has an extremely long history of this type of behaviour with other editors and AfDs.

    I also want to point out Miami33139 immediately got involved in the two AfD nominations JBsupreme made. If this isn't meatpuppetry, it is clearly some form of tag teaming behaviour. [135] [136]

    Just before I posted this, User:JBsupreme decided to take things even further.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is clearly just you assuming bad faith on everyone that wants articles that you think is notable deleted. Everyone you notified about this added section seem to be done with this ANI report because of their editing history. I don't need to read the deleted subpage above to know that it's about your bad behavior from the wording of the serialcomma's comment. This ANI report has gone against you. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, I'm still trying to AGF with some of your actions and if I were you, I'd leave this one alone. Theserialcomma's past actions have been well documented by both myself and others and if they really are intent on it, a full AN/I report can be made. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should have been AGF the whole time when all of my comments were civil. That was the only time when I assumed bad faith towards you. If you can do it constantly to me and Uncle G did it twice, why can't I get one comment like that in? With your recent post on Miami's talk page, it seems like you don't suspect him of anything anymore. If that is true, do you think that this should be closed? Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, to answer some of your questions, I think part of the problem is that in many of the recent AfDs your comments have not always been completely civil. I did note that you backed off this situation with regards to the actions Miami33139 was taking (completely opposite of what JBsupreme did) which is the main reason why I'm still willing to AGF. It currently looks to me like you got caught up in some of the things Miami33139 was stirring up without realizing what was happening.
    As for any issues between you and Uncle G, I don't have anything to do with that and I can't really comment on it.
    If you were referring to this message that I left on Miami33139's talk page, [147] I guess I'm still trying to create something good from a bad situation. I thought if Miami33139 were going to suggest article mergers (which I assume they saw me do on e2compr/ext2 (which User:JBsupreme followed behind me and nominated for deletion), the responsible thing for me to do would be to explain how to use the {{mergefrom}} template since they had overlooked it while applying several {{mergeto}} templates to other articles that I had on my watchlist.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What comments weren't civil? I tried to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination) as civil as I could which was hard with you assuming bad faith. When an editor asked me if I had a conflict of interest in the OneFingers AFD and had an edit summary of wikilawyering, that got taken care of with him making one post on my talk page. When an editor that didn't understand AFD !voted keep because it was verified on the Leafpad AFD, I told him about the rules without any uncivil comments. When an editor tried hard to keep OneFinger by his opinion, it was solved by me and other editors explaining the rules to him in a civil way. Saying "I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources" isn't uncivil. On the other hand, you called me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, and attacked me for having a different interpretation of guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009: (UTC)
    I believe you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Own Editor instead of the OneFinger AfD? Where I see an issue is you attempt to browbeat other editors who express their opinion. There are no rules that prevent editors from !voting however they like in AfD. In the end, if a large group of editors forms a consensus that it benefits Wikipedia to keep an article that doesn't quite meet the notability guideline on its own, they may do so. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline can be and sometimes is overruled by consensus and the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy.
    Joe, I'm willing to admit I may have been wrong in referring to you as a possible meatpuppet of Miami33139 so how about we just bury the hatchet regarding our disagreements and work on improving Wikipedia? This is using up both our free time and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be working on fixing up some articles. As I mentioned above, I'm willing to AGF and assume you just got caught up in the mess Miami33139 and JBsupreme have been causing. Given the patterns of edits linked above, you can probably understand why I originally brought that up as a possibility.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to !votes that I disagreed with which is very common in AFD. If I was doing it to save an article, most likely no one would complain (like you for instance). I was not being a bully. If you have problems with me replying to keeps, you have a problem with almost everyone in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and that can be seen as browbeating other editors and actually isn't that common. You don't have to agree with other editors but you should at least respect their opinion as to why something should be kept or whatever and not try to force them to change their !vote by referring to the notability guideline and such. I would appreciate it you would stop implying that I want to "keep" everything that goes through AfD though. You have no idea how many articles I see go through the various workflows that have been prodded, sent to AfD, etc that absolutely should go. I think the difference between you and I are is I tend to be more focused on the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in most AFDs that I participate in, people reply to another !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued on his talk page. While Miami33139 may have attempted to bring both he and JBsupreme into their own efforts, [148] [149] I do not feel Miami33139 was effective in their attempt with Joe Chill, therefore I do not feel Joe Chill was attempting to act maliciously with regards to his above linked edits.

    This still leaves the issues with regards to User:Miami33139 and User:JBsupreme currently unresolved.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruption/harassment 2009-09-30

    User:Miami33139:

    User:JBsupreme:

    --Tothwolf (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from a largely unrelated user (note that I have participated, in agreement with the aforementioned editors, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination)):
    It seems to me that they are not harassing you per se, they are simply pushing for deletion of a large number of articles (that, I assume, you are somehow related to (perhaps you wrote them, edited, etc)). In my opinion, these will resolve themselves-- articles are only deleted if there is consensus to do so; as such, the deletion (or keeping) of any of these articles will be good for Wikipedia. If the articles are indeed notable enough to have an article, then consensus will keep them.
    To extrapolate, if every article on Wikipedia was nominated for deletion, only good could happen: all the non-notable articles would get deleted, and all the notable ones would be kept.
    Only issue that I see (other than un-civility, etc, that I haven't looked into) is that the above editors will influence consensus into deleting rather than keeping; if you believe that the articles would normally be kept, perhaps you should check WP:Article Rescue Squadron, who would provide third-party !votes without any accusation of canvassing. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from Miami33139

    not helpful

    I fully admit that on 2009-9-30 I:

    1. Nominated some articles for deletion
    2. Requested a copy of a deleted user page for a valid purpose
    3. Participated in deletion discussions
    4. Made replies to comments in deletion discussoins

    These are all horrible transgressions.

    It is obvious that Tothwolf has used my contributions list to make a very thorough and undeniable record of my sins as shown by evidence in his diffs above. It is obvious that I am the center of a vast conspiracy against Tothwolf. This weekend this conspiracy consisted only of myself, but my charisma and leadership skills have recruited five more Wikipedia editors to the conspiracy in just the last three days. My ability to Time Travel has even recruited editors in the past to harass Tothwolf by by raising questions on his ability to assume good faith and not proscribe motives on his fellow editors. Tothwolf's understanding of what it means to collaboratively edit in an open and transparent project where contributions will be edited mercilessly are superior to mine, so I must be punished.

    I am a wikicriminal and I need wikiprison. Please put me out of Tothwolf's misery! Miami33139 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Tothwolf, I am still, STILL!, committing horrible acts against Wikipedia policy, and he is commanding me to stop RIGHT NOW. Why has no administrator taken action my clear actions of stalking and harassing Tothwolf? Miami33139 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop trolling. Enigmamsg 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to. Can you close this entire meritless complaint so I don't have to keep putting up with it? Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't have the authority to close an AN/I discussion. This section is decidedly unhelpful, however, and I have edited the title. Enigmamsg 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it again cause "misleading trolling" just seems BITEy to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JBSupreme just nominated Notepad++ for deletion. Considering it's one of the most-widely-used free text editors out there, and part of his rationale was that the name was a ripoff of Notepad, I find it hard to see this as anything but disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe he followed my edit history, I am engaging in AfD discussion since a few days. It also might helps to look at his responses to my AfD edits, I wouldn't describe them as friendly. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits

    This seems to have been largely overshadowed by several of the above sections so I am creating a new subsection for this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the second AN/I report that I made on September 17th I voiced my concern over Miami33139's removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald edits:

    I realized today that the minor edits Miami33139 has been making [173] are removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. I really don't feel it is appropriate for Miami33139 to be systematically removing Ed Fitzgerald's edits, particularly after all the disagreement and heated discussion between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald, some of which seems to have led to Ed's "retirement". Some past "discussion" between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald can be found here.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    LessHeard vanU also expressed their concern at these removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [174]

    At the very beginning of this AN/I discussion I again raised this issue:

    Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [175] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [176] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

    So far the only response has been on Miami33139's talk page [177] and it leaves a lot of things unanswered.

    If there is an actual valid, technical reason that Ed's edits are causing display problems for people then we really need to find out how and why so it can be corrected. If Miami33139 can point out a discussion where this was raised (I have been unable to find one) and there is community consensus to remove Ed's whitespace or layout changes, then we need to submit this to WP:BOTREQ to get it corrected asap (I'll even volunteer to put in the request).

    If there is not a valid reason for these removals and if no discussion has taken place, then the bulk, semi-automated removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits would likely be violating WP:HOUND and as LessHeard vanU pointed out in the last AN/I discussion [178] it could appear to others as being an attempt by Miami33139 to "win" a content dispute by taking advantage of Ed Fitzgerald's absence.

    Furthermore, the only way I know of for Miami33139 to be tracking Ed Fitzgerald's whitespace and layout edits to remove them is to cull Ed's contributions, which in turn re-affirms the original issue I raised at the very beginning of this AN/I discussion regarding Miami33139's tracking of user's contributions and edits.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, even assuming that Miami33139 did track the contributions of a retired user, I'm not really seeing the link here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that Miami33139 simply tracked Ed Fitzgerald's edits after he was gone. While Ed was still here editing, Miami33139 appears to follow behind him and remove his edits. Since Ed left, this month Miami33139 appears to have greatly picked up the pace of removing Ed's edits. I am going strictly by a side by side comparison of both of their contributions from the same time periods. To borrow from an old cliché, it reads like dueling pianos and explains why Ed Fitzgerald finally just up and left. This is very similar to the situation I found myself in with regards to Miami33139, with one major difference– I've not been willing to edit war with Miami33139. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "If there is a valid reason..." which I have said multiple times. The MoS says don't add wiki-elements, whitespace, fake columns, or other tricks in order to force some sort of preferred layout or style. These are issues for global CSS. This is exactly what most of the automated editors remove (advisor.js, AWB, wik.ed). I worked on a tool to find this stuff automated, but removal is by hand. Wikipedia's provided tools remove it automated, but finding it is by hand. That you have brought this up, again, shows you are grasping for things to attack me for.
    You are mischaracterizing the circumstance of and blaming me entirely for Ed leaving, this was not the case. This is now the third time you've raised this at ANI about me. How am I to take you at your word that you want to see how you can collaboratively edit with me when what you want to do is dredge my history for mudslinging? Miami33139 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF is this crap?

    • I stumbled onto this discussion after witnessing a slew of IRC related articles being nominated for deletion in the past day or so. I first found the one for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX; I know very little about IRC clients but did some research and found tons out there about this one, and worked on the article some. Then I see that the same editors, JBSupreme and Miami-whatever are serially nominating them all; that by itself didn't automatically concern me, but then i seriously started to question what they were doing WP:BEFORE nominating, if anything. Then, I saw DGG chime in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, with what I would consider a very strong comment from him:
    "*Keep and look for sources,and then come back here if you don;'t find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others. It is an abuse of process to use AfD to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking. DGG... "
    So I looked at one other of the mass IRC death march AFDs, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kopete, and asked the nom, Miami, "So, if I spent some time digging through the 843 google news references to this software, and the 511 Google book references, the aggregate of these mentions could never equal notability? What did your WP:BEFORE due diligence show?" I got a reply comment from JBSupreme, "Delete. I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product. What did you find, Milowent?" -- Now, very skeptical I looked and found a cornucopia of sources, some of which I included on the AFD discussion page.
    So, in short, i don't know WTF is going on, but its disruptive. --Milowent (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point - what is it you want to say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That this behavior is disruptive and should stop. I think DGG's proposed remedy below would do that.--Milowent (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; I've proposed a formalised wording of that in the section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?

    The other concern I voiced above was Miami33139's use of (semi-)automated editing tools. In addition to the mass-prods and mass-AfDs, while working on the above list of diffs and trying to figure out what was going on regarding their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits, I also noted what seems to be a troubling pattern of bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging:

    Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [179] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [180]

    I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.

    Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [194] [195] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.

    Given all the above, it might be good for the community to know just what sort of (semi-)automated editing tools Miami33139 is using. From Miami33139's comments above [196] and a quick glace at Miami33139's monobook.js, it appears that those tools have been customized are also being used client side (i.e. Greasemonkey) and are not being used from monobook.js. I'm a little concerned that some of the (semi-)automated edits such as the removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits may be running afoul of the Bot policy.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Remedy - Tothwolf

    Folks, the way I see it, this is a continuance of Tothwolf's pattern of behavior. He has shown a history of finding other users who make some sort of change to an article with which he has personal interest, and accusing them of disruption, harassment, and stalking. Therefore, in the absence of seeing any other sort of proposed remedy here, I propose the following:

    Tothwolf is admonished for his failure to assume good faith on the part of other users, and for taking ownership of articles with which he has personal interest. If he continues to demonstrate inability to assume good faith on the part of other users, or if he demonstrates ownership of any article, he may be immediately blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator.

    Thoughts? Yea's? Nay's? (P.S. -- this proposal is not necessarily meant to relieve any of the other involved users of their actions, as I have not thoroughly reviewed them. If someone else feels that a remedy should be imposed against them as well, please write one.) Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for the pointy section above. However, every evening I come to edit and Tothwolf has made a new post accusing all of my actions of the previous day as harassing him. Each day he ads one or two people to his harasser list. Despite the sarcasm, it does remain that participating in AfD is not harassment of any particular user. Outside of ANI, his discussions at AfD continue to attack the motives and good faith of those he has decided are conspiring against him. I have not targeted him, I am putting up with his accusations. I'd like some closure to the issue. Miami33139 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea on the Remedy. The links Tothwolf has put down in this thread (and there are PLENTY of them) are downright creepy in that they border on stalking, since he seems to know where everyone is at every moment on the articles in question. WP:OWN for him is definitely in violation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer part of that, I cataloged most of these articles and have almost all of them on my watchlist to watch for vandalism. I think the mIRC article tended to get the most spam/vandalism but the edit filter has largely stopped the spamming issue there. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced; outright interaction bans may be the way to get rid of the core problem - while the rest of the editing restriction can be imposed separately; also let's not confuse admonishments with restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mikaey, as much as I like you as a person, in this instance I'm going to have to remind you that you and I have had a lot of interaction and discussion and I feel you are way too involved to make such a proposal.
      I've done my best given the fact that User:Miami33139 has without a doubt intentionally stalked my edits and attempted to cause trouble in several areas in which I edit on Wikipedia to remain civil. I may not be perfect, but I think the above evidence (and continued mass AfD nominations and some of the comments made in those AfDs today) by User:Miami33139 are clearly meant to be disruptive. There is no reason what so ever to mass-nominate this many articles without first attempting to improve or source them. I have largely not (yet) participated in these AfDs but many other editors in the AfDs have expressed a good deal of objection to User:Miami33139's behaviour. My work so far has been largely categorizing, sorting, and figuring out how and where to merge or expand many of these neglected stubs. I do not see at all how you could construe something as "taking ownership of articles".
      I'd also like to point out that these two comments made right here on AN/I by User:Miami33139 [197] [198] are also clearly attempts at baiting.
      I'm still open to working with User:Miami33139 on many of these articles if they expressed a desire to do so.
      --Tothwolf (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened your contribs history when we first ran into each other. I open the contribs history of most editors when they say something interesting. You flew off the handle when I participated in multiple public places which I thought were also interesting. That is not stalking! You asked me to stop (well, you accused me of stalking). I did, but continued to deal with articles in Category:IRC. You've claimed every action I took in normal editing since then as stalking you and causing trouble to you. I do not see how you are open to editing with me considering the amount of vitriol you are still sending me. Since J told me to disengage, I have only tried to interact with you on pure fact in public discussion, so I'm hesitant to save this reply, but I feel it necessary to (for the third time on ANI) rebut the claim that I am stalking you. Miami33139 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the thing that really set things off here was your revert of my removal of the invalid CSD (which you and I did discuss and resolve later) on What wp is not [199] and then the AfD of NexIRC [200] after I reverted vandalism. From there it looks like things continued to escalate, up to the point now where we have a ton of articles at AfD.
    I'm still more than willing to discuss things with you, but I do not feel it was appropriate for you to mass-prod and mass-AfD so many articles without attempting to improve them. I'm still happy to work with you on improving many of these if you'd like to have at go at adding references and expanding them. There is an enormous amount of work to do with regards to these articles and the WikiProject could use more editors who want to create better articles.
    Would you be willing to hold off on any further prods or AfDs and continue our discussion on either your talk page or mine? It might make folks happier since that would allow this thread to quiet down.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed remedy (take 2)

    In light of the conduct issues above, particularly those raised in the above section, and to follow up Mikaey's proposal, I propose the following:

    1. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including assumptions of bad faith and ownership of articles where he has a personal interest), he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
    2. Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Tothwolf may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction.

    One or both of these parts of probation may be imposed to, at least in part, get rid of this ANI drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • For what it's worth, User:Joe Chill and I continued our discussion outside of AN/I and resolved our disagreements. See User talk:Joe_Chill#Leafpad.
      I have also continued try to open a dialog with both Miami33139 and JBsupreme. See User talk:Miami33139#Article mergers and User talk:JBsupreme#Hi, I hope you don't mind my asking. I would so much rather be editing than watching over my shoulder after I make an edit for the next revert or AfD, which is what has been happening with regards to Miami and JB (which as I type, I see more AfD nominations in my RSS reader which displays my watchlist).
      --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me you are more concerned not with getting this mess of a thread closed, but with someone creating AfDs. AfDs happen, always have, always will. If the articles you create aren't notable, they will get nom'd for deletion regardless of who does it and they aren't going to stay, it is just a simple as that. By the same token, if the articles are notable, they will remain. Let the AfD process work itself out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, my main concern was what to me seemed like contribs stalking, which included a lot more than just AfDs. In the grand scheme of things, a few AfDs aren't going to matter much one way or the other. I would be lying if I said that the mass-prods and mass-AfDs without first checking for sources or attempting to improve articles does not worry me some. I'd still like to work out whatever differences Miami33139 and I have as it does not benefit Wikipedia for us to seemingly be at odds with each other. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be possible to bring all of us into a discussion so we can settle whatever the underlying disagreement is? It seems like if this isn't first addressed none of this is going to help anyone. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to attempt to settle your disagreements with Miami33139, JB Supreme, or anyone else. But I'm not ready to gamble on whether you are able to reform your overall approach that led to these proposed remedies in the first place. I think these restrictions can address the underlying concerns with your conduct in the most effective way, short of full site bans or blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see this subection below as I honestly do not feel that everything has been addressed here. The original AN/I discussion seems to have been redirected towards only myself and there are a number of concerns that have been previously raised that still need addressing. If I am completely off base, I will apologize and walk away from this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've clarified the header here to mean that this part is the remedy with respect to you - Miami33139 may get a similar section soon, based on whether your concerns are well-founded or not. The remedy sections should remain at the bottom of the discussion though as that inevitable leads to the threads being concluded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I wasn't sure how to order the sections. I still feel that I was trying to do the right thing by bringing these issues to AN/I but I'm always open to constructive criticism. If there is something I should have done differently in handling the situation, I would be more than happy to make future use of any pointers others can offer. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we do probation it should have a time limit--perhaps 6 months--both here and for others. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not fond of the idea that we need to come here to reimpose a restriction after 6 months if the restriction is still being used or invoked at the time. On the other hand, requiring us to review whether the remedies are still necessary after a definite time period (say, even 4 months) would lead to a better outcome I think, particularly if things are running smoothly. Would you object to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    that might be OK also, but usually we do with a block is let it expire and then see what happens, & I think that should apply here also. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Remedy - Miami33139 and JBsupreme

    • Anyone who looks at a bunch of articles on a subject will find some that need deletion. So, while I noticed some of these deletion nominations, they were in an area relatively unfamiliar to me, and I regarded it as perfectly plausible that people might write articles on non-notable computer programs, I didn't concern myself. But I started to see some to programs I did recognize, and I started looking at a few of them, I saw that they were being nominated with the claim of unsourced, and the sources were in fact self-evident. They were right up there usually, in the built in quick search of the Googles. What's more, many of these deletions have been defended by this user even after unambiguous sources have been pointed out. As for motivation, I can not decide if he's trying to harass, or being disruptive, or willfully ignorant of our policies, or just reckless. The proper remedy for this part is a ban of User:Miami33139 from deletion processes for a good while, and a shorter ban for JBSupreme. As for the wikistalking, i'd need to check that to see which side it's coming from, or both. (BTW, if anyone questions my willingness to delete, more than 1/4 of my AfD !votes are to delete, and, when I patrol speedy, as I do every day, I delete -- not just nominate, but actually delete as an admin -- over 10 articles every day. and I currently stand at number 129 among the admins doing the most deletions [201], with 8599 deletions over the two years I've been an admin.; 93% of my admin actions have been deletions. ) I don;t think I need to go into individual AfD nominations here--they've been listed above. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I propose the following wordings of DGG's proposal:

    1. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
    2. Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Miami33139 may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction.

    I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, DGG, you posted quite a rant to me there saying I did not search for sources. I did. There are several dogpile votes from those who have opposed my deletion requests based on your statement. Let's get real: This is a script plugin for an IRC client.
    There is nothing disruptive about asking for sources for software articles that are not from blogs and download directories. I understand people are upset by mass nominations of software articles, but they are an absolute mess. It appears that anyone who writes software gets a free pass to write about it on Wikipedia, because it is available for download and sourced to their developer blog.
    In my own defense, when someone has brought forth relevent, non-trivial sources and fixed an article, I have withdrawn my nomination.
    Please, really, go back and look at Z-Net and tell me you think that is notable and I am disruptive for nominating it.
    As explained on that deletion discussion, attempts at using processes less than AfD (like PROD) are being actively removed by an IP address who removes PROD from every proposed software deletion. That is why the nominations are en-masse at AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I did on account of your nomination, which did not assert that you had checked, but just argued on the general principle that such scripts would intrinsically not be notable, and in context of your other nominations, for many of which sources were found. --I will re-check this particular one. I'll always reconsider a !vote if asked. I agree that such software can not be presumed to be notable without some evidence. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just now did check, and changed to a weak delete--see explanation of the AfD page--this is a rather difficult search & many apparent hits are for other things. I still hold to my statement as applying to your nominations in general., many of which did have genuine references to be found. If you had done a search, it would have helped if you had said so , for it did appear in view of the other noms that you were judging entirely by what was already in the article, which I continue to maintain is reckless and against the deletion guidelines. There is a difference between nominating for deletion, and asking for sources. I do have to apologize for any confusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but will move to oppose if diffs can be provided that prove goodwill (strong support if more diffs turn up that prove ill will). Xavexgoem (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a token showing of good faith. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS upon someone taking the time to add required references and expand the article beyond what was proposed for deletion, I withdrew the nom. I follow the discussions on my proposals and discuss, and change my opinion as necessary. The problem really is that, the processes BEFORE nominating for deletion are being derailed. The nomination for deletion is usually based on being not notable. Requests to SHOW NOTABILITY are being removed, [202]. Since requesting notability via tags doesn't work, proposing deletion via PROD, should get someone to work on the underlying issues. Instead, the PROD notice is removed, without addressing the issues, [203]. All of them. Every single PROD is removed, without ever addressing the issue. This has resulted in mass nominations to AfD, which has obviously frustrated DGG - but this is not bad faith at all. It is a clear escalated process as a result of a group of editors who put their fingers in their ears and actively remove improvement notices and do not want to address basic policy issues. Miami33139 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the notice is just the first step, and there's no point in doing a prod when one knows it is going to be removed without improvement. The best thing to do in such a case is to look for oneself. If that fails, or the needed refs would be something that special knowledge would be required to find, then a good next step is to ask for help at the workgroup. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a deletionist and enforcing the deletion policy isn't being disruptive, although nominating very large amounts of articles for deletion in a short space of time may be. This shouldn't be done because not every editor has the time to discuss 20 AFDs in 1 week. Both editors appear to be responding to keep arguments in their AFDs which shows they aren't just on a nomination spree. Miami33139 has shown above if their nomination is shown to be wrong, they will quickly admit it and withdraw the nomination. The above proposal is completely over the top. All that needs doing here is Miami33139 and JBsupreme need to be told to slow down on the large amount of nominations and suggest and try to restrict themselves to x amount of new nominations a week to give other editors time take part in all of them. Yes, there may be 100+ non-notable IRC client articles, but you can't nominate them all at the same time.--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If only it were the case that these two were putting deletion policy into practice. The problem is that they aren't. I don't support topic bans or blocks here, for the simple reason that, as you can see from several of the AFD discussions, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer), I'm treating this as a simple matter of Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. The desirable outcome, for me at least, is not that these two don't contribute and be barred from AFD, nor even that they stop nominating IRC-related/software-related articles for deletion; but that they contribute and give AFD rationales properly and help to make AFD get to results that we can be confident in being the right ones, by actually putting deletion policy into practice, by themselves making those efforts to find sources that deletion policy talks about, and that have been policy and standard operating procedure for Wikipedia editors since day one. I'd like them both to be the sort of editor who when they say that they've found no sources, we know that they've actually looked, and looked hard, because we've seen them find sources when they do exist, and we haven't seen things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UMSDOS.

      Frankly, I think that threatening topic bans is the wrong way to go about this, and probably hasn't served to make the situation any better. I've been using persuasion and argument, not threats of administrator action. Until the topic ban was threatened, persuasion and argument seemed to be having a small positive effect. I believe that both DustFormsWords and Miami33139 (I haven't AFD patrolled any JBsupreme discussions.) can be persuaded to start doing things the right way, and to put deletion policy into action. I'm concerned that the threats now made will have undone any progress on that score made so far. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakdown of AFD intersections

    This is a breakdown of the various recent AFD discussions as of 2009-10-03 8:00 UTC
    Article and AFD discussion Miami33139 JBsupreme Theserialcomma Tothwolf Other Notes
    AFD Tagging Workflow
    IRC-related
    Bersirc (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [205] Yes [206] (CSD A7) [207] (prod) [208] No No Yes [209] 2
    Bip IRC Proxy (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [210] Yes [211] No No 7
    BitchX (AfD discussion) Yes Yes (Nom) [212] Yes Yes Yes [213] 8
    Bottler (IRC client) (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [214] (prod) [215] Yes [216] No No 2
    Coolsmile (AfD discussion) Yes Yes (Nom) [217] No No Yes [218] 5
    ERC (IRC client) (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [219] Yes [220] (CSD A7) [221] No No 7
    Jini (IRC client) (AfD discussion) Yes [222] Yes (Nom) [223] No No Yes [224] 3
    Konversation (AfD discussion) Yes [225] Yes (Nom) [226] (CSD A7) [227] (prod) [228] No Yes Yes [229] 3
    KoolChat Yes (prod) [230] (redir) [231] —
    Kopete (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [232] Yes [233] (CSD A7) [234] (prod) [235] No No Yes [236] 3
    List of ircII scripts (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [237] (prod) [238] Yes [239] No Yes 3
    Naim (chat program) (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [240] Yes [241] (CSD A7) [242] (prod) [243] No No 2
    Neebly (AfD discussion) Yes [244] Yes (Nom) [245] No No Yes [246] 0
    Nettalk (IRC client) (AfD discussion) Yes [247] Yes (Nom) [248] No No Yes [249] 2
    Pisg Yes (redir) [250] [251] —
    NetZ Script Pro Yes (prod) [252] —
    [[NexIRC]] (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [253] No No Yes [254] 3
    Pork client (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [255] (prod) [256] Yes [257] No Yes 9
    PIRCH (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [258] Yes [259] (tag) [260] No Yes Yes [261] 12
    Psotnic (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [262] Yes [263] No No [264] 4
    PsyBNC (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [265] Yes [266] Yes Yes 7
    Psyced (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [267] Yes [268] No No 7
    Quiet Internet Pager (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [269] (prod) [270] Yes No No Yes [271] 8
    Rcirc (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [272] (prod) [273] (prod2) [274] No No 2
    Sleep (programming language) Yes (prod) [275] —
    Snak (AfD discussion) Yes [276] Yes (Nom) [277] No No Yes [278] 2
    Versus programming language Yes (prod) [279] —
    Vortec IRC (AfD discussion) Yes Yes (Nom) [280] (CSD A7) [281] (prod) [282] No No Yes [283] 4
    WeeChat (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [284] Yes [285] (CSD G4) [286] No Yes Yes [287] 6
    Z-Net (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [288] (prod) [289] Yes [290] No Yes 6
    ZNC (IRC bouncer) (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [291] Yes [292] No Yes 9
    Computer software
    Davfs2 (AfD discussion) Yes [293] No No Yes [294] 8
    E2compr (AfD discussion) Yes Yes (Nom) [295] No Yes Yes [296] 2 Source citations in the article
    Elecard MPEG Player (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No No Yes [297] 3
    Fortitude HTTP (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No No Yes [298] 5
    Joe's Own Editor (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No Yes 14
    JollysFastVNC (AfD discussion) Yes [299] Yes [300] Yes [301] No Yes [302] 6
    LabPlot (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No No 8
    Leafpad (AfD discussion) Yes [303] Yes Yes Yes Yes [304] 12 Sourced article on 2009-09-26
    Monit (AfD discussion) Yes [305] Yes [306] No No Yes [307] 4
    MyPaint (AfD discussion) Yes [308] Yes [309] No No Yes [310] 4
    Nemu64 (AfD discussion) No Yes [311] No No Yes [312] 3
    OneFinger (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No Yes Yes [313] 8
    Parchive (AfD discussion) Yes [314] Yes (Nom) [315] No Yes 5
    ProSystem (Emulator) (AfD discussion) Yes [316] No No Yes [317] 4
    QuickPar (AfD discussion) Yes [318] Yes (Nom) [319] No Yes 4
    SmartPAR (AfD discussion) Yes [320] Yes (Nom) [321] No Yes 7
    Spider Player (AfD discussion) Yes (Nom) [322] Yes [323] No No 2
    TundraDraw (AfD discussion) Yes Yes No No 3
    Computer software companies
    Celemony (AfD discussion) Yes Yes (Nom) [324] No No 2
    TFD, RFD, DRV, Other
    ccorp-irc LSR Yes (prod) [325] Yes [326] —
    rxIRC LSR (TFD discussion) Yes (Nom) [327] [328] (CSD G8) [329] Yes [330] No Yes [331] [332] 2
    LeetIRC (RFD discussion) Yes [333] Yes (Nom) [334] [335] [336] No Yes Yes [337] 2
    What wp is not (RFD discussion) Yes (Nom) [338] (revert) [339] No No Yes [340] 5
    Parchive (DRV discussion) Yes [341] Yes (Nom) [342] [343] [344] No Yes 7

    Move to Close

    I move to close this mess of a thread, as it really isn't going anywhere. All editors need to stay clear of each other and not piss each other off. If there are future problems that can require immediate admin action (and not a week long thread), bring it back to ANI. Yeas? Nays? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to have to go with Nay although perhaps we could hat some of the above sections since some of that material is (or will be soon) redundant to the table? I'm still working on a copy of the table Uncle G created and will be merging more material into it soon. What I've already added to the table shows a pretty darn clear pattern of disruption for the better part of two to three weeks (and I'm not saying this lightly). --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also concerned since #Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits and #(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging? have not been addressed. Both of these are quite troubling. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm up for closing, all I've seen is lots of deletionism and two editors working together which isn't strictly violating anything. Lots of minor guideline violations don't equal a big one. Concerned editors are welcome to start new threads, but this thread has got far too big and is a complaint against many users making it a big confusing mess. Any new threads in the future should concentrate on individual users to avoid this.--Otterathome (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've seen this has nothing at all to do with deletionism. Neither #Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits nor #(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging? can be considered deletionism in the slightest. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's at least three separate users you are unhappy with. If the other users you are unhappy with (Miami or JB) don't appear to have strictly violated anything badly, then you need to close that discussion or at least put it under a new heading.--Otterathome (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to putting some of the older stuff under a collapsed section template since we've merged most of it into the table above now. Would that work? --Tothwolf (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support to close it: closing this thread will be in the interest of every one involved. however, i would love some one to add "Unresolved template" or "stale", and end it there. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CobraBot

    Resolved
     – No administrator action is required here, so please direct further comments to the VPP thread to keep everything in one place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: please try to keep discussion about whether this task is appropriate or not in one place - the VPP thread. Let's keep this area for discussing whether a block is appropriate or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This bot has been adding inappropriate links to Template:Infobox book in articles about books, specifically adding OCLC links to articles that already have ISBNs. These links are redundant, as the OCLC links to Worldcat, which is already one of the options given by the ISBN link via book sources, which gives the reader a choice of where to locate a book. The documentation for Template:Infobox book says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", whereas this bot is specifically designed to add an OCLC when there is an ISBN. The approval process for this bot didn't have any discussion about whether it conforms to policy and guidelines. For a full discussion please refer to yesterday's conversation between User:Gavin.collins and the bot operator here (which the bot operator deleted without the issue being resolved) and the further conversation between the bot operator and myself today. User:CobraBot has refused to stop the bot's operations on the basis of these requests, so I would request that the bot be blocked pending a proper discussion of whether its actions are desirable, as did not take place before it was approved. I'm not sure about where this further discussion should take place, as the bot approval pages seem to have very low traffic, so would like some advice from readers of this page as to where this should happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I this this is a serious issue because of the huge scale of the linkspamming. I have raised this issue both with Cybercobra and I am disappointed that he has not responded to my concerns. I have also raised this issue at Village Pump, as I am doubtful about the benefit (if any) from using Worldcat as a cataloguing tool. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of completeness: my most recent response to Gavin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that as of slightly before the start of this thread the bot was stopped for unrelated reasons. Upon notification of this thread, the bot was marked inactive (see [345], [346]) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended "pending an WP:ANI thread"[347]. If that was changed to "pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it" I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bot Owners Noticeboard which is usually monitored by a large constuim of bot owners as well as members of the Bot Approval Group might be a better starting location for this discussion since the bot would of had to been of approved for this task before it was ran. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to repeat more widely something I already mentioned to Phil, the Bot Policy suggests Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval as a possible venue for discussion regarding the bot task. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BAG can be of help, because I don't think WP:BAG operate provide any form of governance over bot activities; there is an oversight issue that now needs to be resolved here, as the bot's behaviour is controlled by an individual editor, Cybercobra. He may have obtained clearance to create all these direct links to to Worldcat from BAG, but it appears that the issue of linkspamming was not either not considered or understood by BAG in this case. Cyberbot may have created hundreds of links in good faith, but the current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation to use a specific external source to expand an article are inappropriate. There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam, but I think the mistake lies in linking directly to the Woldcat site, even if it is well intentioned.
    I propose that not only should linking to the Worldcat website cease, but that it should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date. I am not saying that the Worldcat number should not be used or added to articles (if that is of any benefit?); rather I am proposing that the hundreds of direct links to their site be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'll quote a relevant earlier comment I made: Alternative ways of "fixing" the problem {of supposed/possible linkspam} would be to: (a) disable the OCLC field {of the book infobox} from generating a link [possibly with an exception if no ISBN is provided] (b) disable the OCLC field from displaying at all if an ISBN is provided [thus making it silent metadata].
    WRT the |oclc= parameter, I think any consensus on the proper usage of it is/was either nonexistent or quite poorly documented to say the least when I filed the BRFA. Therein (that is, on the proper usage of said parameter) is certainly a policy discussion worth having. As is the issue of if / under what circumstances the infobox should hyperlink the oclc parameter. And such discussions would certainly have bearing on the bot itself as its current task consists of interacting with instances of the infobox, and specifically said parameter thereof.
    Therefore, may I put forth a proposal to end the wikidrama:
    1. Whereas, Cybercobra shall request the BAG withdraw/revoke authorization for CobraBot's current bot task.
    2. Whereas, all 3 parties shall jointly start and foster a general (by which it is meant, involving more than just the 3 parties) discussion or pair/series of related discussions on the topics of:
      1. guidelines regarding when the oclc parameter should or should not be filled in
      2. whether or under what circumstances the book infobox should cause the oclc parameter to generate a hyperlink.
    3. Whereas, the details of where to hold and advertise said discussions shall be worked out betwixt the 3 parties in an amicable and not unnecessarily delayed discussion, on a different forum than this (ANI), to be held immediately following the entrance into force of this gentlemen's agreement.
    4. Whereas, to avoid any further disputes, said discussions (excepting the one in #3) shall be not be closed by any of the 3 parties themselves.
    5. Whereas, any similar (here meaning that its direct or indirect result is to add external links) future bot task undertaken by Cybercobra and CobraBot shall require a fresh BRFA, of which the other 2 parties shall be specifically notified, and any such task shall comply with the consensus(es) reached at the discussion(s) outlined in the following clauses, and no BFRA shall be filed for such a task until said discussions have concluded.
    6. Whereas CobraBot's contribs are left intact, under the logic that modifying the book infobox template itself through said discussion(s) is a much easier, less labor and server-intensive way to centrally de-link OCLC#s if such is decided;
    7. Whereas, this ANI thread is deemed closed and the 3 parties go back to productive editing, modulo participation in aforementioned discussion(s).
    This proposal is merely a draft and is negotiable. Feedback/questions/reactions? I can elucidate the technological bits of point #6 in particular if there are any concerns. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about my proposal? It seems to me the only way to get rid of the linkspam you have created. No one asked you to create linkspam in the first place, so if seems to by you who should be responsible for making amends. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cybercobra bot does not add links to the WorldCat site. It simply populates |oclc= in the {{Infobox Book}}. Any linking is performed automatically by {{Infobox Book}}. Therefore, all links could be removed simply by changing {{Infobox Book}}. Also, the appropriate place for any complaints about the links is on the Template's Talk page. That is also the appropriate place for a discussion on how and when the |oclc= parameter should be used. HairyWombat (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said before, it is not the template's fault, nor the bot's fault that all of these links have been created. Cybercobra gas created these links and is responsible - the buck stops with him. If one or more of his proposals can achieve what I have requested, then all well and good. But if they can't, then my proposal still stands. In either case, we still need Cybercobra to effect a remedy. As editors, we are responible for own actions, and blaming other editors templates does not absolve us from this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    HairyWombat completely encapsulated my position and what I've been saying all along; your complaint is more overarching that just the bot; this is plainly obvious looking at your proposal, which has much farther implications than just CobraBot: "I propose that [...] linking to the Worldcat website cease [and that such linking] should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date" (emphasis mine). Your complaint is that the infobox even has an OCLC# field in the first place and/or that it hyperlinks that field; logically, one would reason that you would still have complained somewhere regardless of how the fields came to be populated. Well, I'm not Czar of infobox book and I was not the one who way-back-when added that field to the template in the first place, nor was I the one who changed the infobox to generate hyperlinks when the OCLC field is populated. It's just that my bot, in good faith, with BRFA-approval, mass-adding data to the infoboxes, brought the fact that the infobox has and links the OCLC parameter to your attention. Your concerns about the infobox are valid ones, but not directly relevant to the bot, whose "linkspam", can, as HairyWombat explained, be entirely and centrally undone with just one edit to the infobox. Or if the field is not removed, but instead new guidance about its use is added, my bot would be obligated to comply with said guidance. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I really don't see the issue here. The bot is adding valid information to the infoboxes. Nothing wrong there. The issue seems to be with the infobox itself, and as has been noted multiple times, every single external link is eliminated via a single edit to the template. This is a simple content dispute, and should be discussed at the talk page for the template, or at the current village pump discussion. If consensus is to remove the OCLC field, then remove it, problem solved. Resolute 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear the argument about the infobox, but this is not relevant to discussion here - I am soley interested in the problem of linkspam created by Cybercobra. An analogy to this situation would be Flyposting, whereby the flyposter uses existing billboards as a platform unauthorised advertising posters. This is not dispute about the billboard per se (in this case the info template), as there is probably nothing wrong with it. The issue under discussion is whether or not the links created by his bot constitute linkspam (Cybercobra is silent on this issue), and whether or not any should be responsible for cleaning it up. You know my view on this, so what say you, Cybercobra: are the links to Worldcat linkspam or not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have a problem with the template, as it is perfectly valid to have an OCLC link when there is no ISBN available. My problem is with this bot adding an OCLC when there is an ISBN, which is redundant - the ISBN link already allows the reader to choose to go to its Worldcat entry as well as to many other sites, so there is no need to add an extra link to Worldcat. Just because a parameter exists in a template and is valid in some cases it doesn't mean that it is valid in all cases, and this bot adds it in precisely those cases where it is invalid. The documentation for {{Infobox book}} says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to ThaddeusB, I disagree that no administrator action is required to stop linkspam in this case. I think it is your & Cyberbobra's duty to bring a halt to linkspam as soon as it has been brought to your attention, and I feel in this instance you have fallen short of your responsibility to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any support for a block, which is the only admin action even remotely in play. You strongly disagree with the use of the parameter, which is fine. However, the correct action is to either get consensus to change the way the parameter works, or to get consensus that a bot shouldn't add the parameter. Those are both editorial decisions, not administrator ones, and the discussion about the issue is already taking place elsewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no expert in template coding, but you could probably, very easily I imagine, set a parameter that hides the OCLC field if the ISBN parameter is used. This is hardly linkspam, no matter how many times you attempt to pass it off as such. Resolute 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is not resolved. This bot's edits are subverting the WP:BRD processes, by making bold edits that no human editor can be expected to keep up with and revert. The bot has continued to do this despite this assurance, and despite no consensus having been reached about whether it is appropriate to have two separate links to Worldcat in articles about books. Also, as the originator of this thread, I reiterate that my problem (as opposed to is Gavin Collins's, who does not speak for me) is not with the existence of the OCLC parameter in {{infobox book}}, or the fact that it creates a link to Worldcat, which is perfectly valid when there is no ISBN, but with the addition by this bot of a redundant link to Worldcat when the ISBN link already links to Worldcat. The bot owner has refused to stop its operation pending consensus on this issue so the account needs to be blocked until consensus is reached. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The ANI issue (or rather lack there of) IS resolved as there is no administrator action necessary. Are you seriously suggesting that an admin block the bot? (Edit: I see now the answer to this is yes) If not, then it is far more productive to have the discussion in only one place (and from what I see on VPP there isn't even any consensus it is a bad idea, not alone consensus to "stop it now"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did stop operation...Until 2 different admins here saw no problem and one closed the thread. As has been said, the edits can be "reverted" by humans by modifying the infobox in a relatively simple way; The infobox's guidance on the use of the OCLC parameter could also be changed. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what relatively simple way? I have no knowledge of template syntax, and do not wish to remove the capability to include an OCLC link where no ISBN link is present. There's nothing at all simple about what I would have to do to revert these edits, but it would be extremely simple for User:Cybercobra (by stopping the bot) or an administrator (by blocking the bot account) to prevent any more of these edits from happening until a consensus is reached. An administrator deciding to close this thread doesn't mean that there is consensus that your bot should continue to add redundant links, and the fact that you have started doing so again means that you need to be blocked, as you are clearly incapable of seeing that there is no consensus in favour of these edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely why the discussion should be only in one place... As I already stated on the VPP thread, the functionality of the template can easily be changed if there is consensus for that. I even volunteered to do it myself.
    Again, the bot is doing nothing wrong based on current policy and was approved to do exactly what it is doing. There is nothing blockable here, and crossing out "resolved" won't change that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I'm not familiar with the fancier bits of template syntax, but something roughly like {{#if | {{isbn}} | {{oclc}} | [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{oclc}} {{oclc}}]}}. Speaking as a programmer, someone familiar with templates could bang a simple version of it out in 3 minutes; 7 minutes to handle the corner cases (e.g. "N/A" or "None" or "No" as the ISBN). And again, the bot adds data, not links directly, and I hardly think adding data is controversial. I'm telling you guys, it would be much more fruitful and productive to start a discussion about changing the infobox book template, either on its talk or at the Pump. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberbot may be working with the template, but by adding an OCLC number, it is sill creating links to the Worldcat site which is linkspam, pure and simple, because a link has been created which "explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article". First things first: Acknowledge we have a linkspam problem, and stop the bot in the first instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gavin, please stop characterizing this as linkspam. The bot, as has been explained you to many times, is not adding links, just data. The template takes that data and makes links -- therefore, the template's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss whether it should be linking the OCLC number. Not here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I characterise the link to Worldcat as linkspam, as it meets the defintion precisely - no one has said why it is not so. I also understand the distinction you are trying to make between the configuration of the template and adding of data, but the result is still linkspam. If I load bullets into a gun and pull the trigger, should I be blaimless for death or injury on account of the fact that I did not manufacture the gun, or configure it to fire the bullets? Sure, the template plays a part, but in this instance it is Cybercobra that is the prime mover. The bot has to stop until the admins clean up the template (as it is write-protected). If the template can't be reconfigured, then Cyberbots edits need to be rolled back. In the extremely unlikely event that Cybercobra is unwilling to comply, then a block needs to be effected. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how an OCLC page, which contains little more than basic bibliographic data, some external links to find the book at a library or buy it, and some transcluded user-submitted reviews, could reasonably be used to expand an article in any nontrivial way; the links generated by the infobox are not "source solicitations" as defined in WP:LINKSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the template can't be reconfigured" -- You haven't made any good-faith attempt whatsoever to even try and ask an admin to reconfigure it! You have not made a single posting to the template's talkpage. Why you think mass-reverting 11K edits (which added data of debateable but non-zero value) would be easier than 1 template edit is completely beyond me. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gavin, one more call for Cybercobra or the bot to be blocked for linkspam when they're doing no such thing, and you'll be the one blocked for disruption. Got it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he is, abeit with good intensions, but if he was doing so deliberately then it would be a different case. If a direct weblink to a book cataloguing service is not a form of "source solicitation", then I don't know what is. If linkspam is not a problem for you, then all well and good. But when it gets up to 3 or 4 links to different cataloguing services for every article about a book being added by bots, you will see the light. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except we're not near that point yet and no one is suggesting anything like that be done. From reading the VPP thread, the closest thing was a stale discussion on the template talk about adding an LCCN field to the infobox. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for continuing attacks on other editors for distinguishing between adding links and filling in template parameters. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are responsible for the results of their edits, whether they enter the text directly or do it via templates. How is it a blockable offence to point out that fact? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, would it be appropriate to close this thread with {{discussion top}} and its sibling, and a pointer to the Pump thread? I've understood the (not illegitimate) concerns raised since the start of the dispute, listed (repeatedly) several ways the aggrieved users could properly (not to mention more efficiently and with less drama) deal with this (e.g. BRFA appeal, editing the infobox template or its usage instructions) and put forth a quite reasonable good-faith proposal for compromise (see somewhere way above). Not to mention 3 different admins finding no ANI-relevant aspect to the dispute. This is quite tiresome and edging towards harassment. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All I have asked for since starting this thread was that the bot should stop running until a consensus has been reached as to whether it is appropriate to automatically add an OCLC link to an article about a book where there is already an ISBN, and nobody has yet shown where such a consensus has been reached, meaning that the bot is running in violation of bot policy, which says "in order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... performs only tasks for which there is consensus". Is it too much to ask that admins should respond to issues raised here by implementing policy rather than by blocking users who raise legitimate concerns? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (No opinion regarding the blocking of Gavin) My bot went thru BRFA, so it's presumed to have sufficient consensus. You are of course free to appeal the BRFA though, as I explained in my previous conversations with you (that link again is Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval; or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard is another option listed by the bot policy page). But the point is, such decisions/processes are within the domain/scope of the BAG, not the admins (as far as I know). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he's trying to divert attention from himself by claiming I blocked him for commenting on my admin review. Lovely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In answer to Cybercobra, I think the review of Cyberbot by WP:BAG must have been cursory, but in anycase, I think the concerns raised by Bridger and myself must surely have alerted you to the fact that there are potential problems. As a matter of courtesy, I would have thought it sensible to stop Cyberbot. In a way, I can understand why would not want to stop Cyberbot (loss of face, perhaps), but I think bot owners have a duty of care to respond quickly, and to put personal views aside (at least temporarily). I think if you had resonded to Bridger in the first place (or even myself even earlier) then there would have been no need for this tread at all. Cyberbot is not a big machine that can't be turned off; we really need time to work through these issues, rather than ignoring our requests to stop and address our concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing new for Gavin.collins. Back in July, he called for the ban of another bot user. [348]
    Cubelurker [349], Tanthalas39 [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356], Conti [357], Pedro [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363], Syrthis [364] , Jennvecia [365] [366] [367] [368], Black Kite [369], Pointillist [370], Dr Blofeld [371] [372] [373], Floquenbeam [374], Calliopejen1 [375], Skinny87 [376] all disagreed with Gavin.
    Faced with 12 people disagreeing him, 6 of them admins, and no one agreeing with him, Gavin refused to even consider the possibility he might be wrong in any way. [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387] [388]

    Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look for possible ownership issues

    Could someone please take a look at Smiley face murders and it's talkpage for possible WP:OWNership issues. Several editors have tried for months to make some sort of edit to improve the article but have been shouted down repeatedly. The most recent talkpage contributions are really glaring with potential ownership issues making statements like "you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others" while being the only contributing editor resisting a change. They have impugned living people by casting aspersions on their motivations with no proof whatsoever and no indication that the impugned were even involved with editing the article. They have refused compromise after compromise all the while suggesting we were repeating ourselves over and over again. They have tried to push back and accuse me of Ownership as well but I simply want any edit to be made that contributes to the article, I've offered compromises that didn't include the "subject of objection" only to have the argument move to suggesting that the Larry King show was not a reliable source (again, despite any actual proof of this). Could someone please provide some enforceable direction on this article, one way or the other? Thank you. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say that I wouldn't call the Larry King show a reliable source myself, except in a primary sense (Joe Blow appeared on the Larry King show and said "Foo" - in which case I'd want to be able to reference a transcript or video clip). Just a small point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In point of fact that is exactly the manner in which it was presented. Transcript citation and all. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I take it back. It's a perfectly reasonable source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether a source is reasonable or not does not in itself mean that including it passes other concerns... and the ones here are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Even if you let a infotainment talk show slide and call it reliable, it in no way means that we should include anything anyone says on it if it means that the end result is giving more weight to the fringe/extreme minority view on a topic. This is an attempt to use a Wikipedia article to not just describe a theory and give the experts views on it, but to go through and dig up every minor person who supported it in an attempt to fill the article with these individuals and slant readers' perceptions. Whether the editors in question know they are doing that or are just to stubborn to realize it is another question, but some of the comments on the talk page show that editors want to ignore WP:NPOV entirely. They argue that, hey, if Gallileo was right even though the people at the time didn't think so (a bad argument to start with), we should therefore go ahead and present the minority side as a major side just in case they were right. On top of that, this particular article has been hit by people promoting their own personal websites witht heir own fringe theories and have used sockpuppets. It's a hot bed a raving woowoo lunacy, which is why following NPOV to the letter is so important. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr....it's a fringe theory, and the article is about the fringe theory. The article needs to explain the fringe theory, even if it also states that the regular policedudes all think its a crap theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, yeah, and nobody says anything different. The theory is already explained in the article. What the supporters of the theory want to do is add a list of largely insignificant people who support it (not expanding the info about who doesn't support it and why) and outright make claims that certain pieces of so-called evidence support the theory to try to make it sound like it isn't fringe and thus skew the readers' perceptions of the topic. That's a clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT violation. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, the problem editor here appears to be DreamGuy. Seeing as he's there on the talk page lecturing BWilkins on his failure to understand policy (which must be a bit like lecturing the Pope on the workings of the Holy See), I'm not sure this requires action by the admins. If the rest of you have agreed, make the changes. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree. (This comment posted by Elen about an hour ago Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Oh, for crying out loud... No, to clarify, a number of of editors have agreed that the changes cannot be made because they violate our rules on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. But the people who want to push the POV simply ignore those editors and just start up new sections on the talk page pretending that earlier discussions never happened and then, when I am the only person who bothers to respond (the others thinking it shouldn't be necessary to repeat themselves), these guys try to act as if it's only a single editor opposing the idea. That's so misleading as to almost have to be intentionally deceptive, and you seem to have fallen for it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger problem is that he has made it abundantly clear that any change he does not agree with will be reverted as violating WP:UNDUE. We have made the change... we have made the compromise change... He reverts them no questions asked. We have posted possible changes on the talkpage and had no input from him for a day, then we put the change in the article and he reverts it within hours. I suppose the three of us could gang up on him and get him blocked for 3RR but that's not nice, so I brought it here. Padillah (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To the contrary, you have made it clear that you are going to ignore all the editors who disagree with you and very deceptively pretend it's only one person. All this despite there having been a number of editors who disagreed with you and have explained why Wikipedia's policies don't support what you insist has to be done. You have never tried for any compromise other than saying you are compromise and suggesting as a compromise the very thing you wanted to do from the beginning. Frankly, your actions here suggest that you are intentionally trying to mislead admins about what's been going on in order to try to get one to take action against me based upon your false claims. This kind of behavior is an extremely disruptive attempt to game the system, and it seems to me it should be a blockable offense if you are caught doing it again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, you are making clear that you are going to ignore the majority of editors that don't agree with you. Why do you get to ignore me, AngryApathy, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins but insist I'm being unreasonable when I disagree with you, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus? You disagreeing with 5 people is more stable than my disagreeing with 4? Why? As for misleading anyone I'm not the one that pointed anyone out. I mentioned the page and suggested that someone was displaying ownership problems. Somehow they thought of you all by themselves. I have led no one so by extension have misled no one. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not established by merely getting one more person to vote for something than oppose something, and especially not when at least one of your supporters is someone you personally asked to come support you and who has expressed no knowledge about the topic or the policies in question. Controversial changes require a clear consensus, and you don't have that, not by a long shot.
    And when you post something I said and say that that person has ownership problems, it's a bit cheeky to then try to claim I must really have ownership problems if another editor was able to identify me. You quite dramatically misrepresented my actions and my stated desires (as explained more below), so have clearly misled people. This is disruptive. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First off I don't even understand your first sentence. I never said it was ownership because someone else identified you. I said I never led anyone to any forgone conclusions. The fact that people can identify you, all by themselves, as the "editor with ownership issues" should speak volumes. The fact is, you have left me and several others with the impression that you will revert anything we add to the article. That's not a misrepresentation, that is how I feel. Padillah (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The fundamental problem here is that certain editors have learned that when they have a POV they want advanced but can't get consensus to support them that they can just run off to ANI and present an extremely misleading summary of events to try to deceive people and then a handful of people chime in based solely upon this misleading information.

    I should also note that the editor in question never notified me of this ANI thread and posted it here under a nondescriptive section title and so was able to come here and give his extremely misleading claims unopposed until someone else alerted me to it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The only POV that the article needs to better represent the theory or simply be deleted as too fringe. Just because two cops have a theory doesn't mean we need a WP article about it. Notability aside, mentioning it at all is UNDUE weight if there are only two adherents. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, am I singling you out specifically or am I being nondescriptive? I can't do both. You say I'm posting here singling you out but then claim I am being sneaky and nondescriptive. Could it be that I am being non-descriptive in an effort not to single you out? Besides, not only did I post a notice to this on the talkpage so did BasketofPuppies so there was notification. What claims have I made? You insist I have made misleading claims, what are they specifically? What did I claim and how is it misleading? Padillah (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole edit was extremely misleading. I did not say I'd revert anything I disagreed with and calim it was undue weight, I said I'd revert any controversial change made without concensus and the one in question you were trying to make was a violation of UNDUE. And so forht and so on. Your whole strategy there was to try to paint a deceptive view of my edits and to pretend that I was the only one who opposed your changes, and so forth. It's nice to see you finally admit above that a whole group of editors disagreed with you. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then it's a good thing I didn't assert you said that. Don't you even read your own diffs? It says you've "...made it abundantly clear..." you can do that by... for example... arguing for two months without once answering a request for some sort of compromise situation or even recognizing the other sides argument... for example. I never held no one disagreed with me, if you look I have enumerated (along with AngryApathy) several times the number of people that agree and disgree with each side. You seem to keep missing that the results have been in favor of inclusion, by one. Not a huge consensus, but there it is. Padillah (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are serious ownership issues in the article. DreamGuy has excluded sources, such as an Associate Professor in a relevant field, presented on CNN, as "undue weight" in supporting a kooky fringe theory. In any other article, that would have been accepted as a reliable source. An article about a fringe theory should not exclude all otherwise-reliable sources which support the theory. Edison (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not understand that undue weight is different from reliable sources? Even if this one is deemed reliable somehow it doesn't change the fact that going through and only adding info about the believers of the fringe theory distorts the perception readers have of the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something in particular that an RFC (subject or user) or any of the other dispute resolutions methods won't be effective for? As of right now, I see people wanting admins to come in and hash out a content dispute here, which isn't going to happen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unfortunate. I tried very hard to make sure the phrasing above was regarding the OWNership issues one editor has taken with the article and not make this about a cry for help "overpowering" some viewpoint. I never meant to have anyone come and help or weigh in on the content of the article. I was trying to bring what I perceived to be ownership problems with a specific editor to the attention of an admin. I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to chime in, dispute resolution is mentioned in WP:OWN as the solution to such content disputes. In fact, dispute resolution should pretty much always be the path taken to solve content disputes if involved parties can't come to an agreement themselves. It's not something that is generally actionable by an administrator, unless other editing behaviors accompany it (such as WP:3RR). I suggest closing this thread and taking the advice in the ownership policy. Not to be a dick but in general it's best to read and try to understand a policy before using it to justify your actions. I assume you just missed the parts about the policy that discuss how to resolve the issue. -- Atama頭 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the links and the reminder. Since there were more than one editor I didn't think "3O" qualified. I had posed an RfC but the editor was maintaining the results favored their side (when it was pretty much a tie either way). And since the editor themselves had tried to attract attention on the Fringe notice board, I wasn't sure what steps were left. I must admit, I've never found the dispute resolution very straight forward. There are suggestions of places to go but no real description of how to escalate. Padillah (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not straight-forward unfortunately. I don't know that it really can be because each situation is different so you can't have a set of numbered instructions. Basically, I think of dispute resolution as the "road to arbitration". Arbitration is complicated and slow and ponderous and a last resort but sometimes it's the only thing that works. My advice is, look over WP:DR and try everything there that is applicable, and try to make a good faith effort at it. In other words, with each step you should genuinely try to resolve the issue, don't do it just to get it out of the way and say you tried. Usually it's best to start from the top-down, with editor assistance/3O if it's only you and one other editor in the dispute, asking at a particular Wikiproject next (if one applies), go to a noticeboard (again if one applies), then RFC. Try informal or formal mediation next, but that will only work if everyone agrees to it. If none of that works then your last resort is arbitration, but hopefully somewhere along the way the problem has resolved itself somehow (either someone gave up or was convinced they were wrong, or one of the previous attempts at a compromise worked). All of this is slow but except for a few cases (like bad info at a BLP) there's no "hurry" to "fix" an article so it shouldn't matter. In any case, my personal suggestion to you is to see if any other kind of dispute resolution hasn't been tried yet (like mediation) and try that, and failing that you should go to arbitration. -- Atama頭 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I'm all for editing articles in which we find a personal interest, but the user Padillah has shown a contemptuous attitude towards editors with whom he disagrees with. In the rare circumstance when others have pressed the issue, he gets very aggressive and keeps up the contemptuous attitude and snarky comments. I think any reasonable editor can conclude that the user's interest is more towards serving a particular point of view than it is in improving Wikipedia within our accepted policies, guidelines, and norms. Richard (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To a degree I have to agree with you. When someone invites me to an article to defend their point of view and then gets upset and snarky when I express the ability to think on my own, I get a bit contemptuous. When someone comes to my talk page to elicit my help and then accuses me of shopping when I do the same I get a bit snarky. When another editor accuses me of ownership as a way to throw attention of himself and his ownership issues, I get a bit personal. And when I spend two months trying to get a simple sentence added to an article and get nothing in response but misrepresentations and repetitions of WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE, I feel it's time to get a aggressive and take some steps. Any aspersions to what my point of view might be should be easily backed up with diffs, right? I can provide several diffs explaining and expounding my point of view, can you find the ones that are contrary to improving Wikipedia? Padillah (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) This is getting ridiculous. The article is about a fringe theory. It lists the guys that came up with the theory. It then lists 4 groups who disagree. The addition is of a second respected professional who believes the theory. Call me crazy, but in typical voting, you nominate ... and then you need a seconder. WP:FRINGE keeps getting thrown around - if the article was called "The theories of how these guys died", then the smiley face theory would be possibly fringe...but it's about the specific fringe theory. It deserves/requires at least one additional proponent, and the way it has been added certainly does not give it any undue weight. Note: I don't give a crap about the article, merely seeing policy used correctly. It pisses me off when someone reverts a very nice NPOV version without reading it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.144.255.247

    99.144.255.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has been warned several times for BLP violations in the article, and the talk page of Roman Polanski, the IP edit warred multiple times [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394], adding material against consensus. This disruption resulted in the semi-protection of the article. Now, the IP continues POV-pushing and keeps inserting BLP violations (accusations of pedophilia and possession of child pornography without reliable sources to back them up) on the talk page. The IP should be blocked to stop this disruption. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I did add "Is currently a fugitive" to the Polanski article. Do I need to produce a ref for that here? I also changed "plead guilty" to "convicted" and changed the capital S in sex to lower case. All of those edits linked above were mine. If that "disruption" caused Cenarium to lock the article - perhaps this discussion should widen a bit.99.144.255.247 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to provide reliable sources for everything you add to an article, particularly if the information is contentious, and the article is about a living person. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing contentious about noting that Roman Polanski is "currently a fugitive", indeed it is directly related to his world famous "conviction". Is there also doubt about spelling sex with a lower-case? Honestly, I do not get your point. Do you wish to presently see a ref supporting those facts you indicate are somehow "contentious"? Do you seriously not think those editions are/were supported yesterday when they were entered?99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If you think that "fugitive" is absolutely the correct word to put into the article, you should have no trouble finding a source to back it up (if it's accurate, there is bound to be a newspaper article or something which you can use as a reference). I look forward to seeing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [395] --Smashvilletalk 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a link[396] to numerous NYT's articles describing him as a 'fugitive". (Thousands more exist around the world, but the NYT's is representative of the class) He is currently being described as such and will remain so until his return. If it occurs.99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I pointed out below, this week, he's been arrested. How can he still be a fugitive? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, if he's been arrested by the Swiss Police, I'm not entirely clear what makes him "currently a fugitive" – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP seems to be a single purpose account created only with the Polanski bio in mind, and has imo been adding excessive content to the talkpage and failed to stop when warned. It is a talkpage and not a place to just add content that you could not get into the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm...how can an IP (as in, something without an account) be a single purpose account? It doesn't sound too sinister if he has been proposing content for an article on a talk page for that article. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything all that contentious about the edits. Is there any question that Polanski is not a fugitive? I mean, it's already properly sourced in the article. --Smashvilletalk 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's all good as you say, why has he got a gaggle of warnings on his talkpage? Its excessive ranting and raving on the talkpage, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The gaggle of warnings on his talkpage appear to be unwarranted and I advise you and the others to take a look at WP:BITE. --Smashvilletalk 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, wikipedia bite. I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on that but I expect time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well...in this humble admin's opinion, it appears to be more of a WP:BITE issue than anything else. He hasn't really posted anything that contentious (and...seriously...adding Polanski's conviction to the lead is POV pushing?) nor anything that appears to be in bad faith. Instead of screaming "Block! Block! Block!", perhaps some of you could actually participate in dialogue with him instead of simply hounding him for his talkpage comments. --Smashvilletalk 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a bunch of good faith and respect to you for that. At this point in time with the coverage I imagine that the talkpage is getting a lot of views, so I felt the excesive ranting (it is not discussion is it?) on the talkpage was a bit much, but I am more than happy to leave it to your experience. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not about adding that he was a fugitive, but the accusations of possession of child pornography and pedophilia that are wholly unsubstantiated. The IP cited only one source, for a topless photo, if this were child pornography, then Wikipedia would host much worse child pornography on Virgin Killer (talk page) and many other pages. Smashville, this is not a BITE issue at all, would you argue we should not block people for BLP violations on the grounds of WP:BITE ? maybe we should not block newcomers for vandalizing too ? the user had plenty of occasions to discuss but kept restoring the material. WP:CENSOR is no free pass to violate BLP (and the policy states this). Cenarium (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is already semi-protected and by the time you had made this report, he hadn't made an edit to the article in over a day. What purpose would a block have served? --Smashvilletalk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP repeatedly restored the BLP violations on the talk page. We have a policy, WP:BLP, and it needs to be enforced when editors repeatedly violate it. I had a similar experience on Talk:Barack Obama, it's clear in policy that sections starting right off based on BLP violations and have no incidence on the content of the article should immediately be deleted, they are in practice often collapsed when too much developed. So have I done, but it's useless when there's someone always restoring them. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed discussion long after it was created without contention. You removed discussion unilaterally without consensus. I've reverted it one time - and I opened up a section discussing BLP concerns. This is BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Your abuse of the three letter BLP to wave around as you want is not supported by policy and your abuse of this forum to battle for you in a content dispute is a gross violation.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stranger still - I've just noticed that your time-stamped complaint about me predates my actions by a couple of hours.
    First you commented in the section:[397]. Then you collapsed it 7 hours later:[398] and then a couple of minutes later[399] while it's still collapsed and with nothing happening you arrive here to ban me? Your actions are unacceptable and your edit history via the time stamp shows them to be false and unsupported accusations designed only to further your own interests at the expense of fellow editors by abusing the system.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really ? We had a little edit war long before that [400], [401], [402] and I repeatedly told you why I was removing the material on your talk page and in the edit summaries, I stopped the removals after having reported to ANI. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After trying to familiarize myself with this topic (Polanski and related events) and help in editing it, I would like to voice my opinion that this IP is in-fact being very tendentious on talk pages and in his edits. He has morphed into another IP (as shown in his last signatures above), and is continuing in the same manner. The "ranting" description applied above is not wholly uncalled for. That's all I have to say about this.
    IP has made 169 edits to Polanski and Talk page in last day..., take that for what you will.
    Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the entire exchange I had with P&P[403]. If that type of exchange is unacceptable here, I'd be surprised. But then again, considering Cenarium tried to first get me banned for having the audacity to say Polanski was convicted - or his latest attempt to ban me by making a false accusation above - who knows what acceptable community standards are around here. 99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't commenting on just that exchange, I was commenting on the whole thing I'd read through. In fact, if it makes you feel better, at first I didn't even realize you were the same IP.
    Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As to your totals, note that like in this sequence[404], I tend to retouch each edit quite a few times for all manner of reasons. It also occurred over three days in an active high volume article, not one. In fact, it pales next to the roughly 60% of all edits which are signed by you and that completely dominate the talk page at [talk:arrest of roman polanski]. Now that's a significant number.99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) I reiterate my request for admin action, the IP restored again the sections accusing Polanski of pedophilia and creation and possession of child pornography, those accusations are wholly unsubstantiated and of no relevance whatsoever to the article, just ranting and unacceptable POV-pushing violating to the extreme WP:BLP. This lack of BLP enforcement is really disgusting. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP now moved to improperly edit and edit-war on Anjelica Huston, [405], [406], citing inexistent consensus for material violating WP:UNDUE and potentially WP:BLP (with hidden implications), and argues to have the same material inserted in the page Roman Polanski. And while I'm sure there are more interesting matters, the material clearly violating the BLP policy remains on Talk:Roman Polanski. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note. Cenarium has reverted the established edit. His interpretation of BLP lacks support here and at the article - he is edit warring and basing it solely upon his personal dictation of policy. I, the same editor mentioned here, have returned the talk page to the long standing consensus and simply un-collapsed the sections. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally a section was opened several days ago to discuss BLP concerns here:[407]. The editor has chosen to unilaterally impose his will without discussion or support. I've included this information simply for background purposes. Thank you.99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And prior to that, this thread was opened to bring certain additions to the article into clear dispute on the talk page, under BLP concerns, while the same concerns were raised even prior to that (though less visibly on an evermore crowded talk page). The BLP concerns regarding this article are far from unilateral. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cenarium is certainly not the only editor with serious BLP concerns regarding Roman Polanski and the associated talk page. IP editor 99...92 has been one of the more prolific editors adding some of the more egregious material (in relation to WP:BLP) to the talk page. I initially came to the Roman Polanski page from the notice placed on WP:BLPN, and what I found there was of serious concern to WMF. I am backing off the topic to some extent, lest I be accused of edit warring or POV pushing for attempting to boldly remind editors of BLP policy, but my concerns for the invasion of the rape victim's privacy and the clearly stated harm done to her by decades of invasive publicity are nonetheless diminished. This article and the associated talk page contain some serious BLP concerns, and if only a few editors attempt to enforce policy in the midst of such virulent and prolific editors as this IP editor, it takes on the appearance of a typical content dispute. I have little interest in the POV of the article, as long as the article comes into compliance with BLP policy, with which I believe it currently is perilously at odds, thanks to the contributions of editors such as this IP editor, who seem to have an axe to grind without any regard whatsoever for policy. That also includes cohorts who have clearly stated their intent to edit war material into the article in spite of BLP policy. This article needs serious intervention. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your BLP concerns in regards to the privacy of the victim are not directly relevant to the collapsed sections. Those sections dealt specifically with Polanski and his ref'd history discussed here.[408] The apples and oranges difference between BLP concerns of victim and internationally famous artist/convicted felon are significant.99.151.164.92 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:BLPNAME might have some relevant info on this. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those sections accuse Polanski of creating and possessing child pornography and being pedophile, this is as repeatedly stated wholly unsubstantiated and a clear and egregious WP:BLP violation. (Also, the only source that could have been considered seriously who called him a pedophile has been totally discredited, he admitted to lie on the case...) Unless we come to an agreement, in a few hours, I am going to collapse the sections once more, and if you revert this again (you reverted the removals three times and my edits to collapse the section twice), block you. I hoped other admins would step in, it would be good if this happens, but I won't let this situation goes on indefinitely, even if I'm relatively involved in this. I really don't see why you absolutely want those sections not collapsed, since discussion is no longer active there and of no relevance to the article. Also, do not pretend that I haven't been fair to you, I could have made you break WP:3RR, or block you quickly despite my involvement, instead I gave you plenty of occasions to discuss and brought this into the open. This situation clearly demonstrates a failure of the system though, and again that high-level drama monopolizes admin's attention at times. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not high level drama, it's you personally opposed to the content. You've not found support in the discussion page nor here. And now you've stated without equivocation that you will use your administrative powers to ban me in a content dispute.
    Look, it is a content dispute until, and if, you find a community consensus that the factual discussion of reliable sources is somehow a violation of BLP. Once a consensus is achieved, then and only then, does the content dispute become elevated into a BLP violation.
    Please note that normally BLP violations are readily apparent to all and consensus is reached within moments, the fact that your position has failed to find any takers over the course of many days and literally hundreds of eyes should be throwing up flags by now in your internal processing.
    And please let's respect policy, don't threaten or use your administrative powers to further your position in a content dispute - it's totally unacceptable. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a content dispute: this material is on the talk page, not in an article, and of no relevance to the article; and it's simply a matter of collapsing those sections under the WP:BLP policy (and they soon will be archived anyway). We routinely courtesy-blank material for BLP concerns for much less than that. Discussion is no longer active in those sections, and it's been established that they are of no relevance to the article, since those allegations are totally unsupported (you cannot deny that there is consensus on this). When talking about high-level drama, I was talking of other things happening on WP, distracting admins, for example this and that presently (so less will handle this kind of stuff). How could you know how we handle BLP matters anyway ?, hasn't someone argued you were a bitten newbie ? Furthermore, it's not how we handle BLP, if material is judged to violate BLP by any user, the editor is allowed to remove it immediately, policy states: "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", and this applies to non-article space, and it's generally an exception to WP:3RR. I would not consider blocking you if we were indeed in a content dispute, but we're not. I preferred to take it here for more input, but many admins would have chosen another option than reporting you here. Cenarium (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is neither unsourced, nor poorly sourced. It is a well sourced[409][410] and impeccably referenced discussion of "how, where or if" to properly include in the article mention of Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls"[411] when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, his well referenced dating of multiple children [412] [413] [414] [415][416] [417] including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde[418] as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child[419] that he took himself.

    These are tough but true realities directly related to the article and the matter at hand, BLP is not a tool for censoring verifiable reliable source material. And Wikipedia is not to be Censored. Abuse of rules to further one's editorial preferences is never acceptable.

    How, where, and even if to include these facts is for community discussion and consensus - not for an individual to unilaterally remove by a false assertion of policy. BLP is a protection against falsehood, it is not a tool for the censorship of inconvenient well known fundamental facts.

    "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

    And no, although no one asked and it is not relevant, I have always edited without a membership and am not a newbie.99.151.164.92 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources you mention, or any other source given on the talk page support the allegation that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. This (a 'debate' from the Daily Mail, no RS for anything) mentions a "paedophile photo", but this is not in relation to Polanski at all !, it's about a photo from Brooke Shields and is wholly unrelated. The photo referred to in [420] is not child porn by any recognized standard, it's been said repeatedly, and I told you above that WP has much worse photos (the one I cited above, virgin killer, has been the source of major controversy, and the iwf classified it as "potentially illegal indecent image", so not child pornography, yet this was far worse than a topless photo and of a much younger girl). Anyway, no RS says it's child porn, you could call it like that, but it would be WP:OR and we cannot accept this, so it's a BLP violation. Same for saying that because he dated another 15 yo girl, he's a pedophile, well no, you're not a reliable source for this, it's WP:OR, we cannot accept this because not a single WP:RS said he was, it's negative, so it's a BLP violation, and it's of no relevance to the article, so it should be removed from the talk page. His relation with Nastassja Kinski, the rape, and all the rest that can be reliably sourced, in no way am I censoring it. But I will remove or collapse any thread attempting to push the point of view that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. Those are BLP violations of no relevance to the article, and by all means, falsehoods ; multiple editors agree on this, yes there is consensus, and you well know this, just look at the threads again. And yes, this is standard talk page practice, just look at Talk:Barack Obama. Cenarium (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality check

    I agree, to some extent. Let's be perfectly clear what we are talking about here. Paedophilia, properly defined, is nothing more or less than a sexual attraction to children, which may or may not be acted upon. That's the APA definition, in a nutshell, although somewhat limited for the sake of this discussion. However, there is a very wide grey area as to what "child" means here, and there are various disputed definitions from which anyone with an axe to grind may choose. Furthermore, the popular media have applied that term so indiscriminately that it is now weakened beyond rational analysis, and is used as a stick with which to beat any sexual offender against people under the age of sexual consent. I do not condone those activities, but not all these offences should be labelled as paedophilia. In the case under discussion, we are talking about Hollywood society thirty years ago, in which one might think that morality was, as normal, somewhat fluid; in particular, is it unthinkable that the putative victim's mother closed her eyes to the obvious, and the victim herself, who no longer seems to think it's a big deal, having moved on, is no longer interested in pursuing a case? Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for investigative journalism per se, but relies wholly on reliable sources. Tabloid journalism and purple prose fail that test, as far as I am concerned; facts are paramount, but opinion is cheap. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a straw man argument to state that Wikipedia should not clinically diagnose Polanski as a pedophile.
    Let's be clear here: The discussion is about how, where, and even if the article should mention Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls"[421] which he made when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, or his well referenced dating of multiple children [422] [423] [424] [425][426] [427] including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde[428] as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child[429] that he took himself.
    The discussion is based upon, - indeed the discussion is about - the very usefulness of, specific verifiable reliable sources and nothing more. And your arguments are content arguments about what, and what not, we can draw from those sources. They are not arguments that the sources and discussion of said violates BLP - each objection you've presented requires a finding and an article edit that does not exist - yet you seek not only to prevent the hypothetical edit that never occurred - but the reliable source discussion itself. We can quite readily state that Polanski dated Kinski when she was 15, and we do at the Kinski article. Yet you would silence that discussion here. A discussion about what, and how, to describe the complexities of the article's subject encyclopedicly .99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just add that although the debate is about the specific documented history and statements of Polanski - if you require reliable sources that state that he is being verifiably called one thing[430][431][432][433] or another [434][435][436] there is quite a bit - and it's metastasizing. References such as this are common:

    Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.

    Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.

    Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

    My personal preference is that we work with his history directly. Or do you feel that verifiable reliable sources finding him to be one thing or another should be produced first? 99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources you cite in your latest comment are reliable in the least and especially not for such claims, mostly blogs or commentaries. On your previous comment, again, if you want to discuss a particular aspect for inclusion in the article that can be reliably sourced (his relation with Kinski for example, which actually is mentioned in the article, or presence of Huston in the house, presently discussed), I have no objection, but threads attempting to push a point of view that cannot be reliably sourced and violates WP:BLP such a pedophilia and child pornography will be summarily removed or collapsed. You still claim a topless photo of a child is pornographic, yet I have demonstrated to you it was not by any recognized standard. And concerning his alleged preference for "very young girls", once more, we do not make original research or to be more precise, synthesis, either you have a reliable source discussing the whole aspect, and if not, only specific incidents may be included and not linked together in any way - further, I don't see any of the written sources alleging a 'pattern'; and saying it's pedophilia (a term with a precise meaning) while no RS states this is a BLP violation. To come back on the central point, you may discuss specific reliably-sourced incidents, but a section pushing the POV that he is a pedophile or creates/posses child porn is not acceptable (without multiple RS to support - unlikely to exist). I won't wait much longer to collapse the sections. Cenarium (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not his "alleged preference for young girls" - it's a quote from him, "I like young girls, very young girls"[437]. It's not OR, it's a fact that he said he likes very young girls, and it's a fact that he was arrested in possession of photographs he took of a topless child. We're discussing verifiable, reliably sourced, references. You've dismissed out of hand dozens of sources I've quoted here - including the 1980 biography of his life he assisted in and linked recorded interviews of him. I'm sure I could add new ref's continuously from sources like CNN[438]only to have you dismiss them all with not even so much as a comment. This is starting to verge on the surreal. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least we're making progress, you no longer argue that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn. You'll have to find a reliable source discussing this quote if you want to use it. But again, if you want to discuss this quote, or the photo, there is nothing preventing you from doing that. What we're not going to accept are sections pushing the point of view that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn unless it's directly supported by reliable sources. Because that would be original research and violate WP:BLP. Cenarium (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to find a reliable source discussing a CNN quote for it to be discussed? The only progress being made here is your acceptance that no BLP violation have occurred.99.142.1.147 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re first question: For the quote of Polanski: we don't discuss PRIMARY material, we need secondary sources discussing it (or WP:OR again). BLP violations have occurred, I told you what they were, now I'll remove them. Cenarium (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CNN is not a primary source for purposes of the Polanski article. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the quote you cited as from Polanski. We cannot mention it if no RS has discussed it. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Cenarium has now taken to "Archiving" active discussion in order to suppress. I have reverted the "archiving" of the active section.99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have archived your section claiming censorship and pointed here because it's not about the article, how we handle the talk page should be discussed here. I have archived the sections violating BLP and strongly advise you to cease edit-warring over this. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – image of an illegal copy deleted, new image uploaded and linked to affected articles.

    Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wordpad screenshot comes from a hacking site and the non-free media use rationale includes a link to a page where an illegal copy of Window Clippings can be downloaded (Window Clippings 2.1.28 inc. keygen.zip); the image should be changed and the Window Clippings link should point to its official site (http://www.windowclippings.com/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangago (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Initial uploader/contributor informed. It may be best to replace that image with one sourced from a legal avenue. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt we should not link to illegal material. I have replaced the link with one to the official website. I will try to check better the links/images/uploads. Thanks SF007 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If nessercery i run windows 7 on my laptop i can screenie and upload in order to provide a legit picture Kira Chinmoku (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please, could you do that. very much appreciated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, image can be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Win7_build7100_Wordpad.jpg KiraChinmoku (Talk, My Contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban discussion regarding The undertow

    This morning, arbitrator Risker (talk · contribs) posted a motion stating that:

    The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[439] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban.

    This might have been triggered in some way by my arbitration request against Law, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, which remains technically open. Risker has indefinitely blocked Law, and the Committee is now set to pass a motion that would restrict The undertow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that one account.

    I propose that the community complement that restriction with a community ban of The undertow (under any account) for an egregious violation of community trust (editing with a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban, violating WP:BAN, and using a sockpuppet to gain adminship, violating WP:SOCK). At the same time, we should review WP:Requests for adminship/Law for lessons learned.  Sandstein  07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the argument for banning is underdetermined by the facts (at least those presented here). Sure, the guy was deceptive, abused the community trust and as an administrator conducted themselves in a questionable manner. That's a good reason to subject him to a lot of scrutiny in the future, and to think long and hard about trusting him with positions of responsibility, but his contributions to the project have been overwhelmingly positive and in good faith.
    Banning is a drastic and extraordinary measure, and should be reserved for those who are both unambiguously disruptive and who have shown that they are irreformable. Has he acted intentionally to harm the encyclopaedia or its authors? Has he shown a lack of understanding of the problems others have raised with his behaviour, or a dogmatic refusal to reform? Does it appear extremely unlikely that he will be a productive contributor in the near future?
    Far from it, from what I have seen. Subject the undertow to regular checkusers and forbid him access to advanced permissions, if needs be, but banning would seem a complete overreaction.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone please post a link to The undertow's original ban and explain how that ban would be violated by creating a new sock account, gaining adminship for it, and/or wheel warring to undermine enforcement of the Obama arbcom ruling? Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So far I've found this (only admins can see this deleted edit). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Back a bit further (again, only admins can see this), Undertow seems to have been blocked (not banned) for disruption after a discussion on the arbcom mailing list, then came back a few months later as Law, without disclosing the Undertow account at the RfA or anywhere else. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying slightly: The undertow was blocked for 9 months on 16 July 2008. [440] Law was created on 4 September 2008. [441] Rd232 talk 08:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I see that was June, not July. Note that The Undertow had been de-sysoped the month before that block. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheesh, the fact that an Arbcom-banned user can come back during his sanctions, regain the tools, and continue using them controversially just makes a complete joke of the system. He's obviously treating this whole thing as a game. Therefore, support ban. Spellcast (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Egregious abuse of trust and most recently, tools. Support userban for whatever length of time has community support. Should be at least 6 months. R. Baley (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On 16 March of this year The undertow's block automatically lifted and two days later he made this "first" edit, only 20 minutes after having made this string of edits as Law. However, after that he made fewer than 20 edits as The undertow and stopped altogether within 3 weeks. I guess one should wonder if he banked any other accounts, sleeper or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. I trust that a checkuser has been run on the Law account to see whether any other accounts are associated with it?  Sandstein  12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* An unfortunate turn of events. I have added a related question to all current RFA candidates, and will attempt to continue to do so for future candidates. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The reasons behind the initial nine-month block/ban of User:The undertow were not publicly disclosed at the time of the block and involve private information provided to the Arbitration Committee as it was constituted at the time of the block. The circumstances that led to that block were no longer operative at the time the User:Law account was created; I will not venture to guess how the Arbitration Committee at that time would have responded to a request to lift the block. The information that has led to this motion came to the Arbitration Committee's attention yesterday following an off-wiki dispute between User:Law and other editors and is unrelated to any other on-wiki issues including current requests for arbitration and arbitration cases. I hope this clarifies some of the issues being raised here. Risker (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems clear to me that there were other administrators who were aware of his return as Law, and who should have disclosed this information a long time ago to ArbCom and the community. I think its disappointing, to say the least, that The undertow's deception drew in others who also held the trust of the community. Nathan T 12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a typically ludicrous situation. The fact that Law was able to regain the tools just goes to show that he should never have been banned in the first place, because he was committed to improving the project. Needless to say, I oppose banning the Law account; if the account was doing good work, it should be permitted to continue doing good work. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse Block, Desysopping, but I also think a community ban is premature. Is there any indication that an appeal of the 9 month block would have been successful? A 9 month block is unusual in itself; they're usually 6 or 12. Adminship was not requested while under community sanction (Block expired 16 March, adminship looks like late April). Ignoring the fact that he would not have been granted adminship so soon, what would the reaction be if he started off with Law after the arbcom block expired? I'm concerned that we're reaching for the banhammer too quickly. I'm also concerned that editors who may have suspected (or even been aware of) the connection will be sanctioned, and I don't think that's proper, either. We should limit the ZOMG DRAMA here, if possible. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, please. There are dozens and dozens of editors who want to walk away from this project but can't. People retire all the time and come back days—sometimes hours&mdsh;later. Yet people honestly think that when an editor gets banned, they just walk away? As difficult as it is to leave when you want to, you think it's easy to walk away when you don't but you're told to? Ponder it for a moment. That's ridiculous. If a study was conducted, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit that the vast majority of banned editors are among us. Hell, the sheer number of admins that are former users of undisclosed accounts is crazy. Whether or not they're previously banned users, RVTs, socks, whatever is unclear, but you can tell my their early contribs that they weren't just joining the party.

      He came back as Law because he couldn't stay away. This is nothing if not commonplace. Many banned editors come back as abusive socks. The Kohser, for example. He was unbanned after what, a couple dozen abusive socks? Different circumstances, of course, but the_undertow started over. He created a new account, he avoided his old pages, wrote new articles, took them to DYK, made new friends, learned new areas, got adminship and, despite what Sandstein thinks (as if he has room to talk after blocking someone for a month for making a grammatical change in an article that violated an ArbCom sanction by a stretch, then fast-tracking it to RFAR, completely blowing off AN/I (he didn't trust you then, but he trusts you now, community?)), Law was a good admin. For pretty much any admin to say otherwise based on a couple "questionable" action makes them a hypocrite, because we've all made actions that others questioned.

      This is a website. People seem to forget that. Preventative, not punitive. From what are you protecting the project? Banned editors make appeals to be unbanned all the time. The ones that are allowed back are so on faith. On a promise that they'll be good. That they've reformed and can be a good editor again. Here you have proof. He's been editing for over a year and while his contributions are not perfect (name me one editor's whose are), he has thousands of edits that improved the project.

      The point of temp banning editors is to reform them. That goal was clearly accomplished. It just happened in less time that the arbitrary number ArbCom threw down. And as for others knowing, anyone that would put this website before a friendship is a rat. That's just silly. Lara 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, and don't help them do the wrong thing. Jehochman Talk 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong thing? What's right and wrong is subjective. Let's be sure we're using the correct terms here. He was breaking a rule on a website. Be clear. Doing wrong things, for me, is a moral matter. This website is wrong on a lot of levels. Him evading a ban because he wanted to improve this project is not, in any way as I understand the word, wrong. Lara 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, per Jennavecia and Everyking. I might have even participated in the original ban discussion (can't remember) but he's clearly shown himself to be a dedicated editor (and admin) once again. Any kind of block is a) Punitive and b) Ludicrous. He will keep coming back, despite banning him. I wrote an analogy somewhere on banned users editing recently. There are some kinds of editors who should not be allowed to edit, period. Law/Undertow is not that kind of editor. He had a few disputes, he upset some influencial people. His was a political ban. There is no proof whatsoever that allowing him to continue as an admin is a) Damaging or b) Against community wishes. The community voted him in. The fact they did proves the ban was political, because as soon as the person behind the account is discovered, the user (who was well-respected in the community) suddenly becomes an unperson, deleted from our community, for the crime of wanting to edit and help out. My analogy was like this: banned users are usually banned for good reasons. They are, essentially, criminals of the wiki-world. They are barred from editing here, as far as possible. But it's like this. Suppose you got home one day, and having left the house in a mess that morning, you're confused to discover the whole place is now spick and span. You check round, and find nothing missing. There is, however, a note, which informs you that if you want your house cleaned again, to ring a particular number. You're pleasantly surprised, that someone is coming in to clean your house, but on the other hand, you're a little irritated they have broken the law by trespassing/breaking and entering your property. Now if this person was a Wikipedian, they would immediately call the police, give them the number, and have them arrested. What they technically did was wrong; they went on to property they should not have done. However, they did many good things while they were there. Does the Wikipedian then return everything to its prior state, out of spite? Often, they do. Even if it was worse. Law/Undertow is like that. He was technically not allowed here, but he has done so much good it's making his "illegal" return look irrelevant. We should be welcoming him back, since he has not caused any problems, not shunning him away again, simply because he broke a petty Wikipedia politics law. Majorly talk 13:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an aside, but that has to be one of the worst analogies I can imagine. I come home, find that someone has broken into my house and mysteriously gone through my things and cleaned everything, and I'm supposed to be just a little irritated that they broke the law? :) I suspect it would be an awful lot stronger than that, and yes, I would ring the police. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's trying to illustrate how you can break a "law" and be doing a good thing at the same time. Like somebody escaping from prison and starting a new life. It's ludicrous to ban a productive editor. Majorly talk 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban - I believe the desysop is appropriate. However, I do not believe a ban is. The undertow has attacked me quite a lot (and sometimes viciously) over the past year. He is not my friend, nor wants to be, nor ever could be considered such. I find him unpleasant. However, I do not believe his original ban or this ban would be appropriate (Long block? fine. Ban? no.). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold This broke less than 10 hours ago. Its a dramahappy situation with a lot of editors being (predictably and understandably) emotional.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose ban - Do you really want to ban a productive editor? It is clear that if given the chance this editor will contribute productively to the project. A ban, to me, would seem nothing more than needless politics and bureaucracy. — neuro(talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is likely that a ban will implemented at this point, but just in case, I oppose a ban for the reasons outlined by Neurolysis. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban (for what it's worth at this point), but consider some short to medium-term community-imposed editing restrictions having to do with participation in Wikipedia politics, with an opportunity for a fresh start at the appropriate time. Not sure how that works, but an editor who was socking as recently as a few days ago is obviously not reformed. Nevertheless, based on the claims made by others the editor is mostly productive, contributes extensively in article space, is well liked by many, and likes Wikipedia a lot. I'm not condoning socking or anything else - note my harsh words elsewhere for some parts of this. But this is not the kind of person who ought to be chased away if we can help it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennavecia

    Jennavecia strongly supported Law's RFA. [442][443][444][445][446] How does it look when an administrator knowingly supports a deception like that? Not very good at all. It's one thing to stand aside and do nothing, but quite something else to actively assist block evasion and sock puppetry. I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's as may be, but I see 100 other editors who supported as well. Should we question them? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They did not publicly state that they knew who Law was. I would assume good faith of the others; they were deceived. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know full well I suspect that Casliber knows them too, as do others. I don't see this developing into anything other than a mess. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas apparently did not notice the RFA, but I agree this would be a mess. I do hate these goddamn open secrets though. Cool Hand Luke 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What leads you to believe Casliber knew that Law was the_undertow? Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that. Who are the others who knew? What is your evidence that they knew? At this point I'm looking for an explanation of something that looks bad. Did Law get permission from ArbCom to start a new account during The undertow's block? Did Law get permission to run an RFA without disclosing the prior circumstances. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Redacted. Happy to redact further if I am requested to. [447][448][449] DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to come off as snarky as I did... But my main worry is that this mess started with a request to learn what we could from Law's RFA, and now feels very much like "What did they know and when did they know it?" Even if some admins knew (and I did not, owing to my extended wikibreak), there are sometimes plausible reasons for a new, undisclosed account. Some editors may have known and AGF'ed that it was proper, or reasonably so. Some may have AGF'ed that arbcom had given it their blessing, even if nonpublicly to avoid OUTing the new identity. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be, that's why I asked for explanations rather than heads on pikes. Jehochman Talk 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's my best friend. Big deal. I trust him. That's why I supported him. I don't care if he broke a rule on a website. He wanted to get into new areas, I knew his intentions were good (which is more than I can say for most of the RFAs I vote in, where I assume the intentions for people I don't know are good), so I supported him. I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend. Lara 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, or help them to do the right thing, and especially don't help them do the wrong thing. I'm not sure anybody is going to do anything to you. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you lied, and he lied, and so did the other administrators who were aware of his background but kept it a secret. If he'd returned openly, as he should have, maybe he would have regained adminship on his own merits without having to hide his past? Should we accept that administrators can lie to us about whatever they choose, so long as they can argue afterwards that it was for the good of the encyclopedia? Nathan T 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't lie. I don't by that "if you know and don't tell you're a liar." No. When I was asked by ArbCom if I knew, I told them I did. Lara 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how friendship can sway things, as it should, but I see deep, root worries about trust here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it is helpful to single out one person here because they have been honest. Who knew what, and when, why they didn't inform the committee, or stop the Law RfA, or advise against the Law resysop - I think there is merit to these questions, in order to learn how to avoid this in the future. However that would require a full RFAR case or an RFC, and I suspect that the answers would probably be quite divisive. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If they were honest, they'd have revealed highly relevant information at the RFA, or recused themselves from participating if they felt friendship came first. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Going down a "what do you know and when did you know it?" route here is only going to lead to bad blood and loads of eDrama. Seriously, just let this side-tangent to the affair drop. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Screaming "McCarthyism" isn't exactly a recipe for reducing drama. Shall I scream "coverup" and "double standards"? Then where will we be? No, let's discuss this rationally. McCarthy was a scum, and I do not appreciate you comparing me to him at all. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you're lighting the torches and calling for a witch hunt, i.e. "I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do.", don't be surprised if you get called out on it. What were you hoping to accomplish here? Some kind of "aiding and abetting" wiki-trial? Please. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? That's a bit dramatic, eh? If someone has been behaving unethically, pointing this out is hardly a "witch hunt". Friday (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you are a sysop, site standards come before personal relationships. Being a sysop is a position of trust. If personal relationship is going to influence you, then you must recuse yourself from the matter, or disclose the relationship so that others can view your opinion in a proper light. Do you agree, Jennavecia? I'm not interested in punishing you, only in making clear how things should operate. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is rare that I agree with Jehochman. However, in this case I do. Note that while there are situations where asking people when they knew something can be inappropriate, that doesn't mean asking such is inherently bad. Given Jenna's comments and her history with the Undertow, I have a lot of trouble believing that she did not know that Law was Undertow when she so strongly supported his RfA. Some explanation from her is definitely in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have me on /ignore on WP? I didn't know that was possible. >_> Lara 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman stirs drama. This is what he does. I don't understand why anyone would ask him not to. That said, J, your logic is flawed. Putting my friendship first by recusing in his RFA? That makes no sense. You take Wikipedia way to seriously. There are bigger issues (like the BLP plague) than a banned editor coming back to help the project so much so that people are now "shocked" to find out. You're drama-mongering and politicking. I'm unmoved. So conduct your study, but don't anticipate my participation. It's a website. Lara 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You knowingly aided a sock puppet account to gain adminship. That was a clear breach of trust on your part. All you need to do is indicate that you understand and won't make the same mistake again. If you can't do that, I think you should not be a sysop. Don't try to evade responsibility for your actions by making personal attacks against me. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Law isn't a sockpuppet. And please tell me what damage to the encyclopedia this has caused. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternate account used to evade a block is definitively a sock puppet. There is such a thing as reputation, Wikipedia's reputation. There is morale. Users get blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion all the time. Here we have an account that was allowed to flout the rules because he was friends with administrators. Doesn't that strike you as unfair, and bad for Wikipedia's reputation? Don't you see how that damages our ability to recruit and retain volunteers? Jehochman Talk 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit that there is no comment here, no action that could be taken with regard to Law/Undertow, no ruling from the arbcom, that could benefit Wikipedia's reputation. However well-intentioned, however reasonable this thread started, it is now Drama, and when has Drama ever helped our reputation? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Nepotism is bad. We need to show that we don't allow it. I am hoping to demonstrate that users in positions of trust, especially admins who aspire to gain Oversight access,[450] are not allowed to help their "best friend" flout the rules. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as may be. In this particular case, Arbcom didn't even block The_undertow for the violation, they just blocked Law (Law having requested desysoping on 20 September). Any sanction against Jennavecia or others would A) not be preventative, and B) be harsher than the sanction against The_undertow. So I guess my question becomes, on point, what administrative remedy would you like to see in this specific instance? The next question would be if there is consensus for such a remedy; I suspect that there is not. The broader issues of nepotism and Wikipedia's Reputation can be left for another discussion, as Tznkai notes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The community may well ban The undertow, and Arbcom may well take away sysop privileges for those most responsible for promoting his sockpuppet's adminship. I found this response[451] by Lara to my legitimate question about Law, which turns out to be more well-founded than I realize, to be less than forthcoming. Even before I knew she was defending her "best friend" I thought her attitude was unduly bite-y and undignified for an administrator dealing with an honest question on a meta-page. Now that I know she was playing favorites, I'm not very happy. The world is full of circumstances large and small where we are required to put duty before friendship, from the workplace to things as simple as not lying on government forms. Wikipedia too is a place where we are supposted to treat everyone fairly and not lie in our use of tools and policies. Perhas Lara is simply not well versed here and can learn. But a deliberately defiant attitude that she would deceive us and break policy to promote sock administrators (and who knows what else) if they are her friends is inconsistent with being trusted as an admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's reputation

    This deserves it's own heading. Wikipedia's reputation. You're saying that this situation reflects on Wikipedia's reputation? YGBSM. I could write 15 paragraphs about why Wikipedia's reputation is a joke. This situation and those like it aren't to be attributed. People like you, who stir up drama at every given opportunity, Jehochman, is what gives Wikipedia bad reputation. If Wikipedia was mellow and people cared more about the content than the politics and drama, things would be better. You perpetuate the poor reputation. To project it any other way is laughable. Lara 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does YGBSM mean? Jehochman Talk 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "You've gotta be shitting me". –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't get it. Nepotism is the problem. Read my comment above. Users consistently complain about favoritism. If you have powerful friends, you can do whatever you like here, while others get sanctioned for minor infractions. Nepotism is a real problem that contributes to loss of volunteers. We need to address it. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you propose we do that? Anything you propose will drive somebody from the project, one way or another.UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c:I agree with the general notion that what happens behind the curtain does not negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation, which includes pretty much all of our little fights on adminship and so called drama stirring. That said, personal attacks are not helpful and they should stop.--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inernally, it hurts the faith that insiders have in the institution. Every organization, fraternity, project, whatever, has problems. What hurts the reputation is not dealing with the problems to the extent that something very bad happens that catches the public's imagination. Fake Wikipedia admins have become nationwide news before. This won't get to that level unless one of these people turns out to be a well known or scandalous individual promoting his or her own interests, or something like that. In any event, fixing a problem is a lot better for an organization's reputation than letting it linger for fear of bad PR. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman

    Jehochman's comments are completely ridiculous.

    Nepotism isn't a problem on this project. Nepotism is why I'm unemployed. The problem on the project is long-time established users who are known best for the drama they stir up needlessly. The problem on the project is that there is no adequate enforcement of behavioral issues. Incivility is met with blocks for personal attacks. Personal attacks are ignored when made my vested users. "Personal attack!" is cried when someone is offended. Old Guard editors and admins can do absolutely anything they want most of the time. POV problems are rampant. The BLP problem is only getting worse. There are a lot of problems on this project. Nepotism isn't one of them. In-fighting is one of them.

    And to say that Law was able to do this because I knew. That's stupid. I didn't get Law adminship. I didn't protect him against the big bad wolves. I knew and I supported him in various things, like his RFA, because I know and trust him. Law worked on articles. I'm almost exclusively working on BLPs and the related pages. If you don't trust me, J, then recall me. My procedure is really simple. I'll waive the week of discussion on my talk and let it stand with this thread. Once this thread is archived, if you're not pleased with the level of drama, just dive right into that page. Lara 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the substantive problem is a much more serious issue than those who complain about it. This is a significant, real problem that has lead to the apparent resignation of one Arbcom member, and a different socking incident lead to the recent resignation of another. This issue troubles a lot of people who are not normally troubled, not only Jehochman, who seems like the proverbial stuck clock that's right twice a day. Someone who complains that everything on Wikipedia is a travesty is occasionally right when describing things that really are travesties. Meanwhile, I think Lara's vehement protests, defense of Law / The undertow, and attacks on those who disagree, all undermine her authority as an administrator. It might be wise to stand for a new RfA, but I would suggest waiting for the various discussions to die down to see if we can have a community consensus on just how seriously we will take the problem of people knowingly facilitating socking. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to double vote?

    Accuser convinced that there was no attempt to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • On February 8, The undertow requested unblock so that he could vote in the OS/CU elections (on his deleted talk page).
    There was no double voting, and if we are to assume without evidence that the editor would act in such an abusive manner, then why bother having this discussion to begin with?  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he tried to vote. He was either trying to double vote or trying to use two accounts in the voting to avoid connecting votes to Law. Neither is a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Law vote for every candidate? Lara 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked. No. He didn't. Law had different friends and acquaintances than the_undertow. Voting for different candidates in the same election with different accounts isn't double voting. An intention to do so clearly isn't either. Lara 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Undertow withdrew his request for unblock on 13 February, and does not appear to have voted at all as Undertow. As far as the OS/CU elections, there does not appear to have been a violation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike the deception in asking for an unblock when the user had been editing for several months, but I found The undertow's explaination credible. He's given me permission to post it, and I reproduce it below:
    "The implication that I wanted to double vote makes no sense. I wanted to show support for some as the_undertow. If you notice, I never voted twice in anything, never used the accounts on the same project and never used them to somehow promote an agenda. It's not like I'm completely lacking in ethics. Notice how I used undertow to vote in certain RfA's and Law in others during the same week? I never double-voted -- just ask Risker. -Chip"
    I've omitted an unrelated statement which does not seem to be factual. It's true that he never double voted. He's not the most honest character, but I don't think he was trying to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for following that up, CHL. Let's lay this accusation to rest, shall we.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanity check please

    This is getting ugly, and the questioning of each other's ethics really is not going to end well. It would appear that the original block was expired. Applying for tools may have been unethical, but was not illegal. We all have our own reasons for supporting or opposing RfA's ... perhaps someone thought a block was originally inappropriate, who knows the internal thoughts. Let's go back to the WP:AGF concept, and believe that all of us believe we're doing what's best at the time. We've possibly been all found to be asses, but RFA is a community decision nonetheless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amen. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted for Law without knowing who he was, and I am pleased to have done so. I'm not pleased the community decision has now been reversed because certain people don't like the fact they voted for an evil banned person. It's all political, and no actual consideration to the encyclopedia has been made. Majorly talk 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban him. Clearly the guy is here on a mission to create drama. Frankly, we can do without this. Plus, not mentioning your previous history of instability, blocks, legal threats and demoppings at ones RFA is very, very poor form: that is a breach of trust. Goodbye! Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Law (talk · contribs) has 3,300 edits to the article space, which is nearly 50% of his total contribution history. He has additionally started 17 new articles. A breach of trust it may be, but it's unfair to say this user is solely on "a mission to create drama". –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha. Law is the one creating drama? XD Oh, god. Please. He's not even participating here in order to minimize drama. If not for Sandstein posting, there wouldn't be drama. If not for Jehochman politicking, there would be less drama. You certainly stir up your share of drama too, honey. Lara 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban Actually, after seeing this[452], I would suggest giving User:Law the bum's rush. To have an admin openly declare that there are certain policies that they don't follow and will not enforce is, IMO, a greater offense to the community than slinking back in with multiple accounts. How did it happen that someone with a stated unwillingness to perform the administrator's job was granted the status of administrator? The only reason we have admins is to enforce policy, using tools with which us lowly editors can't be trusted. L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opting not to participate, butting out if you will, based upon one of the wisest postings I've seen in quite a spell. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come off it. I don't enforce WP:BLOCK, would you like me banned too? Even if one accepts that an unwillingness to enforce particular policies is grounds to refuse someone administrator access, that is an entirely different matter from concluding that that person should be prohibited from ever contributing to the encyclopaedia in any capacity ever again. Refer to the subsection title.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tacky A tacky abuse of trust. I don't know about a ban but I am sure going to oppose any future RfA. Even without this recent exposure of his abuse of trust I would not support this person as an admin due to his tendency to ignore policy and use the tools based on personal opinion. I have no problem with him editing articles if he sticks to only the one account and follows our other rules. Chillum 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple thoughts. Wikipedia was founded on the idea of anonymity. The majority of "accounts" here hide their real life identities, and edit for the improvement of the project. Some folks even adopt certain personalities with their online accounts. My question is this: Does "Account:X" edit to improve the project? Personally, if an account is doing good things here - I really don't care what size, shape, or gender is behind the edits. Sometimes what people know and what they think they know can be two entirely different things. If we're all going to start pointing fingers, accusing people of bad motives, and start-up some USENET shit-storm - to be perfectly blunt - it is a path to the dark side, and will not lead to anything good. Real people are being hurt everyday here because of BLP violations. Articles exist out there without references. Simply stated, there are better things to do folks than engage in this type of "gotcha" game. — Ched :  ?  14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A banned user socked to gain admin tools. Some admins knew about this and kept shtum. Others complain when the situation is exposed. Why is anyone surprised? This is normal behaviour for the admin community. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no community ban

    Multiple administrators have objected to a community ban, myself included. There is not going to be one unless new facts come out and a new discussion starts. There is no need to pile on unless people have some sort of new perspective to add to the discussion. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I'd suggest archiving this entire discussion and let the dust settle. If the_undertow/Law requests an unblock then a new and calm discussion should take place. –xenotalk 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo xeno's comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not blocked. Lara 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom voted 9-0 to limit User:The_undertow to 1 account, specifically Truth cannot be realized through consensus, nor compromise. Truth is absolute.. User:Law was blocked indef as a result, but Undertow has not been blocked or otherwise sanctioned. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - stricken. Anyhow, my motion to close still stands. Tensions are running high and I don't think much productivity is to be had here, at least not today. –xenotalk 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder why they say ANI sweeps stuff under the rug when the higher-ups get caught with their fingers in the cookie-jar. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple. Because WP:RFC is thataway. "All the world's a stage", but in spite of the rumors this is a serious administrative board and not a free ranging venue for drama. Durova320 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone would like to take part in an UNOFFICIAL discussion on alternate accounts/sockpuppets, etcetera, I've set up a discussion at User:SirFozzie/Alternate. Discussion on the issue as a whole is welcome, (I'm not interested in calling for bans on specific users, just discussion of where the project can go from here) SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it will be more useful to clarify and strengthen policy rather than to focus an RFC on an individual. Jehochman Talk 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Situation

    As I understand it, the situation is currently:

    • Law is the undertow, currently previously under a several month ban, who evaded ban, made a sock, became admin as sock, and now the Law account is de-sysopped and banned. the undertow account has had no action taken against it.
    • Lara aka Jennavecia knew at the time of Law's Rfa that he was the undertow. When concern was expressed at the breach of trust implied in knowingly abetting the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions, she responded "he's my best friend, get over it",[453] as well as "I'll always have his back no matter what"[454] and accused at least one of those voicing concerns of "causing drama".
    • Lara further compared her transgressions with other, non related issues, stating or implying her actions were not important in the larger picture.
    • Various people voiced opinions on tangential issues; was Law a good admin, etc.
    • GlassCobra, who nominated Law,[455] has also admitted he knew and abetted Law/the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions[456]

    that's the situation as I see it currently. I am still mulling over (and finding and reading) details. I do not believe I have missed anything core to this issue. If I have, I will add it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The undertow ban has expired. –xenotalk 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you, I will correct this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my understanding as well. Lara's behavior has been quite unreasonable, and damaging to the project. Will people ever get it through their heads that all this making of "friends" and "enemies" is seriously harmful to Wikipedia? Don't we have real life for that sort of thing? Friday (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not put it in those terms. In a collegial environment, we will all inevitably end up working with editors on similar topics, and we will also inevitably have some disagreements. It is how those are dealt with that determines whether we make "friends" or "enemies". WP:AGF and WP:CIV seem to me to underpin those interactions, regardless of the personal aspects. I have worked with some editors on some articles, and disagreed on other articles; hopefully, we have ended up with some mutual respect, not least for being able to civilly argue our points, and there is no residual rancour. As to the point at hand, I retain respect for both User:the_undertow and User:Jennavecia, because I am fully familiar with the volume and quality of work they have put in here. In general terms, we seem to have inconsistent attitudes to editors who (a) provide excellent content whilst at the same time (b) flouting the rules and norms, and that concerns me. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One argument that has been raised is that the people knowing "didn't do any harm" by not informing people, and that Law's contributions after returning have been entirely proper and have not contained any eyebrow-raising. Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight counters this completely - the undertow was, a friend from the tone I've heard, slightly biased towards COM, and if this knowledge had been available to the community as a whole than Law's unblock of CoM would have been treated substantially differently. The argument that withholding the information did no harm is thus moot - it allowed a biased admin to unblock someone, something entirely improper. People crying that Law's actions have been those of a saint may want to look up that thread and revise their worldview somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly this kind of stuff makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What's the point when everything is controlled behind the scenes by people like Lara and her friends who are above the rules? This is the first time since I started contributing to the encyclopedia that I've felt that this might be a bad place. :( -- Atama頭 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your disillusion, Atama; I've experienced it many times myself. (It's similar to discovering that the minister of your church has embezzled a pile of money; how do you keep up your faith after that?) The important things to remember is (1) the core of Wikipedia is an ideal, not personal relationships; & (2) those kinds of wikifriendships end up being destructive not only for other people -- but also for their members. -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's hard to keep up with all the Drahmaz, but I am just noticing this comment now. If Undertow and I had any interactions please provide diffs. I don't recall any, but I haven't looked into it so I suppose it's possible. As the username seems entirely new to me these past few days I would be very surprised if there is any connection at all. Given that, I suggest you step up with some evidence or refactor your statement and apologize. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best I've been able to tell - the undertow was an account that was banned before you (or I) started editing at WP - June of 08 if I'm reading my history correctly. Apparently all the details of the ban aren't going to be found in history we can research, as I believe that some of the decision making process was made either off-wiki or through other channels (email maybe?). I'm not sure of the details, but as best as I've been able to ascertain, there were some sensitive issues surrounding it all. Somewhere along the line - the undertow was unbaned and unblocked - but chose to edit under the "Law" moniker instead. I'm not sure of the time and date stamps on everything - but apparently he did edit as "the undertow" AFTER he had been editing as "Law" - hence, it is considered "socking". WP:SOCK would be the page to read on why this isn't allowed. My understanding is that communication between you (CoM) on both your talk page, and the talk page of "Law", indicates that you were "friends" - so .. when he undid a month block you received for this edit, he was acting even though he was involved. Note that ArbCom consensus has determined that ACORN is related to Obama (even though they are never mentioned in his article), so you effectively violated your editing sanctions. This means that he (Law) overturned a proper block because he was your friend. - at least that's the way I understand things at this point in time. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanstein's block wasn't proper in any way shape or form, and it was appropriate that it was undone. The type of abusive and disruptive behavior engaged in by Sandstein is what chases away many good content contributors and is exactly what makes Wikipedia such a frustrating effort. I haven't seen any evidence of Law doing anything wrong. He's being punished for letting people know about his history. Only in an Orwellian Wikiworld, would truth telling be so punished. People start new accounts to turn over a new leaf all the time. There was no abusive socking, POV pushing or cabalism.
    It's time to deal with the admin abuse, cabalism and POV pushing. Sandstein is a perfect example. He and I have a quite a history of dispute, just as he had with Giano before blocking that editor in another massive disruption. He's made numerous mistatements and hasnt' backed off any of them. And he's continued to go after those he disagrees with, just like all the others trying to exploit the circumstances settle scores. It's disgusting and inappropriate. He should probably be desysoped, but there's no good system for doing so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that kinda torpedoes your point though is that the Arbcom members that commented on the proposed case affirmed that the original block was a good one (though not the length), and that Law/undertow's unblock was bad. Why do you keep playing the victim card when such a stance has been near-universally rejected? Tarc (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguation of road names

    User:BrownHairedGirl

    I wish to complain about BHG in relation to edit warring on Irish roads articles. The N3 road article was originally set up in October 2004 and over the years numerous links to it were created from a host of articles. It was moved much later to N3 road (Ireland) without any consultation or discussion with the editors on the article or anyone else. I proposed to move the article back to it's original location and said so on BHGs page; least she have any objections. She immediately dabbed dozens of links to N3 road to N3 road (Ireland); before any discussion even started. There were links that had remained unchanged for many years. This was a blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action. I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until the naming issue was resolved. At this stage User:Dpmuk, another admin tag-reverted the links to the dabbed version. As both are Admins I cannot tackle such blatant edit warring myself; so I wish to raise the issue here. I would also point out (while 100% familiar with WP:OWN) that I created most of the linked articles; many of the road articles and BHG's input has been restricted in the main to mass bot-type impositions of her own preferences (and to help build up a massive edit-count). Dpmuk is an editor on British roads (I think ) but has never been involved to any significant extent on Irish roads articles.

    At the very least I feel these editors should be total to restore all recently dabbed links until the naming issue is resolved; and they should be warned not to use any Admin powers or tools on roads related articles until all the naming issues they have been edit warring on are resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are complaining that User:BrownHairedGirl has been correctly disambiguating links from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland)? Jeni (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what said and don't be disingenuous please: I am complaining of blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive editing by an Admin and edit warring by two Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until - no, doesn't work like that. You don't get to declare a given version fixed until you're happy William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. It works whatever the British majority say it will work. In the case of BHG she made the moves of very long-established links in the face of an ongoing discussion and despite my having asked her not to. Funny I recall you telling folk they were blocked for something "after I warned them". Of course, I know, different rules apply. Sarah777 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They can be as long established as they like, but if they are pointing to the wrong place, they need fixing. Jeni (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see - so that would be the same as when User:Sarah777, who hadn't been involvedin any editing on British motorways, moved M1 motorway to M1 motorway (Great Britain) - twice - [457] [458] without any consultation or discussion with editors on the article, and without fixing any of the hundreds of incoming links to the article? If you want a "blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action" I 'd suggest that's a far better example. And ironically, I even agree with Sarah on the N3 issue. Black Kite 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chronology Kite; I was following what appeared to be accepted as "best practice". Sarah777 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you informed the subject of this discussion? Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The history of the N3 road (Ireland) is that it was moved for disambiguation purposes from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland) in July 2008, and remained stable at that location until Sarah began a series of page moves in September, all of which were promptly reverted. Today she announced her intention to move it again, so I opened a requested move discussion to seek consensus. My disambiguation of incoming links does not prejudice the outcome of that discussion, because if the road is moved to the primary topic, a redirect will ensure that all the incoming links still work; it also assists the discussion, because the large number of undisambiguated links meant that whatlinkshere massively under-erestimated the number of internal links to the article, which is sometimes a factor in move discussions. However, failure to redirect leaves incoming links pointing to a disambiguation page.
    I have explained the situation at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it and at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Arbcom_please, where an uninvolved editor has described my editing as disrupting a user's attempt to make a point by building an encyclopedia.
    I am puzzled that Sarah has opened this complaint by denouncing a page move which was uncontested for 14 months as having been done "without any consultation or discussion", when she has been busy moving lots of roads and did even participate in a centralised discussion I opened on one of her previous move sessions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the convention so far has been for Irish N-roads to be located at "Nx road (Ireland)", where x is the road number. No, the convention for five years until someone moved then all without consultation was Nx road. When I tried to apply this imposition to the M1 (UK) I realised that in fact, it wasn't a convention. Sarah777 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't informed and the fact that my user name is quoted incorrectly would obviously make it hard for anyone else to do so. I'd also like to point out that I am not an admin and have never made myself out to be one. I'd also like to point out that I'm not particularly active on any roads article (although I may have occasionally edited UK road articles in the past) and came accross this mess while looking at requested moves as I informed Sarah777 on her talk page. I'm happy for anyone to look at what I've done as, with one excpetion, I feel I have acted reasonably and within policy. The one exception is N3 road where I admit I may have been in error due to me misreading the edit logs. I missed the fact that the Irish road was at this page until moved on the 20th September. As such I should probably have treated the subsquently redirect to point at this page as a revert and discussed the issue rather than reverting back to point to N3 (as a disambiguation page). In both this and my subsquent revert I thought (incorrectly) that I was restoring the page to it's 'stable' state and so in keeping with normal wikipedia practice. It was only later that I realised my oversight and I can only apologise for this. Dpmuk (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dpmuk, you were right first time, and in your latest comment you seem to have missed the move on Sept 18th. Here's the move history:
    So far as I can see, the stable location of the page is that which existed for the 14 months up to 18 Sept 2009, when Sarah began her series of contested moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Grr, I hate working my way round move logs and the like. In that case it looks like I somehow managed to do the correct thing despite completely misreading the situation! As an aside does anyone know how to suggest that the move log reports pages both moved from and to a title as opposed to the current situation where it only reports pages moved from a title? Dpmuk (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BHG VS Sarah?? i thought you two were on the same side! lol. I would just like to say no motorway articles should be moved without RM, to prevent edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't been paying attention, BW. :)
    Like any two editors, we agree on some things and disagree on others; see for example the discussion on the M50 motorway, where I disagreed with Sarah777. I prioritise disambiguation except in cases of a clear primary topic (i.e. one significantly more important than all other topics with the same name), but like the British editors such as Jeni, Sarah777 wants articles from her country to be at the primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an unfair representation of "what I want". What I want is that the same policy, whether 100% dab or "primacy" be applied to all countries. Please stop implying contradiction when the reality is more complicated - but extremely consistent and non-nationalist. Sarah777 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh i see, i tuned out of the motorway articles in the past couple of days, it just seems to be going on and on and on. I disagree with all those positions myself. The page hits are good enough to show primary topic for me and when its pretty close i support disam. As someone that gets accused of British POV pushing by some id just like to point out i supported an Ireland motorway as the primary topic despite there being a British motorway! BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Madison and Fifth Avenues buses. I hail from Manhattan where I use the M1 bus to get around town sometime. I would love nothing better than to bring peace between the English and the Irish, both heavy users of M1 bus in New York City. I'm amazed that such an apparently uncontroversial topic can cause this disruption. It would be good, I think, if the editing slows down a bit. My experience, at WP, with which BHG is quite familiar, has made me think that pages where edit wars have occurred, could use a special WP Flag advising editors to slow down. Furthermore, it would be extremely useful if an effort was made to narrow down the issues, and come to an agreement as to what exact Content issues are in dispute. At the moment, I'm inspired to come and help out here only because I'm extremely familiar with the work of one Administrator. I'm also extremely curious as to the relation of one's functions as an Administrator, and those of a Content editor. But looking at this page at a glance, it is not possible to figure out what the exact issues in dispute are. But I'm willing to listen and learn, and help resolve the conflict - if I'm welcome, of course. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite simple really. Is the N3 road in Ireland/Eire/the Irish Republic (whatever the reader wishes to call the country) the only N3 road in the world? If yes, then the article should be at N3 road. If there are othere N3 roads elswhere (e.g. France), then N3 road should be a disambig page, and the article disambiguated by country (N3 road, Foostate), N3 road, Fooland) etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd support dabbing in all cases of duplicate road names. But that has been voted down by the community in relation to UK roads. Where primacy is the default position. So the same rule must apply to roads in all other countries. It isn't sustainable or acceptable to have a separate rule for the UK. BHG would like to impose dabbing on UK roads, but can't, due to the numerical strength of British nationalist editors. So her solution is to impose it on Iriah roads regardless; ironically with the support of many of those same British nationalist editors. The mass dabbing of links was reverted by me and re-imposed by a British roads editor who were never before seen near an Irish roads article. Jeni springs to mind. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, AFAICS the Irish roads were dabbed over a year ago, without controversy, so those are the stable versions. You know how things work in that situation: if a move is contested, we go to an RM discussion. Your moves have been contested, so we have an RM.
    I quite agree that we have a problem with British nationalist editors using their numerical strength to oppose dabbing of British roads. This causes problems for readers, and for editors trying to maintain the internal links which those readers use.
    But I can see no gain for readers in insisting that the problem on British roads be replicated elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose the idea we must have a dab for every single article on a road or motorway just because more than one exists. If there is a primary topic which people are clearly looking for which can be judged by several methods including looking at page hits each of the articles get then that belongs at the prime spot. Only if its NOT clear then there should be a dab. That is how its been handled at M1, M2, M3 and M4 and many want M50 and M18 handled. There will be very strong oppostion to this idea. One only needs to look at the number of opposes over at M1 motorway for the Requested move of that page. This idea that it must be a dab by default is a non starter. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BritishW; you prove my point. The fact that you choose to ignore is that you and numerous other British rush to defend the primacy of British roads. All the M50 case proved was that there are more British nationalists than WP:NPOV supporting editors. We knew that already. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could a completely uninvolved and neutral admin please consider closing the move discussions at Talk:M3 motorway#Requested move and Talk:M4 motorway#Requested move as appropriate, they have been ongoing for over a week now, and now going round in circles with accusations of bad faith flying around! Talk:M18 motorway#Requested move has also been going for a week, and pretty much in the same situation! Jeni (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, those RMs should be closed however i dont want it to spread to the next motorway article as happened after M1 and M2 were dealt with. The recent spike in activity around these motorway positions is so very strange, whilst ofcourse it could be totally unrelated i still think it rather odd this is occuring so soon after the Ireland article naming vote closed. AS i have said before i was expecting some fall out / punishment for the outcome of the vote there, i confess i didnt imagine it would take us to the motorway articles though. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that those discussions should be closed, and by a completely uninvolved and neutral admin.
    May I suggest that it would be much the best if the admin concerned were neither Irish nor British, and preferably someone who is not from an English-speaking country? (Probably not so any of them around, but it'd still be helpful if possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it shouldnt be by a British or Irish admin, however this problem with people from English speaking countries is totally unacceptable. This is the English speaking Wikipedia, What is considered primary in the English speaking world may be different to what is considered primary in different languages.. but there are different language wikipedias for those people anyway. The majority of readers and editors here are likely to be from English speaking nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys/girls! Lets not let the content dispute spill out here. I'm sure whoever chooses to close it will consider themselves to be in a perfectly acceptable position to do so and will fully justify their actions. Jeni (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant stand the attacks on the English speaking nations when people moan about them dominating the English language wikipedia, what on earth do people expect. Such "problems" if it can even be described as a problem considering this English language wikipedia is meant to cater for the English speaking world is likely to be repeated on all other wikipedias with their respective languages. If there was just ONE wikipedia (Something i would quite like), in the true universal language of English then i would accept that things wouldnt be the way they are today on here, but its not. This is the ENglish language wikipedia for the English speaking world. If that means an American article is given prime spot over something in Asia that most English speaking people have never heard of i see no problem at all with that. Infact if we had to go through a huge list of different articles because when ever you enter a term it takes you to a dab page, im sure some people would get fed up with using wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh :(
    BW, my suggestion is not an attack on anyone, let alone English-speaking nations (I'm a citizen of one of them and live in another). It's a suggestion that life will be easier for everyone if the closing admin is someone who cannot be accused of cultural bias in favour of either side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In an attempt to get some perspective and civility on these issues, could I second the proposal above to require an RM procedure before moving any article about any road in Great Britain, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I think this should also apply to disambiguation pages listing roads in any of these places too. For fairness it should apply to everybody, not just people who have been involved with any of the recent discussions or moves. The should be 2 exceptions to this:

    1. Anybody could revert obvious vandalism (with this explicitly not applying to titles that are plausible (e.g. Moving M25 motorway to M25 motorway (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although unlikely to get consensus is plausible; moving it to M25 motorway ate my hamster is not plausible).
    2. Any uninvolved (in the whole dispute, not just a single page) administrator could, at their discretion, revert page moves made without going through RM.

    I stress I'd like this to apply to everyone, including me, as an attempt to avoid any more controversial moves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn! Just as I was ready to move it to M25 motorway ate my hamster. Wonder how many hits it would get. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true though, it did eat my hamster, maybe I'll find it when I go to London tomorrow! Jeni (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1,000,000% support - It is the best way to go in this situation. I'd also support handing out short sharp blocks for users that knowingly violate this. Jeni (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, reluctantly. Avoiding move wars is a great idea, but what we have seen lately is that any attempt to move articles on British roads produces a paranoid reaction, with British editors piling in to try to find reasons to maintain "their" road as a primary topic, with UK geography project being used as a noticeboard. Given the numerical strength of British editors, this tends to create a high vote for maintaining UK roads at pole position, and it's noteable that some editors have been partisan and inconsistent in how they assess each renaming proposal. So Thryduulf's well-intentioned proposal has the effect of locking in the status quo, even if that's not the intention -- because as we have seen already, any move of a British road will be pounced on by some editors, and advertiaing every move with an RM merely invites a controversy which might not otherwise apply.
      Rather than yet another threat of blocks, a better approach would be to put a moratorium on such moves pending an RFC on the application of "primary topic" to roads. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IF M2 had not been moved then you may have a case, but its clear some British editors who supporter M1 remaining in the same place backed that move. It must be handled on a case by case basis and i think it should be done along the lines M1/M2 were dealt with. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained elsewhere that I do not vote on national grounds, I vote based on the evidence available for each topic. If I see a road that isn't a primary topic but should be based on the evidence, then I will support that being moved to the primary topic, just as I will oppose such a move if the evidence shows a different road is the primary topic or there is no primary topic. I will do this regardless of which country the road is in, including Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I start to wonder if the actual solution to all these problems is to ban anyone who identifies as Irish or British from editing any article that concerns Britain or Ireland. Rather sad to see that we can't even behave like rational human beings when dealing with articles on sodding roads. Must everything be a battleground? Plenty of good content editors have been damaged by these spats, can't we all just learn from their example and pretend that geography articles are about geography and not a chance to replay out a centuries long conflict in proxy? Wiki won't solve the Northern Ireland issue. Someone should add 'Jimmy Carter' to the Wikipedia Is Not article. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sanctioned by Arbcom for pushing ANTI British POV should probably avoid such topics yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There has to be some kind of naming policy (and what should be the primary article, if any) hammered out for these road articles. As there appears to be discussions spread over several articles I think it might be a good idea to create a specific discussion page for this with a neutral Admin to oversee the debates. Any obvious bias should be ignored or even deleted, which would also include PRO British POV. Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope if you are going to make comments like that you'll include pro Irish POV, which we have seen far too much of recently. Jeni (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was making my point in answer to BWs comment above. There should be no pro or anti anything on wikipedia, that doesn't mean there isn't. Jack forbes (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that there's a lot of fighting going on about highway naming conventions. I'd like to point everyone's attention to WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC, when events very very similar to this happened in the United States. Basically, the Arbitration Committee got involved and it got pretty nasty. I encourage everyone to get this resolved in good faith in a peaceable way before this goes to Arbitration. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I dont think this is going to be a long term dispute between the two groups, we have far more interesting conflicts going on over different articles. The problem will be reduced once the current RMs are sorted and if people dont just move articles themselves without consensus, it shouldnt need to go all the way to arbcom to deal with this. Besides some of the editors involved in this matter have been involved in another matter that went to arbcom. If there was one thing all sides could agree on, it was arbcoms failure to resolve our problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I support User:Jack forbes's constructive recommendation just made above. I'm neutral on all Anglo-Celtic distinctions. I'd like to know why we do not have more specific guideline on roads at Wikipedia. I noticed a reference to primary topic just made. Apparently, that's not enough. So let's open a page to create a WP policy specifically designed to address such issues on our English language encyclopedia. To do that aren't nationalistic issues obviously going to become moot? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Thryduulf made reference to "primary topic." But maybe there's a way to make this distinction more objective when it comes to Roads named identically, but in different countries. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also strongly recommend to Flag such disputed articles with the Flag: {{controversial}} at the top of the pages Talk page (which I've just done).
    • And here's what the DAB page for N3 road has:
        ==Roads==
    *N3 road (Ireland), a National Primary Route
    *N3 road (Belgium), one of the national roads in Belgium
    *N3 road (Senegal), one of the national roads in Senegal
    *N3 road (South Africa), a road connecting Johannesburg to Durban
    *N3, European large goods vehicles above 12 tonnes
    *N3, IATA code for the Russian airline Omskavia
    • So the conflict ought to be with South Africans - but it isn't, right? So we should have a rule based on these kinds of conditions (defined for us by the DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: I also noticed no one bothered to put a reference to the DAB page in question. That indicates to me that there's no real controversy with the "N3 road" in any other country besides Ireland. Nevertheless, a clear WP policy does not exist to assist us in making a ruled decision! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the N3 road, the proposed move is that the Irish road should be the primary topic. However as of the last time I looked, everybody who had expressed an opinion thought that neither the Irish nor South African roads were the primary topic. The proposer of the move is Irish. Last I looked opinions and other contributions had come from Irish, British and American editors. I am not aware that any South Africans have commented. The other controversial topics that I have been involved in are all cases where British, Irish and other motorways share the same number, with both one or more Irish editors accusing other editors of having a pro-British and/or anti-Irish POV and one or more British editors accusing other editors of having a pro-Irish and/or anti-British POV. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarah777 and Irish national primary roads

    I am seeking move protection of a series of articles on National primary roads in Ireland. I am making the request here because WP:RFPP's format seems ill-suited to a group request such as this. Here's why I am seeking this:

    Sarah777 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page this morning stating her intention to move N11 road (Ireland) to N11 road unless she receives a "valid objection". See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N11_road.2C_clear_primary_location and the procedural move request which I opened at Talk:N11 road (Ireland)#Requested_move).

    This follows a similar approach to moving N3 road (Ireland) (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it), which is now being discussed at Talk:N3 road (Ireland)#Requested_move), and a series of other disputes about the naming of British and Irish roads and motorways.

    I have requested move-protection for N11 road (Ireland) (see request here), so that rather than a further move-war occurring, a discussion can take place to seek consensus on whether or not to move. (Just be be open about my own position, I have yet to see any such moves of Irish N-roads that I can support, and I prefer disambiguation in all cases I have examined so far).

    It appears from Sarah's recent comments that she would like to move all Irish National primary roads to the primary topic (i.e. removing the "(Ireland)" disambiguator). That may be appropriate in some cases, but given the recent controversies in these areas (see e.g. #BrownHairedGirl above) it seems to me to best that any such moves are preceded either by a requested move discussion for each move or a centralised discussion on the issue. (However, Sarah did not respond to a centralised discussion which I opened on a previous set of moves which she began for these roads, and which I notified her about).

    Rather than risking further escalation of this controversy, which could lead to threatened or actual blocks of individuals, may I suggest that all the Irish national primary roads should be move protected? This would ensure that no moves took place without consensus being formed in a requested move discussion.

    The articles concerned are: M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland), N2 road (Ireland), N4 road (Ireland), N5 road (Ireland), N6 road (Ireland), M6 motorway (Ireland), N7 road (Ireland), M7 motorway (Ireland), N8 road (Ireland), M8 motorway (Ireland), N9 road (Ireland), M9 motorway (Ireland), N10 road (Ireland), N11 road (Ireland), N12 road (Ireland), N13 road (Ireland), N14 road (Ireland), N15 road (Ireland), N16 road (Ireland), N17 road (Ireland), N18 road (Ireland), M18 motorway (Ireland), N19 road (Ireland), N20 road (Ireland), N21 road (Ireland), N22 road (Ireland), N23 road (Ireland), N24 road (Ireland), N25 road (Ireland), N26 road (Ireland), N27 road (Ireland), N28 road (Ireland), N29 road (Ireland), N30 road (Ireland), N31 road (Ireland), N32 road (Ireland), N33 road (Ireland), M50 motorway (Ireland).

    Sorry if I should have taken this to WP:RFPP, but as above I was concerned that it would overload that page to make a group request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Sarah777 notified here about this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages are only very rarely protected against a single editor. It is usually preferable to deal with the single editor directly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to support all the major players in this dispute submitting to a ban on moving motorway / road pages without the RM process. That should include the two admins who have been involved extensively. That would take away the need for page protection BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bans tend to lead to blocks, which in this area only inflames tensions.
    Simply disabling the switch is a way of achieving the same thing, but with much less drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently drafting an RfC/U on this user about this subject which I tend to sumbit shortly. I know that announcing this in this way isn't normal but I'm doing so in an attempt to avoid overlap or anyone else starting an RfC/U at the same time. I will try to finish my draft as quickly as possible so the situation can be normalised. Dpmuk (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfC/U started: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2. Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my statement there, and our discussion on my talk page, I think that this RFC/U was well-intentioned but unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! I have not ever said anywhere that all Irish N-roads should be primary. I really wish people would stop claiming that I did. What I said is:
    • (1) My first preference (as per BHG so far as I can see) is that all roads of the letter/number type be dabbed where there are multiple versions.
    • (2) This preference was rejected on a number of British roads articles and the community supported the identification of primary cases which would be the default; such as the British M1 motorway.
    • (3) I then sought to apply this policy to Irish roads which I believe are primary (Examples; M50 motorway, N11 road). Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 is your opinion alone, and the wider community has the right to reject it if it's not more widely held (though strictly speaking, we don't vote, even though it looks like it). Point 2 demonstrates that there is a result you do not like. Point 3 therefore reads like you are proposing the moves to illustrate your disagreement with point 2 under the false assumptions that (1) Wikipedia must apply the rules consistently, and (2) that your assessment is unquestionably correct. POINT is in this case not only obvious, but textbook. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with University of Pittsburgh article

    Today, I removed File:PittPanthers.png from the infobox of University of Pittsburgh [459], citing WP:MOSLOGO and the use of iconizaton of trademark logos (last paragraph of that guideline). An hour later, I was reverted by User:Crazypaco, who claimed the wordmark was commonly used to represent the university. I reverted him [460] indicating I would leave more on his talk page, which I did. But, before I could even complete my comments on his talk page, he reverted me again [461].

    Repeating in part what I said on his talk page, the athletic department's wordmark is but one of many wordmarks in use by the university in question (examples: [462][463][464][465]). It isn't used on the university main page (http://www.pitt.edu/) to represent themselves. It is used on their athletics department page (http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/). Should we include every wordmark the university uses in the infobox just to make sure nobody is confused about what page they landed on?

    Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion relates to a number of other image-related issues that crop up from time to time. In every context, there always appears to be confusion about the underlying wikipedia standards relating to image policy -- particularly the difference between copyright and trademark restrictions. To that end, I thought it best to create a little primer on the issue, If this is old hat for some of the editors reading this, my apologies.
    This specific debate focuses on the interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO, the last section of which reads:
    "Use of company logos, sports team crests and other copyright protected or trademarked images in articles can usually only be done on a "fair use" basis (generally as an illustration of the primary subject - eg the IBM logo on the IBM article). Use of such images as icons is nearly always prohibited (see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Logos)."
    Although this part of the WP:MOS talks about both copyrighted and trademarked logos, the underlying rationale refers to "fair use" as the basis for using images. Implicitly this means that WP:MOSLOGO is really talking about copyrighted images, because fair use is a copyright concept rather than a trademark concept. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment.
    For purposes of wikipedia policy (which can be, and usually is, more stringent than what U.S. law allows), one of the rules is that a copyrighted image can be used on a wikipedia page to identify its subject matter, but it can only be used on "article namespace" pages (i.e., the regular articles on wikipedia, not the behind-the-scenes type pages such as userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like). See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, Rule #9 (which you will often see referred to as "NFCC #9" for "Non-Free Content Criterion #9).
    These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on wikipedia. Most logos are copyrights. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright status -- this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. So basically, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrights; basically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyright protection.
    These types of simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on wikipedia. The the Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.
    For wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a Non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like.
    Identifying what is a copyright, trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® means 'registered trademark," which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this as a copyright. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
    On wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular "tags" that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyright, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on wikipedia. A copyright image should have a tag attached to it that looks like this:


    The code you would insert on the image page to insert this tag is:

    {{Non-free logo}}

    An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.

    Similarly, a trademark image should contain the following tag:

    code: {{Trademark}}

    And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify for copyright protection should be tagged:

    code: {{PD-textlogo}}

    Examples of image pages with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{Trademark}} and the {{PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale," because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on wikipedia.

    However, just because an image page is tagged as {{Non-free logo}}, {{PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinitive. Like everything else on wikipedia, such tags are subject to editing by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in theory, a qualified {{PD-textlogo}} image should be usable freely usable on wikipedia in any context. Images that are tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional sanction as public-domain ("free") images (although again, this is not determinitive).

    For purposes of this discussion, I would venture my opinion that the Pitt logo easily qualifies as a {{PD-textlogo}} image, no matter how it's been tagged. I therefore see no relevant restrictions on its use. BillTunell (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • I've removed it again, but since it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 you don't even need admin assistance here, because removing non-free images that fail that policy falls clearly under the exceptions to 3RR. If the editor wants to keep re-instating it, that's xes call, but I'll leave a note anyway to hopefully prevent him getting blocked. Black Kite 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in our discussion, I agree with the interpretation that File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg is spurious and its removal justified, in contrast to Hammersoft's removal of the block Pitt and script Cal logos from their respective article infoboxes for reasons outlined below. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Hammersoft comments regarding discussion of edits and reversions:
    I also left the reasoning for my reversion of Hammersoft's edit on his/her talk page, which I believe was logical. That discussion has now been blanked (I assume because he/she is just being tidy): see the original conversation here. I will repost my reasoning below for consideration. Obviously, I think this is a dispute between competing opinions of WP:MOSLOGO, and in my opinion begs the question of the utility of identifying marks in the infoboxes. I believe this also impacts many other articles, including Hammersofts' removal of the script Cal logo from University of California at Berkley. Certainly I want to avoid further any edit warring, and welcome a consensus for the fair use rationale for such popular/athletic logo inclusion that populate university article infoboxes.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Hammersoft's suggestion that the use of these logos would lead to an uncontrolled proliferation of other marks or is inappropriate for the university article:
    No, not every logo or wordmark should be used, but in the case of the Cal "script" logo and Pitt "block" logo, they are perhaps the most popularly recognized logos of both institutions. Both of these marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, and in the case of Pitt, it is used by the university itself in non-athletic contexts (see this photo depicting its use on university campus shuttles and busses). It's absence from the front page of the university's website is not evidence against such use, nor is it reasoning for not including it for the quick identification of the institution by a general public. Further, such "athletic" or popular logos do not typically represent only one part of the university, but the university community as a whole, as opposed to the examples provided for particular colleges or departments which represent only individual components within particular universities.
    To concentrate for the moment only on the issue of athletic logo inclusion, regardless of their use in other university contexts, in university article infoboxes, one could easily argue that athletic marks for the majority of universities in the United States are probably the most the most recognizable logos of any particular institution because athletic programs are typically a school's most visible public face. Michigan State University's block S would be another example, or University of Miami's "U", and these are much more immediately recognizable than the respective official seals of either university. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. And in the particular case of Pitt and Cal, their wordmarks depict commonly used alternative names for those institutions, further enhancing the value of their inclusion in those infoboxes. If the purpose of the infobox logos is for the identification of the institution that is the topic of the article, then it is a disservice to not include them. CrazyPaco (talk)
    Furthermore, the use of popular or alternative university logos for athletic programs and teams should not disqualify their utility for identification of the institution in an institution's infobox. Nor does the use of these logos in the infoboxes of the articles of individual athletic teams disqualify their use in the university infobox, especially since such articles are considered to independently and individually meet the criteria of WP:notability (e.g. University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Panthers football are self-sufficient articles not relying on the other's existence, or, the Pitt football article is not a sub-article of the University of Pittsburgh).
    • In Reply to Black Kite in regards to the block "PITT" and script "Cal" logos use as a violation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8
    I think the interpretation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8 as justification for their removal is flawed for the following reasons.
    "3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
    The block Pitt logo and script Cal logo clearly contain different images than the seals or other formal logos of the universities they represent. They are both popularly used identifying marks of those universities and both are word marks of widely used alternate names for both universities not otherwise contained in other logos: "Pitt" and "Cal". Therefore the other logos in the infoboxes for those articles do not "convey equivalent significant information."
    "8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    As both marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, one could argue that they are the marks most identified with their respective institutions. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, there is no policy violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring or WP:TRR in the reversion of Hammersoft's edits. I further should note, that Hammersoft made no attempt at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution prior to posting this issue on this Administrator's noticeboard, and refused my offer to bring it up for discussion at WP:UNI or other relevant projects (see here). My reversal of his edits was due to what I perceived as poor interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO for reasons outlined above. Since Hammersoft has engaged in removing images from university articles, for which hundreds of examples of similar use have long existed, some in FA designated articles, it can be reasonably assumed he was acting arbitrarily without seeking consensus for his interpretation. While his patrolling of WP:NFCC is beyond admirable, I believe in this case he has applied his individual interpretation of fair-use policy prematurely. I know there are contrasting philosophies of WP:Silence and WP:OTHERCRAP here, but this is a case, due to the large number of affected articles and possibllity for non-uniform editing across the topic of universities, I believe discussion should have proceeded WP:Bold. In fact, his unwillingness to proceed with established WP:DISPUTE resolution methods, instead directly posting it as an incident on the noticeboard, is disturbing, especially in light of the fact there was by no definition any wikipedia policy violation which is easily determined by an examination of edit histories. In any case, it is under discussion now, which his good. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Thanks for the fix. I will further correct my shredding. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that this usage has existed in featured articles, so it's ok: I found four other university articles that were promoted without this usage. Duke, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Michigan. See the problem with thinking that because something passed as FA with a certain format it is supposedly automatically an endorsement that the style used is the proper style? Don't use articles as models of what is and what is not acceptable. Use our manual of style. That's what it is there for. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my argument for the inclusion of these sorts of logos has nothing to do with WP:OTHERCRAP. Rather, I mean to cite WP:Silence as why the imposing of an individual's interpretation of WP:MOS onto hundreds of existing articles prior to reasonable discussion is not the way I would have proceeded. I believe a discussion about the utility of these logo's inclusions, why such a utility may have caused them to be placed in the infoboxes in the first place, is useful, and now, thankfully, this is what is being done here. I'm sure such reasoning would have been gleaned from initiating a discussion at WP:UNI prior to widespread removal, and likewise the case stated for their removal could have been pressed. Regardless, in my interpretation of policy, I feel that inclusion of the logos, and thus the reversions of you edits, were completely in line with the WP:MOS. In regards to the particular institutions you just mentioned, you'll notice that both Texas A&M and Michigan include a non-free "athletic" mark as part of their logo in their infoboxes, indicative of the fact that universities do indeed use athletic logos to represent the university as a whole. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is especially the case for Texas A&M. Duke and Georgetown have mascot logos, but do not really have athletic logos that include a wordmark that significantly differs from those that are already displayed in their infoboxes. Are you familiar with academia and college athletics regarding logo use? CrazyPaco (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gross exaggeration of my actions does not help your argument Crazypaco. You claim I've done this to hundreds of articles. That's blatantly false. At last count, I'd done this less than 20 times. This is because the vast majority of university articles don't do it the way you want the University of Pittsburgh article to do it. Some may, but it's a subset, and not the dominant style. As to proceeding ahead without seeking some consensus; consensus already existed. The last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO is pretty clear on this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to claim that your actions affect 100s of articles (edit: although rereading my previous edit I can see why that it would be misinterpreted as you already having editing them, and apologies if this was the case), and your interpretation of this policy certainly does affect 100s of articles, whether or not you have gotten to them to edit the logos out yet. All you have to do is leaf through the articles from BCS conference universities to see that. This discussion is for the clarification of policy of whether it is appropriate to include such logos in the infobox for identification purposes. Consensus clearly does not exist on your interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO and Fair use, based on the fact that 1) my interpretation differs, 2) WP:Silence on dozens if not hundreds of articles for a significant length of time, and 3) the inclusion of the logo field in the College Infobox template. You can't just keep citing WP:MOSLOGO claiming it prevents use of these logos in the infobox for these identification purposes because I don't see anywhere where that is the case.You other argument seems to be that you are trying to claim that these logos aren't used to represent a university as a whole in that they are instead just used to represent athletic teams. Well which teams then? One of them or just the entirety of them as a whole? That is like assuming that universities don't send their mascots to represent themselves in non-athletic events, which is absolutely untrue. In fact, many universities, like UMiami, use both their "U" and their Ibis logo in many academic contexts. In the actual real world, many of these logos are used to represent the entire university as well as athletic teams, and I have to assume that you are therefore just unfamiliar with the culture of the institutions and their logo usage which could reflect a lack of expert knowledge. Anyway, to avoid getting into a circular argument that no one wants to read, I'll try to refrain from posting further, so that, hopefully, others will give their opinions on this matter. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My actions don't affect 100s of articles, and couldn't. We're talking about a small minority of articles that are in violation of the WP:MOSLOGO guideline. It isn't my interpretation. This guideline is very clear. If you want to continue to make this claim that I'm making a unilateral decision that I'm right and you're wrong, we can just as well reverse it. That turns it into a nice little sandbox war, don't you think? "He hit me first!" "Did not!" "Did to!" Enough with the accusations of unilateral interpretations please, thank you. As to your claims that WP:SILENCE supports you; rubbish. I can just as well claim it supports me. Afterall, far more articles do not have the logos than do. And yes, I'm completely unfamiliar with college sports and don't have a fucking clue when it comes to understanding what a sports logo is. I am, after all, a certified idiot. My userpage even says so! It must be true! I sure as hell would never be mistaken for an expert on anything. Hell, I can barely tie my shoes without a manual and the use of toilet paper is beyond my comprehension. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are nearing issues with WP:CIVIL. I offered, and still do so, to take this through the appropriate methodologies of WP:DISPUTE. You refused, and instead brought it immediately to the administrator's noticeboard. I'm still seeking to gather opinion at WP:UNI, because that is the appropriate place to do so, not on the administrators noticeboard. I am also happy to have request for comments placed or have it discussed on any other appropriate talk page. I will abide by any decision reached at WP:UNI or elsewhere, and welcome any result so that the guidelines for Template:Infobox university are clear and standardized. Until then I see no consensus for your interpretation. Sorry if you are offended by my disagreement with you, but running to the administrators noticeboard when someone reverses your edit on a disagreement is not how Wikipedia works. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you had better back off on accusations of me violating WP:CIVIL and focus on the debate at hand, rather than accusing me of making unilateral decisions, being unfamiliar with college sports, and lacking in expert knowledge. If you want to look at WP:CIVIL concerns, look in the mirror. I don't appreciate your accusations against me. I said NOTHING about you. My insults were directed specifically at myself. No, I didn't refuse to handle this in a manner in compliance with WP:DISPUTE. I refused to handle it in the manner you wanted me to. What I did in posting here was entirely appropriate. You were editing in violation of a style guideline here, edit warring to enforce it, and acting faster than I could discuss things with you. That's why I gave up and brought it here, where an administrator could handle the issue. A guideline isn't in dispute because you disagree with it. If you think the guideline should be changed, then start an RfC yourself to have it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one using profanity. There was no violation of wikipedia editing policy which is evident by the [edit history]. You did refuse to WP:DISPUTE as seen here. The only thing that was violated was your sense of the WP:MOSLOGO policy, which does not prevent the use of logos as is under discussion here, and the inappropriate posting to the administrators' noticeboard. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Profanity directed at myself. WP:DISPUTE isn't a step by step procedure wherein every step must be followed. There are multiple avenues for dispute resolution. You're upset because I chose one of the paths available to me there, rather than choose your path. And yet again you talk about me having a unilateral understanding of WP:MOSLOGO. I've already refuted this, and in fact the only other editor contributing to this discussion happens to agree with me. Not so unilateral now, is it? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the other editor's statements were first about the wrong logo, and although he agrees with you, he also backed off his comments that it isn't arguable. He also seems to disagree with your policy, as do other editors, that these logos have no place in the body of the article covering athletics. This is a different dispute, however, and one where you inaccurately use Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 point 5 as your justification, even admitting that "sort of" addresses it. As I said, your crusade to enforce WP:NFCC is admirable, but your interpretations of how policy "sort of" can be used to clear out images suggests copyright paranoia, an unwillingness to determine the individual appropriateness of logos, or the potential for alternative and multiple uses of the logos in question, e.g. beyond the athletic teams. Along those lines, please quote me the fair-use or logo policy where multiple, and completely different, current-use logos can not be used to help identify the topic of an article in an infobox. This is already standard practice in the infoboxes in question as seen by the designation of multiple image fields. It does not violate WP:MOSLOGO, WP:FUG or WP:LOGO. You are seem to hang your justification on making big assumptions that their use is restricted to sub-entities within the universities (e.g. athletic teams). I am not going to change you opinion on this, I realize that, nor will you change mine. Others will have to weigh in. I will be happy to abide by any result of the discussions, and either way, as I have stated, I look forward to uniform implementation of policy and style. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now you accuse me of copyright paranoia. Sorry, too much now. WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. When you can figure out how to talk with people without casting aspersions on them or evaluating them personally in the process, then we can talk. Until then, I have no interest in discussing this with you further. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move warring at Latvian hockey player article

    Something12356789101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring over the location of the Sandis Ozoliņš (moving it to Sandis Ozolinsh) article since he registered in July. In total, he's moved the page four times in less than 3 months, moving it 3 times in September alone. The user also apparently had issues with the article White people in his early editing career. Opinions?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my somewhat unexperienced (and certainly non-sysop) opinion, this could have been dealt with simply by warning the user with {{Uw-move1}} to {{Uw-move4}}, and once it passed {{Uw-move4}} (last warning), taking it to WP:AIV (or perhaps here) and having an admin deal a block as promised. As the user had not been warned about the moves until now, perhaps the message you delivered [466] will convince him/her to stop without any more attention. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the player uses the spelling Sandis Ozolinsh in official NHL documents and that spelling predominates the English sources. 28,400 at Google for "Sandis Ozolinsh" and 8640 at Google for Sandis Ozoliņš. In Latvian Wikipedia, they may use a different spelling. But at English Wikipedia, we generally use the English spelling. I have never once seen an English language newspaper, sportscast, or the back of his Jersey use any spelling but Sandis Ozolinsh. --Jayron32 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 94,100 ghits for "Sandis Ozolins", which covers anything that uses the Latvian diacritics. I am sure that we have redirects for a reason. "Ozolinsh" is merely used in the NHL, and is not his legal name. This as far as I know trumps the English name of a person. I'm not aware of the hockey WikiProject's standards (it has been a while since I was involved with article names for hockey players).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. Its still not worth edit warring about in either direction. --Jayron32 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Little is. But what fun would this encyclopedia be otherwise? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I get 78000 off that same search and if I go to another page and back to the first page it now reports only 29,600. None of the other results seem to jump around like that. It should be noted that the second search that got 8640, didn't use "". Using those it only gives 720 results. Both of those searches go on for hundreds of results. The other search which is giving results all over the place actually peters out around 400. Its very unlikely that an english user is going to be searching for him using latvian diacritics. we should be using the name that would mostly likely be entered by an english speakinig user browsing the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. We don't use surname first for Hungarians, why should we use Latvian diacrtics for a hockey player whose name, for most English speakers, would not use them? I thought this was the English language Wikipedia, not the Latvian language Wikipedia. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Another installment of the Great Serbian Haček War (or the Legendary Icelandic Thorn Saga, or the Infamous ßerlin Streetnames ßattle). Guys, this has been debated a million times; there is no consensus on the general principle here, and very likely never will be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, we're talking about this player. I find his english name to be both more common and more likely to be searched for by someone reading the english encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have redirects from those variants to the article? If yes, then what does it matter what the name of the article is? (We could move the article to Latvian hockey player with the misspelled name, as long as the redirects point to it it'd work just as well.) (And a PS to FP: where is this city "Sserlin", the one you spelled with the esset?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wrightman690 and Eighty Four, Pennsylvania

    I'm not positive another admin needs to be involved here, but I'm gonna run this up the flagpole anyway. Wrightman has edited almost solely at the page for Eighty Four. He started off with simple vandalism about 18 months ago, and then moved on to adding unreferenced material in the form of theories about the odd name of the town. The result is an ultra-slow motion edit war spanning the last year in which these unsourced theories were repeatedly added and removed, sometimes by me, sometimes by others. Eventually, Wrightman began a thread on my talk page about this. I advised him to review the policies on original research and reliable sources. He replied that there was a blog somewhere and that he was going to get a pettition going to force Wikipedia to include the theories and ban me from editing the Eighty Four page. I replied that a blog is not a source and I dismissed his threat as laughable, and this was his reply: [467]. The tone of that remark is sufficiently ugly that I thought maybe it was time for some fresh eyes to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (I've notified them of this thread, but they seem to only drop by sporadically, it could be a week or more before there is any reply) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if part of the problem is that Wrightman's edits are based on local oral history, which means it could be difficult for him to find a reliable source for otherwise uncontroversial materials. (I'm not defending him here, just explaining what he may be thinking in order to better handle this matter. I would assume that there is a historical society in Pennsylvania would could help with providing verifiable sources for his additions, if they reflect a real oral tradition.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have done a little more in that department myself, but in the last day another user has come along and managed to source one of the other claims. My point in bringing this here though was less about the issue of sourcing and more about the threatening nature of his recent posts on my talk page. I don't think a petition quite rises to the level of a "legal threat" but it is worrisome nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toddy1 at world domination

    1. One such theory is call at WP "Jewish world conspiracy" and is explicitly listed in List of conspiracy theories.
    2. I've worked on this difficult article to trim it of its WP:Original research as much as possible.
    3. I've discussed issues on the page's Talk before deleting any content, and only then edited out the inappropriate material.
    4. The article also disregarded it's DAB page and I've made amendments in response to other editor's contributions.
    5. I also attempted to prevent the article from introducing a WP:Neologism, as well as non-English transliterations (perhaps from Russian).
    6. After all this hard, and slow work, User:Toddy1 appeared, made postings on the Talk page, and simply Reverted twice the work that has been done by consensus.
    7. He also appears to be promoting his own WP:Original research.
    8. But besides appropriate action against his Disruption of Wikipedia work by Consensus,
    I think it would be useful to Flag particularly controversial topics better; and there should also be a better way of identifying "Original research." I believe this is one article that needs such Flaging. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Any administrator planning to take action on this should please read User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If anything, this post on ANI makes it clear that Ludvikus is living up to his promises. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an admin, I find that concept darkly appealing, but it is not the case. We aren't generals, we're just users the community has seen fit to trust with a few extra tools. Following any advice an admin gives you could make your head spin, as we don't exactly present a united front. Anyway, if there is an ongoing dispute on the page I would suggest you file a report at WP:RPP and discuss the matter on the talk page. I commend you for trying to solicit outside input, but I'm not sure an admin is needed just yet. Consider requests for comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I'm following the advice of Adm. BHG. First look at what Toddy! just did here: [469]
    • He posted the signature of an anonymous editor - and it makes my query look ridiculous.
    • It appears to me like an attempt to mislead editors into misunderstanding my query - regarding the identity of an unsigned posting.
    • You probably are unaware. I have a terrible past record - and it's extremely difficult for me to perform effectively without the input of administrators - at this stage. I therefore ask you to permit me to follow the advice of well-respected editor BHG.
    • You are obviously giving insufficient weight to the authority of WP Administrators to Ban or Restrict editors.
    • My conduct must be impeccable. And I think it is. I ask you to defer to the recommendation of ADM BHG - WP Policy requires.
    • I wish to do exactly what she recommended - especially because she recently ruled on a restriction involving myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you were ever "ordered" to follow her advice. Admins can ban users, but they have no more authority than you or I over the project (Though they generally have more experience in the way things work around here). WP:RFC could very well help you out, and if things continue or escalate, just come back here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to nitpick, but admins can't actually WP:BAN a user. We can WP:BLOCK users and use blocks to enforce a ban, but either the broader community or WP:ARBCOM actually initiate bans. As to the diff Ludvikus provided, I think you should be a bit more selective in picking your battles, there's nothing to get worked up about there. Since you were able to use the page history to see that he added a signature to that remark, I'm wondering why you were not able to answer your own question about who left that remark through the same process, but in any event that is not something to make a big deal over. I've just checked in at Brown Haired Girl's talk page, and she is not going to be around on Wikipedia for most of the rest of this month, so don't hold your breath waiting for new marching orders from her. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludvikus how does bringing a ANI square with your statement, "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.", made when you successfully requested that youraccount be unblocked?[470] There is little point in sticking to a 1RR if your reaction to someone reverting your revert is to bring an ANI, as that drags in more people to what is a content dispute and not a behavioural issue. If his actions are as you say, and the consensus is against him, then someone else who holds the same opinion as you (in the consensus) will revert his revert. Another strategy you could adopt is to salami slice the issues and added request for citations to the sections that do not have citations, and after a suitable period deleted one section at a time, as is is much easier to focus on specific parts of an article than the whole article. There was also recently an AfD in which the majority were for deletion or a redirect to another article, that could be discussed further on the article's talk page. All these other options are more appropriate than bringing an ANI. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It "squares" like this: I don't know how to handle an editor who tells me (1) that The Protocols are true, but lack citations, and (2) where in Ukraine I can find prostitutes. I do not think this is a "confrontation." It's simply me seeking Help from administrators - precisely because I do not wish any confrontations. Look here: [471]. Ludvikus 13:07, 3 October 2009

    This guy misrepresents. Regarding his two points:

    • I did not say that the Protocols are true but lack citations. I said that the article contained statements that were probably true but lacked citations:
    "I strongly suspect that in the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, the uncited facts are most likely true - they just lack citations. It would be a really great thing if someone who was actually interested in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion went through the article and put in the missing citations."
    • The guy expressed an interest in Ukraine on my talk page. I recommended he visited Eastern and Central Ukraine, should avoid Kiev. I gave examples of problems western tourists are likely to find in Kiev.

    --Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't "misrepresent" you. It maybe possible that I "misunderstand" you. I have re-read your posting on my page - and I now realize that it's possible that I confused you with the other editor who posted the comment on my page stating the thesis of the International Jew and Mein Kompf. If that's so, my apology. But please be more clear about what you say to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    consultant needed

    will someone please give an advice to Jeff_G. on how and when to issue warnings on other editor's talk pages. i think he is misusing these warnings, and applying them where they have no merit. thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff G has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Please provide WP:DIFFs to show which warning(s) you feel are inappropriately placed.  Frank  |  talk  20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suspect the diffs that this IP thinks are inappropriate are [472] and [473]. Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can see is that you have made no attempt to actually discuss this with Jeff and instead have told him to "Get a life". --Smashvilletalk 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    actually there was an attempt[474] to discuss after the first warning he gave me, but he didn't find it necessary to respond to me. after the next absurd warning of disruptive editing i realized that he only sees me as an anonymous IP address that he can place all kind of labels on without any justification. therefore, i posted a note here. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first warning I gave this editor was for this edit, in which this editor called another editor "allknowing" and accused that editor of "lying that i left no edit summary" when that editor did no such thing (in posting this warning). As for the reason I did not respond to this editor's "attempt to discuss", it was because this editor neglected to do all that I ask, and to comply with WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. I am responding here to defend myself.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a case of "jump through my hoops or I'll ignore you." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Jeff G.'s use of Huggle. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, user did lie with his warning in which he claimed ...When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary.. because I did write an edit summary (you obviously didn't bother to check). Secondly, it seems I should "only" have studied half a page of your personalized customized request on how other editors should communicate with you, as if you are some special kind of editor here on wiki and cannot communicate as the rest of us does. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, you just called me a troll with those two links -- thanks on a personal attack. I won't be communicating with you any longer as you are disrespectful. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    for other editors here, he also accused me of disruptive editing for adding ..unrelated link.. to see also section, and you can see here how disruptive my contribution was. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't you beating a dead horse? You have accused Jeff G. of inappropriate reverting in a previous discussion (in which Jeff G. was advised to be more careful with his reverting). There is no need to keep talking about that edit on 22 September now, which was brought up at the previous discussion. For the more recent edit; from a brief look at the discussion you linked to, I don't see that others agreed to adding this link. In that case, your addition of the link - while done in good faith and not intentionally disruptive - may not be appropriate. If you thought the warning you received was inappropriate you should have tried to contact Jeff G. and ask why he did that. Telling him to get a life and stop bothering you is hardly an attempt to discuss. Also, nobody has called you a troll here; a bit of AGF is always nice, particularly in a situation where you're expecting it from others. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    horse seems to be well and alive as is giving unfounded warnings again.
    isn't it obvious why he did it? i think there is a trend here on wikipedia, and jeff_g unfortunately isn't the only one, in which editors find a strange satisfaction in placing i will block you type of warnings on other's talkpages. there is a lot of passive aggression going on. people say things like you are being disruptive and vandal and troll and doing personal attacks etc. while in fact they are the ones being disruptive and calling you names. unfortunately, instead of innocent until proven guilty mentality, there is a guilty until proven innocent reigning here, and people like me have to waste time defending ourselves from people like jeff_g in order not to get blocked from editing -- because after all, there are all these warnings on these pages, and me being silent and not saying anything would mean that i actually did some wrong. (and yes, he did call me a troll. look at the reason above why he states he didn't respond to me -- he provides links to "don't feed trolls")
    even You Chamal wrote above ...while ... not intentionally disruptive.. implying that in fact my edit was disruptive, which is i think really arrogant thing to say, because you actually looked at the discussion about the link i added, and even though users agreed it didn't belong into see also section, they also seem to agree that information is relevant for placing into the text of the article somewhere. how can you call my contribution unintentionally disruptive. what the hell does that mean? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you done now? --Smashvilletalk 14:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    as long as others accuse me, i will be defending myself. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP has a reasonable point if jeff_g has not been taking more care with use of automated tools and slapping templates down - rapid templating is bitey and harmful to the project. But jeff_g appears to have been more careful since last thread. So, hopefully IP can go back to gnoming away on whatever? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DreamGuy

    DreamGuy is a strange case: He's incredibly against plot summaries in any form, and is quite happy to edit war and scream about even the most uncontroversial-seeming edits, painting them as an attempt to undermine policy.

    A few I've noticed in recent days:

    • Template talk:Plot Huge amount of disruption by him, when it came to a poll, only he supported the version he had been causing so much disruption over.

    etc, etc.

    Polls have been done on these things. WP:NOTPLOT was nearly deleted earlier this year (a majority voted that it shouldn't be in WP:NOT, but it was closed as no consensus), but he's been acting... well! He's incredibly disruptive, screams and shouts over even the slightest clarification, claiming that everyone who dares to hint that plot summaries are an important part of articles on fiction is trying to destroy policy.

    Not sure what can be done, but I'd appreciate a review, because he's making all plot-related policy pages very hostile environments. It's come to a situation where you can't even edit an essay page without him screaming in all caps at you, claiming you're out to destroy policy.[476]

    I have four FAs (I think the count's really 6 or 7 if you count my old account) on works of fiction where I was one of the primary contributors, and have helped on many others. As far as I can tell, DreamGuy has never even worked on one article related to fiction, except to try and get plot summaries removed or gutted. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So exactly what admin action are you asking for? Maybe a Wikiquette alert or an editor RfC would help? (ps. I've notified DreamGuy of this thread) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoemaker's Holiday is well known for trying to slip changes into policies and guideline pages without getting any consensus to do so, and, in fact, knowing full well consensus has already been demonstrated to be against him. I was not the only person to revert his most recent string of edits, but his problems with plot-related issues go back well into early 2009 if not longer, and he has always been reverted whenever he pulls one of these stunts. At one point there was serious discussion to try to get him topic banned from plot-related policy pages and guidelines. His attempt to paint this as me being rogue against other editors is yet another attempt to game the system. And the idea that I've never worked on an article related to fiction is both false and irrelevant. Thanks to Tim for having the decency to alert me that SM posted this. I should not have posted in all caps, but it's extremely frustrating to see SM make such changes when he knows full well that he tried and failed to make these changes in the past. It's bizarre for him to pull stunts like that and claim that the people supporting WP:STATUSQUO are somehow "disruptive." DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Okay, DreamGuy has now stepped over a line.

    I pointed out that most featured articles have more than the 300-500 words of plot he wants.

    His response was to tag all these FAs, some of them quite recent, with {{Plot}}.

    DreamGuy needs to be topicbanned from all fiction related articles. He cannot tell what quality is, thinks his opinions can stand instead of policy, and is actively harming the subject.

    This topic ban will do nothing to harm useful contributions, as he has none in fiction. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide precise diffs of the disruption? The first diff is a good start, but not enough yet. Dreamguy you clearly have several editors agreeing on the wording. I can see 6 people agreeing with it and no one dissenting. You haven't even engaged in the conversation on that talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which talk page are you talking about? The only person I've seen on any talk page promoting SM's wording is SM, but maybe I missed one. SM made a lot of changes in the last 24 hours, so perhaps one part of it is supported somewhere, but we've had extensive conversations on all of this in the past six months, and "6 people agreeing" would be nothing compared to the 100+ people who weighed in earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, seriously, there was a massive thread/poll not too long ago, which ended with the status quo being kept. (And I mean the status quo on the WP:NOT page and in the rest of Wikipedia.) I didn't notice this new poll on my watchlist, but to revisit this issue so soon would be inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The one linked at the beginning of this conversation. You made this edit [477], and there is this conversation on the talk page [478]. There isn't a single dissenting opinion in that discussion so to go in and revert the changes claiming no consensus is disruption in my books. If you can provide a link to the discussion where 100+ people agreed on the previous wording please do so.--Crossmr (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And here he goes again. I didn't tag all the FAs you mentioned, just the most blatant violations of WP:NOTPLOT, which was only two of them. And it's very hypocritical of you to complain that I (oh no!) added a single tag to indicate that the section on those couple of articles disagreed with what Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and WP:NOTPLOT say when you, by contrast, went into Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and added a whole slew of tags claiming it's all dubious and wrong all over the thing so it looks like a tornado hit it. You have a bizarre idea of disruption if my minor edits qualify but your graffiti spree doesn't. And the idea that I should be topic banned from "all fiction related articles" is just absurd. I can't believe you'd think that proposing that would do anything but demonstrate to other people how incredibly unreasonable you are being. DreamGuy (talk)
    He tagged an essay, you've tagged featured articles. Has the policy or content changed significantly since they were promoted? if not, then the tagging seems rather pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: That essay used to be a guideline until DreamGuy tag-warred with me over it. Hiding T 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be something of a running sore for DreamGuy, and while I sympathise—even agree with—his stance on many inclusion-related subjects, the way in which he communicates this can come across as unnecessarily pointy: changing guidelines or essays without consensus, or tagging a newly-featured article with a template that says the plot section is "Too long compared to the rest of the article ... Discuss the work not the plot." I'm positive that would be justified in some cases, but this was an article in which 631 words out of 9,744 discussed the plot—just over 6% of the entire article. Hardly unduly weighted in the direction of plot summary (and for context, that edit came in the middle of a good-faith discussion about the issue in the abstract, where I'd simply used that article as an example). DreamGuy would be more justified in his actions if he targeted articles that genuinely merited such a tag—ones that contain plot and very little else. His current approach is counter-productive and alienates potential allies if nothing else. However, all that said, no administrator intervention is required here; for now, a reminder to those involved that the edit warring should stop is all that's required. Please, work it out on the relevant talk pages, and respect the consensus when it's over, even if it doesn't go your way. Steve T • C 08:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is something we can do: As far as I can tell, he has no positive contributions to fiction-related articles, but has caused extreme disruption. Why not just topic-ban him? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite justified yet. DreamGuy's tactics give me pause, and I agree something needs to be done to get him to back off a bit, but I won't go so far as a topic ban yet. I suspect that you and I would disagree pretty strongly as to what constitutes a "positive contribution", too. I've got no problem with a tagging ban, though. He should either fix things or leave them alone, not scrawl graffiti on them. If his version of fixing things results in disruption, we can look at a topic ban then.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A revert limit may also be an idea. Hiding T 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Violations from what I can see, DreamGuy has violated Edit Warring by reverting and removing sections from multiple pages, violated consensus by making a claim about a policy that is not true and removing sections from FAs which had consensus as meeting all MoS and policy standards on content issues without seeking to get new consensus, has made many accusations of bad faith, impropriety, etc, without evidence, and is removing content from multiple pages in violation of point simply because he wants to make a point that plot summaries shouldn't exist on Wikipedia as a whole. The user has made it clear that they wont stop, so a block would be preventative in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tkguy violating editing restrictions

    Resolved
     – blocked by Mastcell for edit warring

    Tkguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) As noted at User_talk:Tkguy#You_seem_to_have_forgotten_your_editing_restriction he is under a 1RR on all asian fetish artilces. From today:

    He's editing against a clear consensus of several editors to redirect that article. he was previously blocked for edit warring over this topic which causes his restrictions. This individual incident needs to be dealt with, but I'd also recommend a topic ban as he cannot help but disrupt in regards to this topic. I'm out for the weekend, so hopefully an admin can read up on this and handle it appropriately--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tkguy has been notified of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Already was notified. My bad. Sorry. Basket of Puppies 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Asian fetish and Asiaphile

    Here's the situation. We are dealing with long contentious problem with any and all topics related to articles attempting to label a racist behavior towards asians. The Asian fetish article is famous as it has been through 5 deletion attempts all done by different people. It has now gotten to a point where a deletion attempt are quickly closed out as with "snowball keep". Template:Multidel I believe people have given up their attempt at deleting the page for now but instead are pursuing other ways to undermine this page and any related topics. They are trying to fill the article up with misrepresentation of the sources. Probably an attempt to fill the article with questionable entries so it will not survive another deletion attempt. In fact Crossmr has been reverting my contribution to the Asian fetish page as seen here [484]. As you can read Crossmr version implies that Phoebe Eng finds Asian fetish liberating. This is a gross misrepresentation of her work. Her book "Warrior Lessons : An Asian American Woman's Journey into Power" spend many pages putting down Asian fetish and in an attempt to provide a counterpoint, as most fair authors do, she wrote one sentence that acknowledges that some asians find that it's liberating. I don't believe Crossmr ever read this book yet he's trying force his interpretation of the quote on the page. This is the nature of not only Crossmr's many many many contributions to the article but for most of the contributions made to this article. If you understand what is happening here it's apparent that Crossmr is a part of a group of editors pushing their agenda. It's fine to make contributions that contradict other contributions but to misrepresent sources. This kind of thing has to stop.

    Now for the topic of redirecting Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Asiaphile has a number of valid contributions. This page has been the way it was for a very long time. Yet now people want it to redirect to the Asian fetish page and claim it's due to redundancy of the article? Nobody made any attempt to explain where the redundancy is. I keep asking where the redundancy is but there's absolutely no response [485] [486]. Redirecting the page effectively wipes out the valid contributions on the page. This is WP:VAN as valid contributions are being deleted and goes against the purpose of wikipedia.

    I must admit it's been a while since I've edited here and I've forgotten about the 3rr rule. I am not well versed with all the rules of wikipedia but I do not tag team with others to push my agenda. I believe that is what is happening with the redirection of Asiaphile to Asian fetish with absolutely no attempt at preserving any of the contributions on the page. If these people were promoting good faith editing then they would be pointing out exactly where the redundancy is and attempting to merge the two articles. Instead you have people just redirecting to the Asian fetish page. The asian fetish page once again I must reiterate survived 5 deletion attempts but is obviously being mitigated by those who are would like nothing more than to have this article deleted. But they can't delete the article! So they are doing the next best thing which is to redirect all pages they do not like to this article. I would have approached an admin regarding this issue but I find that regarding this topic, there are many who wants to delete these articles or they just don't want to fight the many many many people who wants these articles deleted or mitigated. Tkguy (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the situation. You're under a 1RR on the articles in question. You don't get to violate that because you think you're really really right. What you've written is a great bit of content for something in the dispute resolution chain, but unfortunately has zero bearing on your editing restrictions and you violating them by continuing to edit war over these topics. The notification is on your talk page about yoru editing restrictions. You're not even permitted 3RR on the topics in question, you're permitted one. Since you've begun editing you've had talk on your page which you've no doubt looked at. I know you have because you carried on a conversation with mangojuice which involved your talk page. I can't possibly imagine you read this part of the talk on your talk page [487] and couldn't see the section 2 above labeled You seem to have forgotten your editing restriction. You don't get to conveniently forget about your restrictions every time you want to try and edit war. You were given a good faith pass on your edit warring last time when you were reminded in may about this. In fact as further evidence of your edit warring you were specifically asked to bring up the issue on the article talk page [488] if you had something to add to the discussion and you didn't do so. You just continued to revert.--Crossmr (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow

    Rarely does a single post inspire a new essay. See Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense. Durova320 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Love it. Articulates something we've all seen and been annoyed by countless times before. Equazcion (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    regardless of the actual merits, I do not find the post by Tkguy the least inappropriate or overlong or annoying. It's a reasoned defense of his edits, and his apology for breaking the rules about them. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish this had existed about a month ago... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He already got to apologize back in may for "forgetting" his editing restrictions. how many times are we going to let him do that before we realize his only purpose is to come here and edit war over those articles. That is the reason he is under an editing restriction. His reasoning is completely immaterial to his reversions. As I said, its a great start for dispute resolution if he wanted to do that, but even when he was invited to take the issue to the article talk page his response was to break his editing restrictions instead of doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper deletion of User pages

    Resolved
     – The talk pages are not deleted, and user pages were deleted per a legitimate U1 request. –xenotalk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why have User:Law and User:The undertow's User and Talk pages been deleted while there is continuing discussion not only about them, but about other people and their involvement with them? This looks like an attempt at coverup and a whitewash, until these matters are settled. NOTE: I have not commented, nor been involved, in these issues with this account, nor with my normal logged-in account. Some people probably won't believe that, but you'll just have to assume good faith on that matter. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying that there IS a coverup or whitewash, just that this has the appearance of such. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user talk pages are not deleted presently. User pages can be deleted at their owners' request. –xenotalk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: User talk:Law and User:Law have been redirected to User talk:The undertow, and the latter blanked. User:The undertow was deleted at user request in May 2009. Rd232 talk 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Law's history is still visible. [489] The more curious thing is why his puppetmaster, The undertow, is still being allowed to edit. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As is User_talk:The undertow. There is no action required here.
    As for your curiosity, see above at #Community ban discussion regarding The undertow –xenotalk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "prolific" young editor?

    This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticing Gritterwolf's large, MoS error-laden entry to The Haunted World of El Superbeasto that This editor made, I see an eager history with uncountable grammar, formatting, spelling, ect...errors but good faith edits. I think it may be a younger editor and I think someone here can approach it better than me. Please. Mjpresson (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't really matter if he/she is a young editor; we have hundreds of those. As always, if you see issues with someone's additions, click "edit" and fix 'em! –Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't even look at the issue in question? I'm not stupid, I brought it here for a reason. If I was able to do this I obviously would "fix'em". It involves a number of very large reverts vs a hundred manual edits. Really. Please. Is this the answer I'm going to get? Mjpresson (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but it doesn't seem like administrative action is needed here. If necessary, leave the editor a note asking them to mind their grammar and/or to slow down a bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Mjpresson is asking if someone with more experience with diplomacy could talk to the person. While not an administrative action, I see no need to send him off. Chillum 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just it. I'm not lazy, just inexperienced with removing very large contributions by what seems a very young and eager contributor whose edits have caused some articles to go south and I'm unsure of the approach to take. If someone actually read the contribution I mentioned, what would you do, remove his entire contribution or fix about 30 errors in the contribution manually? oh well. Mjpresson (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've beta'd young fanfic authors - I'll have a word --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding IP editor

    Resolved
    This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Problem_with_IP_editor_repeatedly_hounding_me_for_months - The IP editor is still trying to hound TheFarix Special:Contributions/206.170.111.187 - I warned him to be civil. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of this and another non-related harassment by a different IP editor that's turning ugly, I'm open to a 2 month semi-protection of both my talk and user pages. —Farix (t | c) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP has also started posting harassing messages on my talk page. The IP appears static and needs to be blocked. The last block was mid-September and disruption resumed when the block expired. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear the person has also edited as 206.170.104.25 (talk · contribs). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP was blocked and the above requested user pages semi protected. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pioneer Courthouse Square

    Resolved
     – Blocked.

    Our homeless obsessed long-term banned editor is back, would someone do the honours? (I can't remember his original name he's had so many accounts so can't check for an open sock-case). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked by Zzuuzz. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very strange obsession - maybe a homeless person shot his dog or something. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the case history: [490] →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we've got a flurry of aged socks coming in to make the same edits. I've full-protected for a week, and will reboot the SPI to see if we can't root out the rest of the hosiery department. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And CU has delivered. All socks blocked, but range is too large, so have your mallets ready when the mole pops back up. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye-aye, sir. All mallets are locked and loaded. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something was said about cannons and such. Let me go on record as saying I don't believe in committing violence against others. Unless they deserve it. OK, mixed metaphor, mallets locked and loaded. And also excessively violent. Instead, how about the next time it turns up, I'll hit it in the side of the head with one of Mrs. Smith's finest. That would be a pie-on-ear. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War at Jon & Kate Plus 8

    I would not have normally brought this here so soon, however, the user has been here before for similar reasons and this has escalated extremely quickly from a simple edit to correct the issues to warring in the span of about half an hour. The user is not assuming good faith in the least about my edits to Jon & Kate Plus 8. The user has reverted my edits three times, all with bad faith edit summaries: vandalism, wishful thinking, vandalism, removing cited information (yes, I should have caught that the user squeaked in another paragraph after reverting me), misuse of twinkle (I never roll back an editor's edits if I am iffy on it, but instead revert to a previous version to avoid misusing Twinkle, edit for clarification: this particular rollback was after I had been slapped with a 3RR and accused of vandalism twice; at that point I felt the rollback was justified as the user kept inserting violations w/o discussion.).

    In the meantime, Chuthya slapped me with a 3RR warning after my second revert as I was trying to explain on their talk page why I was changing their edits (violations of WP:MOSTV and WP:OR). Even after suggesting we discuss the issue instead of fighting, the user then left this message on their talk. At this point, I feel like the user is hounding me. I feel very uncomfortable at this point and will be distancing myself from the article, despite knowing there are still several violations as I feel the user has decided to full-scale revert any and all of my edits without consideration or discussion. Thanks for any help or advise. Thank you. --132 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From an initial review, it's clearly a 2-sided edit war, but it doesn't appear that thirteen squared (talk · contribs) has been either vandalizing or misusing twinkle. I think this belongs on WP:AN3.Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) :A note to uninvolved admins that this is a full out edit war between the two editors. The filing editor has reverted Chutya three times today on the article in question ([491], [492], [493]), one of those reverts being completed with the use of Twinkle along with an edit summary accusing Chutya of vandalism. They are both equally guilty and have both left bogus vandalism/3RR warnings on each other's talk pages ([494], [495]) while engaged in this edit war. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Big Bird. However, thirteen squared (talk · contribs) has rollback rights. I'm always concerned when I see a rollbacker in an edit war (for any reason) and am usually inclined to remove the privilege. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to make it clear that none of my warnings...any of them...came until after I was slapped with a 3RR and accused of vandalism multiple times. I felt, and still feel, that Chuthya was purposely trying to escalate the situation, but I do realize that I should have kept my cool. This is why I have not reverted since then (despite lingering issues) and came here instead. Also, I never used rollback once during the entire ordeal (I rarely do for anything other than outright vandalism), only Twinkle. --132 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clear. I don't think either editor was vandalizing so those warnings are bogus. However the 3RR warnings are applicable as this was a classic edit war about a content dispute. Yes, I noticed you didn't roll back, but when you have the rollback privilege, the standard gets set a bit higher, just as admins are held to much higher standards. Rollbackers who edit war generally lose the priv. I'm not going to push the point and I haven't removed the priv. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just don't edit war, so the claim kind of threw me for a loop. I've been here for over two years and I am rarely involved in even little skirmishes, let alone stuff like this. I try to just stay out of it (and I should have distanced myself sooner in this case). I use Twinkle a bit, but the only times I ever even use Rollback is outright vandalism. I apologize if this disagreement is giving cause for concern. --132 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I certainly hope cool headed admins will share my view that this does not require administrator intervention, I feel compelled to respond to Thirteen squared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s allegations.

    • The user is not assuming good faith WP:AGF is a guideline, but when you see blind reverts after edits are made to up date an article with BLP concerns, it strains an editor's ability to assume that those are good faith reverts.
    • The user has reverted my edits three times WP:3RR is overlooked when reverts are made to an article with BLP concerns. My edits to the article to bring the article up to date and remove outdated an inacurate information. User:Thirteen_squared's reverts are to an inacurate and damaging version of an article with BLP concerns.
    • At this point, I feel like the user is hounding me. I hope that uninvolved admins will see through this as escalating the issue to make a point. I gave the user a WP:3RR warning after two blind reverts to an article with BLP concerns. This is hardly following the user and nowhere comes close to the guidline listed at WP:HOUND. But what would you make of three reverts within a half hour, two templated warnings on my talk page, and an escalation to WP:ANI?
    • If you take a look at the history of Jon & Kate Plus 8 you will see numerous occastions of User:Thirteen_squared reverting edits to this article using Twinkle. I'm not saying that all of the reverts were inappropriate, but allegations by this user accusing another of owning this article are specious.

    Furthermore, I've changed the title of this section to focus on the issue, not editors. I hope an uninvolved admin will look into this user's actions, especially their use of Twinkle and rollback concerning an article with BLP concerns. Perhaps an admonishment is all that would be necessary regarding the use of rollback and Twinkle. . Chuthya (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding your points:
    1. I was not blind reverting. You violated WP:MOSTV by making all verbs related to the show in past tense and adding OR with the implications that the show has been canceled, when it hasn't. I explained exactly why I reverted the very first time in the edit summary: "the show will never go to "was", it will always be "is"; production has been halted, not cancelled, to say it is over is OR; show name and source still valid until told [otherwise]". That is not blind reverting or not assuming good faith. You, on the other hand, immediately reverted that and outright accused me of vandalism.
    2. This was not a BLP concern. This is a concern about the style of the article and whether the information about production is accurate. Saying it is a BLP concern is bogus.
    3. Neither revert was a blind revert and I stated why I reverted, quite clearly, in both edit summaries. Your reversion of me, without any attempt at discussion, not acknowledging anything I said in the edit summary, and accusing me of vandalism, and slapping me with a 3RR for bogus reasons is hounding: "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."
    4. When you continually revert good faith edits using bad faith edit summaries and refusing to discuss before making accusations and slapping me with a warning does make me think you feel you own the page. I stand by my statement regarding that.
    I am one of the editors of the page that is extremely harsh about BLP violations (which can be seen on the talk page and its archives) so the fact that I'm being called out on trying to fix style and inaccurate statements about production with the bogus claim that it is a BLP violation is laughable. Also, I only use the "rollback" feature of Twinkle for vandalism; all other Twinkle edits simply revert to a previous version, as it is far quicker than manually doing so. --132 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, you two need to talk to each other. The way to resolve this is not by reverting each other, leaving templated warnings and then coming here to complain. You both need to civilly discuss this on the article's talk page and your respective user talk pages and come to a consensus which is something that neither of you attempted whole-heartedly. I suggest that you cease further discussing the issue at this board and go to the article's talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and I did offer to discuss the issue (granted, it was doubled with a warning, which I shouldn't have done). I also mentioned my reasons for concern on the article's talk page. Chuthya has yet to respond at all to any specific points I've raised on either page. --132 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected the page. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which...isn't really necessary at this point. I stopped reverting long ago (my first revert was the spark that started all of this) and the user in question has finally come to my talk page in a civil manner. --132 22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet investigation request

    Resolved
     – SPI filed successfully

    The instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations are confusing when it comes to requesting an investigation of a new sock on a closed case.

    Based on editing patterns and the prior closed case, I strongly believe User:GarnetAndBlack and User:129.252.69.40 are sockpuppets of User:ViperNerd. The IPs are from the same pool, and the editing patterns are similar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive.

    Your assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No opinion on either the sockpuppet accusation or the content dispute, but I have warned the IP to tone it down. I suggest you do the same. This, for example, is only ever going to inflame a situation; it will never calm things down.  Frank  |  talk  15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its registered to University of South Carolina; Computer Services Division --Hu12 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go to the WP:SPI page, and fill in the box called "Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request". In the box, you should enter "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd". Then hit the submit button and try to follow the instructions. The system is smart enough to know this sockmaster was reported before, and it will do the right thing. Once you get your report started, a helpful clerk will eventually appear (within a couple of days) to advise you on any mistakes you might have made. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On cases where a CU has been requested, a clerk will look it over generally within hours, not days. For the non-CU cases (where resolution requires an administrator, and a double check isn't needed ahead of a checkuser) it sometimes is a little longer, but still not usually days before anyone at least looks at it. Nathan T 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1421: The Year China Discovered the World‎

    Can an administrator look at this article please. I tagged it for neutrality issues, noted why on the talk page (per guidelines), and there is now an RfC on the issue. Two other editors, who have clearly indicated that they agree with the criticism against the book, have removed the tags repeatedly, continuing to false claim that the tags have not been explained and are invalid. If I restore, I would violate 3RR, so I will not do so, however considering the BLP issues as the author is alive and being attacked in this article, and the ongoing discussion and RfC, I would like to ask an outside administrative view of the tagging. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to the RFC? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Link: [498] Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gaunkars of Goa

    User:Gaunkars of Goa has made absolutely no useful contributions so far. Rather he is using Wikipedia to promote his own weird ideas about territorial sovereignity[499], [500]. He is peeved at India's annexation of Goa in 1961[501] which he feels is illegal and wants Wikipedia to recognize Goa as a disputed territory[502]!

    None of the other editors have found any substance in his arguments but that has not deterred him from using talk pages to champion his cause[503], [504], [505]. My efforts to get him to be a productive Wikipedian were fruitless and he has instead produced a coat rack version of an existing article to promote his ideas[506].

    Repeated warnings and ignoring have had no effect. He laid low for a while having found no supporters; until he found an unwitting supporter. Now emboldened, he has taken up his cause again with great vigor. Today he has crossed the limits of sanity. Not only has he threatened to "screw my happiness"[507] but also decided to appeal to Jimbo himself[508]. About time someone put an end to his nonsense. --Deepak D'Souza 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been aware of Gaunkars of Goa (talk · contribs) since the account was created and can attest that it is used exclusively for soapboxing (as in this latest edit). The only "positive" aspect is that he now restricts his comments to userspace, article talk space and wikipedia project pages (he hasn't edited an article in about 4 months). Don't know if he should continue to be ignored, or if he has exhausted the community patience and should be blocked or banned. Would request an uninvolved admin to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS The recent threat to Deepak D'Souza is troubling escalation. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Block for disturbing Jimbo. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef. Other admins feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block. Gaunkars of Goa only interest is in using wikipedia as a soapbox and does nothing for the encyclopedia.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock declined as not addressing the reason for his block. "LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL" is not an adequate request for unblock.  Sandstein  05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual edit, appears to be attorney communications and personal info

    Resolved
     – Revision deleted by an oversighter. MuZemike 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit I'm not quite sure what to make of. It appears to have attorney communications and personal info in it, including a list of emails. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iwillremembermypassthistime

    User:Iwillremembermypassthistime shows behaviour of owning the Template:Infobox Peri GR, a template which exists for 3,5 years without any problem. Suddenly, he started edit wars in a series of articles (see [509], [510], [511], [512], [513], [514], [515], [516], [517], [518], [519], [520], [521]), where he continually replaced the above template with the Template:Infobox Settlement. Now he has started another edit war in the template itself (see [522]) insisting on wrapping or substituting it with the Template:Infobox Settlement for no obvious reason, since there are a lot of templates for other countries' subvision as well (see Category:Europe country subdivision infobox templates). This is the second time that I post a note about this user, the first was ignored by all the administrators. - Sthenel (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a warning on the user's talk page that reverting without discussion is unacceptable and may lead to a block.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – deleted as G12 of www.luxuryculture.com/city-guide/paris

    My spider sense is tingling with the above article and the accounts who created it. I suspect a strong COI and possibly even G11 candidate, but I can't justify it. Could I have a second opinion? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Three newly created accounts all editing only this article....hmmm, I suspect escapees from Jake the Peg's smalls drawer --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppeteer TreadingWater is back

    He was indefinitely blocked after abusive sockpuppeting. He both edit-warred, and attempted to sway consensus using these sockpuppets. After an investigation concluded that he had done so, he was indefinitely blocked. Fred Bauder chose to reset the block to 3 months, after TW "groveled" on some kind of mailing list thing. Apparently he promised to never, ever, ever, do it again. He returned from his 3-month block yesterday, and is already edit-warring, across multiple articles relating to generations. He's made it clear that he will continue edit-warring against consensus (the articles have been very stable for the three months of his block), and it's my view that the indefinite block needs restored. The only alternative, in my view, is a complete topic ban from anything remotely generation-related. UnitAnode 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's not using sockpuppets anymore, I think an indef block for edit warring is unwarranted. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 00:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has picked up exactly where he left off. The indef should have never been modified to begin with. It wasn't just that he was sockpuppeting, it was that he was EDIT-WARRING using those sockpuppets. UnitAnode 01:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked TreadingWater indef since he resumed wide-scale POV-pushing of Generation Jones across 32 articles less than a day after his three-month block expired. This cannot possibly represent abiding by the promises of good behavior that he gave back on June 30 to get his indef block shortened. His desire to promote this topic is so strong that he actually voted with socks in the AfD to prevent the article on Generation Jones from being deleted. My action is open to review by other admins; I was not aware of this thread when I closed the AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Abuse/ Hazing

    Resolved
     – Nothing problematic in the way it was handled by the administrator. Further discussion should be at Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to call to the attention for Administrative review the willful Hazing and instigations of one BorgQueen (talk · contribs) administrator who has been unnecessarily pestering and provoking me and abusing his/her power to the most corrupt extent.

    The incident occured at the page "Cuisine of Hawaii" where the Administrative BorgQueen (talk · contribs) deleted several in-depth and informative paragraphs chock full of a variety of highly useful and applicable information, and replaced the entire article with one tiny ignorant paragraph which states Hawaiian people eat only junk food, which is racist, slanderous, assinine, blatent bigotry, and racial predjudice.

    After I restored the article to its original state, which was radically changed from informative to bigotted without any explanation posted on the discussion page whatsoever, I posted a message on the talk page of BorgQueen (talk · contribs) asking the abusive individual to stop Vandalising the "Cuisine of Hawaii" page, because such behavior is unnacceptable at wikipedia.

    "BorgQueeen" responded by locking my user account, again, without so much as an explanation.

    so I left a second message on his/her talk page, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my comments from his/her talk page so others couldn't read it. Fearful of reprimand, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) has, in the 24 hours since my blocking, changed his/her talk page completely and deleted the history of my comments forever, which were in no way abusive or rude, or unapplicable to his/her blatent provocative hazing. That is unmistakeably the actions of a corrupt and guilty individual

    I then posted the comments on my own page, hoping for some kind of explanation to 1.) why the page was changed so blatently racist, and 2.) why my account was locked.

    BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my posts from my own talk page, which were, again, not abusive but were simply asking for clarification and explanation.

    BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then posted the following comment "You have been temporarily blocked for your long history of disruptive edits."

    Please, I invite any to look back through my history, particularly Guangzhou, and you will find all of my edits were justified and clearly explained and made clear through peer review and discussion, though they might have been argued by my struggling peers, that does not make them "Disruptive".

    On a more delinquent and willfully destructive note: I didnt edit the "Cuisine of Hawaii" for several weeks, then I went there 2 days ago to add some important information on Fusion Soups in Hawai'i's Cusine, at 18:26 1 October 2009, i updated the wikipedia. and at 18:26, 1 October 2009, less than 1 minute after my edit, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) edited in what can only be described as the most willfully distruptive, provocative, and hazing manner i have witnessed on the Wikipedia, but is rampant behavior amongst many other moderators on many websites throughout the World Wide Web

    BorgQueen has a personal vendetta with me, and is running around the Wikipedia hazing and Provoking me by vandalizing all of the pages I contribute to.

    If this is a common sentiment amonst administrators at Wikipedia, then i wish for you to remove my account and delete all of my information, and i will cease visiting this cesspool.

    otherwise I demand for user BorgQueen (talk · contribs) to be severely reprimanded and removed from the Wikipedia's degenerating list of Administrator's--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L31 G0NG L41 (talk • contribs) [reply]

    It would help if you would sign your comments. Thanks, Abce2|This isnot a test 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BorgQueen has been notified of this discussion. Evil saltine (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those "messages" where attacks. Also, don't try to impersonate people.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of impersonation. Tried to impersonate sig. [[523]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    um, I don't really understand what you are attempting to communicate, i forgot my signature, I am not "impersonating" a 'nobody', that's an unfounded accusation which we can all only assume was for furthering hazing. --L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Try disscussing things next time insted of attacking. [[524]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There were no attacks, you can read it on my page. you cannot read it on BorgQueens page, not even in the history, as its all been deleted. only someone with the ability to restore deleted HISTORY items will be able to review that. Here's a quick question for you though, WHY WOULD ANYONE DELETE THE HISTORY???, it doesn't take Thomas Jefferson to figure that out.--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The content you added should be integrated into the article as it exists, not dropped into the lead of the article. Also, much of the added content violated the neutral point of view policy, for example: "Hawaii is home to the freshest ingredients from land and sea." BorgQueen did not write the content that you object to; she just reverted your edits. Evil saltine (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no, I added to what was there, why don't you go ahead and look at the page prior to my first edit before you try and justify the unjustifiable. "The Freshest Ingredients from land and Sea" is the NPOV. you can go ahead an measure pollutiuon levels in Hawaii and surround waters with say, the Mediterranean, or wherever you think has better quality ingredients. It is 7 small islands, they get their food from the islands, its not shipped across the continental united states.. do u need a map of how food gets shipped around the globe? or what is it that might satisfy your accusations?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note I reported this user to WQA just last week [525] for their over-the-top talk page comments. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    with half of you editors I would need a megaphone and a Superbowl-like event to get anything through your predjudices an Bias. let's discuss the "over the top" comments, And wy wasn't I notified of the report, u going deep undercover?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were. [526]. Don't see how it gets more obvious than that. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed the evidence and IMO BorgQueen has simply enforced policy and community standards with both civility and fairness. There is no substance to this complaint. I move to close. Manning (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I move for a petition for further review by a more neutral party who has looked into 1.) why the history was delted on the talk page, and 2.) why was the informative artice NOT reverted but changed into some sort of racist propaganda?
    I move for a Hawaiian Admin Review, from the Hawaiian Wikipedia--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how Manning is not neutral. Secondly we the english wikipedia, we can only deal with situation that happen on this wiki. Not others.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In this diff you refactored my earlier comment to appear as if I had included a link. I am willing to believe it was unintentional, however I would caution you against such carelessness in future.
    This matter is now closed as all reviewing admins feel there is no case for BorgQueen to answer. I have never interacted with BorgQueen before, or ever edited the article in question, therefore my neutrality is beyond question. While I appreciate that you did not get the outcome you wanted, it is over and further protests will not benefit you. The content issues can be resolved at the talk page for the relevant article. Manning (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Csjoholm

    CSjoholm (talk · contribs) have for some unbeliavable reason got the idea that Sweden is tolerant on drugs. This idea, he can't verify by giving sources, he persistantly tries to push into the article Legality of cannabis, see here, here, here, here, here and here. The issue have been discussed at Talk:Legality of cannabis#Sweden - Is there tolerance or not? where I have informed Csjoholm about WP:V and WP:NOR and urged him to produce sources to back up his claims. I have also warned him to stop with his disruptive editing. But to no evail, see here and here. He have also counter-threated me and accused me of pushing for "untruthfull substance", here. Previously he have said more or less straight out that he is going to war about this, to wait until my interest wain and try again to push his view (here). ... I am not totally familiar with the routine here, so what to do? Steinberger (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added userlinks, and corrected the {{user}} template to point to the correct user.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also warned the user against adding original research to the article. If they persist, up the warning. Since I have given them a level one, up it to a level two. If they persist after that, a level three. If they reach a level four, and persist, report them to WP:AIV.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has now been blocked, however, please do not resolve this thread, I would like to see if the user continues to delete the material after the block is over.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review indefblock

    Further information: [[:#Administrator Abuse/ Hazing|§ Administrator Abuse/ Hazing]]

    After seeing that L31 G0NG L41 (talk · contribs) tried to continue what I saw as an ugly personal attack on BorgQueen, I decided to block him indef. Granted, it was a big step up from his previous 31-hour block. But one look at his edits and his talk page and just, wow. I didn't see this ending any other way. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 04:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sockpuppet

    I'm on more or less of a not-really-contributing wikibreak kind of a thing do to work. Nevertheless, I checked my watchlist when I got home from work and saw this. Obvious sock is obvious (contribs), no idea who it's a sock of, but if someone would wield the banhammer and CU that would be just dandy. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JL 09

    Resolved
     – User:23prootie blocked for 1 month (see other section)

    This user, User:JL 09, has been doing edit wars, disruptive editing, and article owning at Francisco Carreón, Could you please block her until October 6. Thanks.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HistoricWarrior007 and User:Xeeron

    I am looking for an uninvolved experienced editor/admin who is willing to spend a (potentially longer) amount of time to review the behavior of User:HistoricWarrior007 and myself at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war and related talk pages. Summarized quickly, I want to know whether his behavior is appropriate, whether my behavior is appropriate, and in case either is not, an outside source to point out what has to be changed. Especially, I want to know whether I can do anything about his wrong accusations (e.g. [528], this is the latest, but by far not the only example).

    Please note that this stretches back a good while in the talk page archives, involves an article with heavy POV disputes and frequent use of reverts and also note that this has been partially brought up (though we are both not part of the case) at [529]. --Xeeron (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What Xeeron has done in that edit, is deleted a whole section, of analysts, after he wrote his version in the summary. I want the reader to have access to the actual version, not Xeeron's summary. As per the Arbitration group, I did not want to bring Xeeron into it, but he came and accused me, leaving me no choice but to defend. I have extended an olive branch multiple times, and each time it has been rebuffed. I believe Xeeron's hatred of me stands as a result of my actions during the "Title Change" debate, where I used the talkpage to make my arguments, prior to doing any edits. The 2008 South Ossetia War, like the Iraq War and the Gaza War is a controversial article. As such, I require editors to discuss their edits, prior to making them. In his edits, Xeeron deleted a bunch of analysts, that he no long deemed necessary; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=317582338&oldid=317582123 this was done irrespective of the wishes of any other editors and irrespective of any discussion. I have been in arguments with FeelSunny and Offliner, over the same thing, as well as with Kober, Reneem, and numerous other editors. This isn't a policy that I only apply towards Xeeron, although, since he doesn't usually discuss his edits, it affects him the most. I have roughly twice as many posts on the talkpage, as I have edits. I expect my fellow editors to be able to explain the edits, prior to placing them in a controversial article and having these edits result in an edit war. I don't believe that asking an editor to explain his edits is too much.
    In addition, I believe that Xeeron hates me. This has been clear in at least one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results "The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" I have attached the link so that one can get the whole context of the discussion. All I did was notified five editors, all of whom previously edited the article, as recently as a few weeks ago, and posted the voting link thingy on Russia's Talkpage, instead of WikiProject:Russia Talkpage, which was a newbie mistake that I have admitted.
    One must keep in mind that the article is a heated one, and sometimes emotions come to the forefront. I try my best to suppress mine, and I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone, is too much of a sin. However, since Xeeron feels this is necessary, I do not object, I only ask that the editor takes into account the heated nature of the article, the threats I faced, and what I have to put up with, mainly Xeeron's editing tactics, where I cannot question the edit, because it is an "expert quote", and therefore in no need of being justified to be included in the article. For instance, one of the discussions was about New York Times, where the NYT claimed that ethnic cleansing was a form of Genocide. For the act of pointing out that such an article, (written in an NYT Blog) cannot possibly be valid, I was pointed to WP:Source.
    Despite all that had happened, I am willing to give ADR a shot. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this is what RfC or mediation is for. In my understanding admins are not the right people to ask for such comments, as they are just editors with tools to punish people and may lack the ability to actually mediate in a specific case. Several times I met reasonable mediators who were not admins. (Igny (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    @Igny: Possibly I am not as well versed in wiki politics as you are. If this belongs somewhere else, I'll be happy to go there.
    However, I have had to put up with Historicwarrior lying about me for a long time now. He just did it again in the post above: "I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone", is very untrue, because I did exactly that: [530]. Making matters worse, he repeated that lie here, after I already pointed out it is wrong on the article's talk page: [531]. To top it off, this very topic (shortening of the responsibility section after the EU report) has been discussed not only in the section pointed out by me above, but several times before on the talk page, as far back as April and several times since then: [532], [533], [534] (very end of section), [535], [536]. It is common knowledge to all active editors of the article, which includes HistoricWarrior. I can only conclude that he maliciously repeats his lie as part of his smear campaign against me.
    The same goes for his "Xeeron hates me" story. I suspect that it is rather his hatred of me that drives his attacks, but who knows. He all bases it on one edit where I stated that I would not forget that he breaks wiki policy to push his POV (btw, his "newbie mistake" was to canvass enough people to change a vote on the article title that followed after months of talk page discussions spanning hundreds of post on this very topic) and on the fact that I defend myself against his frequent wrong accusations against me.
    He claimed to "extend an olive branch" just a little bit ago [537], only to follow it up with a longish direct attack on me [538] which included the wrong accusations repeated above.
    Unfortunately, this is not a singular incident, but only one in a very long list (remember his taking to calling me "Agent Xeeron" for a while? There are many more such cases). This has to stop. I want someone with the authority to stop it to look into it and to decide whether this kind of behavior is ok or not. Of course, I am willing to prevent a very long list of edit summaries, with various infractions, but I feel it is more fair to ask someone to read the entire talk page history before doing that (and it is likely to save time for the person looking into this as well, since most is concentrated on one article's talk page in any case). --Xeeron (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:23prootie edits

    Resolved
     – User:23prootie blocked for 1 month by User:SarekOfVulcan

    Hello. I think there is something happening bad here. 23prootie charges me of owning the article Francisco Carreon, even though his obsessive behavior pointed that he really wanted to own the article: like not accepting good faith edits done by other editors, and deleting every single notification tags and reliable edits done by others in Francisco Carreon. He even accused me of vandalism one time, but the term vandalism applies if a user did edit not to improve the article but to worsen it, I wanted to improve Carreon article to comply with Wikipedia policies as well as historical facts, but 23prootie still mind of violating rules. He inserted Vice President infobox on the article even if Carreon is not an official vice president of the Philippines (vice president of the Tagalog Republic may qualify, but Philippines? No). The precedence that the post was abolished also signified that he really was the Philippine's Vice president. I cleaned up the article so much that it is accurate with Wikipedia policies, re-linked the Balangay sorts (see below), he also insisted to add Carreon in the Vice President of the Philippines template even though User:TheCoffee removed recently unofficial vice presidents. He changed the article's assessment many times claiming that it is a B-class and High-importance because Carreon is an important icon in history (but changed his reason later).

    I changed the internal link Katagalugan to Tagalog Republic to globalize the article. For example, not all people in Wikipedia is familiar in Tagalog language, so I just renamed the phrases Republika ng Katagalugan into more English Tagalog Republic then inserted parenthesis with the Tagalog equivalent inside it. I also changed Sacay to Sakay because that was the real name of Macario Sakay, not Macario Sacay. I also inserted English name of the guardia civil, the civil guard. All of those were removed.

    I advised him to contact somebody if he wanted to re-assess his article, but he still pushed to change the assessment. As for the assessment issue, a member of WikiProject Biography said that its a Start article and a low, but not C.

    As for the Philippine Commonwealth, a long debate occurred when he moved the article to Philippine Commonwealth from Commonwealth of the Philippines. Debators stand that the article should be named as Commonwealth of X, w/c was based on historical notes. But one time, when 23prootie found an archived news at the NY Times using the shorthand Philippine Commonwealth, he moved the article in that name. We explained to him that the official name of the Commonwealth was really Commonwealth of X, and it was written that way to save ink: i.e., many documents/news mentions the name Commonwealth of the Philippines before saying Philippine Commonwealth in successive paragraphs. Two other users, BilCat and RightCowLeftCoast as well as I decided that the article should reach a consensus before moving, then I applied for page-move protection for the Commonwealth, which was protected indef.

    Earlier this day, 23prootie copied the whole article and pasted it on the redirect Philippine Commonwealth (and its talk page) just to "evade" (I can't remember what's the proper term) the page-move protection of Commonwealth of the Philippines. Then he created another section listing down his points which was based on WP:NAME. I think this issue is the same when I proposed a move of Benigno Aquino, Jr. to Ninoy Aquino, when users agreed that as long as a redirect, such as Philippine Commonwealth points to the main article, say Commonwealth of the Philippines, there is no reason to move such article.

    On the Philippine Commonwealth talk, he listed down all rules in WP:NAME plus his own understanding how it applies to the article. I don't see why or he justifies that the name "X Commonwealth" is more unique than the common "Commonwealth of X", to quote is really unique per se. Finally, the admin who protected the page Commonwealth of the Philippines said that if and when a clear consensus for moving/renaming develops, just drop him by note that a consensus for renaming was developed and it's time for page-move. Consequently, even before the community decided what would be the best article name for the historical government, and even before this section was written, the article was moved, renamed by means of copy-pasting, 23prootie moved the article based on his justification. If my calculations are correct, this is the 6th time the article was moved by the same person with no consensus (just he saw it in the Internet) of the community. I believe this probably the same reason why User:Boxedor boiled his blood and undergone edit warring over the article Philippines.

    23prootie has been blocked multiple times, and same reason goes: edit warring and disruptive editing.

    I need an advice, I can't stand it any longer. Thanks, JL 09 q?c 08:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I unfortunatly must concur with the statements made by User:JL_09. The user in question, has continued to make changes to the article, that are not within the consensus of all active users. Furthermore he has bypassed the move block, by blanking the information, cutting it and pasting it to a new article with the name that the page was moved to in his/her attempt before. Now, I assume good faith that the user in question only means to do the best by the article. However, given that there is a consensus that the article name should remain at Commonwealth of the Philippines, which is also supported by references, he/she has continued to thwart said consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of JL 09, her opinion has no bearing. She has clearly been following my edits for the past few days (See Did you know? for balangay, Tambayan Philippines, List of capitals of East Asia, and my own talk page) and has been trolling me. In the case of the Philippine Commonwealth, I have presented reliable sources of it's use (New York Times), and has presented my side on the talk page), it's not really my problem if they don't agree with me. Facts are facts.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. As for Boxedor, she was a Sockpuppeteer and a Vandal so please don't associate me with her.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Katipunan referencing

    According to history, the balangay in Katipunan doesn't mean the boat itself, (also called prehistorically as balangay, in the Philippines), and Silanganan and Dapitan are not Far East and the city itself, but codenames for places in Manila area where Katipunan is active. For example, they listed Binondo as one of Katipunan core activity areas. If they do not want to expose Binondo as a place where Katipuneros meet and nested, they will write in their documents the place codenamed as Tikbalang or even Madrid, for example. As for the balangay, it is not the boat, but another codename for municipal level branch of the Katipunan. If, the Katipunan is considered the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian or Supreme Council, provincial level is called Sangguniang Panlalawigan or provincial council and in municipal level, it is called Sangguniang Balangay or balangay council. Balangay is used here as another codename for municipality. As such, Katipunan is full of codenames sometimes very hard to distinguish from facts–so I do not see any reason why it must be linked to Far East and Dapitan City, and balangay for the boat article--JL 09 q?c 08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While those names are themselves codenames, they are meant to reference objects or locations related to Filipino culture. A link is necessary to clarify what they are. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charles Dawson

    Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#User:Charles Dawson|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § User:Charles Dawson]]
    Resolved
     – User blocked. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite several warnings about his unacceptable inputs, this user has refused to comply with WP:MOS and has now, by his latest edits backed up by the comment on his talk page, shown that he is nothing more than a vandal who is deliberately adding inappropriate and useless material anywhere he feels like it. There is no point in trying to communicate with him and I strongly recommend that he is blocked indefinitely. ----Jack | talk page 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    I agree with BlackJack, if the user Charles Dawson has a problem converting the copyrighted material into a piece of writing that is 'in his own words' and not a copy & paste of the original, then he should ask for assistance not re-post it ad nauseum. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here are five recent edits – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – all of which completely ignore previous entreaties to him to abide by WP:MOS and to stop copying and pasting copyrighted material. Mr Dawson will not listen, he will not learn and he repeatedly ruins articles by what is in my view a deliberate campaign of vandalism that is disguised as a "helpless newbie" or whatever. Please block him indefinitely. ----Jack | talk page 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it has happened again this morning since this notice was placed and the editor was advised of it. Would someone please block this person because he is doing this deliberately. ----Jack | talk page 08:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been beaten to the block button by Lankiveil. This was only because I took the time to track down the source of the second piece of plagiarized content that this person was passing off as xyr own work whilst I was composing the talk page message. ☺ I don't feel like I'm kicking a puppy. Having read the original works, I cannot think of any way that this person could be under the false impression that xe wasn't copying and pasting wholesale from books written by other people, and doing this any way other than entirely knowingly and deliberately. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User 81.97.54.237

    Resolved
     – User blocked. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On 19 September User:Opensource4ever and sockpuppet User:Themuffinmaniscool were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and abusive edits, principally restoring copyright violations to Men of Harlech. This user also acted as a wikihound, following me around and reverting my otherwise unconnected edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opensource4ever/Archive. At 01:33 on 2 October a user at 81.97.54.237 restored the copyvio edits of Opensource4Ever to Men of Harlech. At 02:35 on 2 October I received this email from Wikimedia:

    Someone from the IP address 81.97.54.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
    The new password for the user account "Cyclopaedic" is "XXXXXXX". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password....

    This was fraudulent request. I naturally suspect that 81.97.54.237 is a further appearance of the banned user and that the wikihounding is continuing, including a fraudulent attempt to hijack my user account. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore the email. The old password will still work; using it will nullify the new password. Vandals try this stunt a lot and usually end up hitting a dead end.
    As for the IP, I suggest you file an SPI on the off-chance he's making more socks; I'll block 81. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried going to SPI before I came here, but the page and instructions were too hard to follow. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Second opinion on rollback removal

    There is a dispute about flags in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Before, not after, I was aware of the discussion there I removed a bunch of flags. User:Urbanrenewal wasn't happy about that, see discussion on the MOS and his and mine talk page, and today reverted a lot of my edits with rollback. Therefore I removed the rollback from his account. Was I too involved or was it just blatant abuse of rollback which warrants removal of the rollback group. Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate you listing this incident here and hope we can resolve this constructively. I did use rollback in this case given the automatic mass reversion of a series of edits that were in the process of being discussed. The use of rollback allowed for a more efficient process given the sheer number of edits Garion96 had made. I misinterpreted Garion96's edits as an abusive attempt to overwhelm the discussion by making so many edits in such a short period of time. At the time i was reverting I did consider this to be a series of unproductive edits. I should have been quicker to Assume Good Faith and use undo instead with a full edit summary. I discussed my rollback immediately on Garion96's talk page and I admitted that perhaps I should have undone rather than rolled back Garion96's edits. With the possible exception of this situation I have consistently used best pracices in employing Rollback. With respect to the immediate removal of my rollback rights, I did feel that Garion96 was biased in this situation given a back and forth about the removal of flag icons from articles. I would hope that as a result of this Garion96 and I can work together productively and that my rollback rights will be restored. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that User:Urbanrenewal is an editor in good standing, and that there is an open discussion (whether you are aware of it or not), I think Garion acted at least hastily. This was unlikely to de-escalate the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He reverted my edits 24 hours after. So during/after the discussion in which he failed, so far, to change consensus, he rollbacked my edits. I can't say I am inclined to give him rollback back. I won't object however if someone else decides to restore the rights. Garion96 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Garion96 is giving some context but has not characterized the situation entirely correctly. To give some additional context the discussion came about as a result of an aggressive push to remove all flag icons from infoboxes across hundreds of articles. With the exception of Gario96 the users involved in this effort stopped making further edits to have a discussion and build consensus. We are in the process of discussing how to arrive at consensus for such broad changes since there are only a small group of editors involved in the discussion. I woke up this morning, looked at my watchlist and saw a mass removal by Garion96 while the discussion was ongoing. And this is when I made the reversions. I think my conduct in the discussion has been civil and the conversation has been productive and is still in process. While I am sure Garion96 is a great admin, I think a close reading of Garion96's comments shows that he was perhaps not best positioned to take this action. I know that I have learned never to rollback an admin's edits.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that a quick glance at your contributions shows that you weren't using the rollback facility in the best possible manner given the ongoing discussions - the shouting upper case in your edit summary suggests frustration which you yourself admit. I think Garion has done the right thing by using this page to flag his revoking of your rollback privileges and suggesting that it be reviewed. So maybe cut him a bit more slack, as you would no doubt want others to do for you. just my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Merabu as you know from your participation in the flag discussion I was frustrated that so many edits were made while we were in the middle of a discussion of how to achieve consensus. My tone in that discussion has been very constructive. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a 'content dispute' where one side Garion96 has used administrative tools against his/her opponent User:Urbanrenewal in a punitive manner. If anything, this issue should have been brought here and an uninvolved administrator should have made a decision.--Termer (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Garion has brought it here and requested uninvolved administrator input. --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback is for "blatantly unproductive edits" only, and nowhere does it say that it can be used just to make the reverting easier. Under these circumstances, I believe the removal of rollback was appropriate. However, considering that Urbanrenewal understands his mistake and that there have been no problems with his use of rollback in the past, I'd support restoring it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback is removed from users by admins all the time for slip ups like this, the only problem here is that admin User:Garion96 violated WP:UNINVOLVED part of the admin policy (as Termer touched on above). Apart from that I see nothing else to discuss. I would suggest User:Urbanrenewal re-apply for rollback next month, and admin Garion96 be careful not to violate the admin policy again.--Otterathome (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fine waiting if that is necessary - is it really given my track record has been very good on this front? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As said before, I won't object to someone giving back rollback. Consensus here seems that I was too involved. I don't really agree with it since it was blatant abuse of rollback but I can accept it. After some blatant canvassing and abuse of rollback it was hard to assume good faith with this user. Garion96 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Laocoont and The Road to El Dorado

    User:Laocoont has been attempting to add to this movie article a rather largish section about themes of the movie being about drug trafficking and terrorism [539]. Now, I'll give anything a fair shake but if these were even considered possible themes of the movie I would expect to readily find sources to support this given this was a family/children's movie. Laocoont's version is completely unsourced, and has been removed several times (But too slow to be a 3RR). When the user is told about sources, he provides them - in the form of around 100 non-free image captures from what appears to be an illegal version of the movie up on YouTube (see Special:Contributions/Laocoont). He was told this wasn't appropriate at all, so he has then tried adding these points as "trivia" to the article though clearly trying to support the same facets of drug trafficking and terrorism without any outside sources [540]. He seems intent on adding this material despite being told they need sources. [541].

    Again, he's behaving too slow to be a 3RR violation save in spirit, but I think this may be a case of a user that Just Doesn't Get It, and may think more drastic action is needed. --MASEM (t) 11:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified about this thread - why wasn't this done? Exxolon (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I should have done that. Point still remains about general editing patterns. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fynire again using IP's

    Fynire has a history of disruption on various articles both as an IP and as an Editor. This includes the addition of unreferenced comment and opinion, removal of referenced text, synthesis of published material, edit warring and so on. I've included below a number of articles in which this has occured. For a more detailed but not complete list of IP's see here.

    Fynire was told here that they were banned from editing anonymously because of their IP abuse detailed somewhat below. Since opening their Fynire account, they have continued to edit disruptivly and have again used IP's disruptivly, illustrated in their edits on the Dunmanway Massacre. On the Dolours Price and Martin McGartland articles as I have illustrated below, they have continued with the same disruptive editing and edits, and this really needs to be addressed.

    The Ip's they use on Dunmanway Massacre:

    1. 86.147.52.238 [542]
    2. 217.43.234.202[543]
    3. 217.43.234.202[544]
    4. 86.163.79.164
    5. 81.156.129.168Block ignored
    6. 81.156.28.108[545]
    7. 86.164.246.191[546]
    8. 86.143.63.189
    9. 81.158.228.91[547]

    Their edits to the article, including their edits as Fynire and using IP's since been warned.

    [548] [549] [550] [551] [552] [553] [554] [555] [556] [557] [558] [559] [560] [561] [562] [563] [564] [565] [566] [567] [568] [569] [570] [571] [572] [573] [574] [575] [576] [577] [578] [579] [580] [581] [582] [583] [584] [585] [586] [587] [588] [589] [590] [591] [592] [593] [594] [595] Fynire [596] [597] [598] IP again [599] Fynire [600] [601]

    This is the IP on just on the Hart Article.

    1. 217.43.234.202[602]
    2. 86.164.136.21[603]
    3. 86.147.53.63[604]
    4. 86.156.113.180[605]
    5. 217.43.236.187
    6. 86.147.52.226
    7. 81.153.148.246[606]
    8. 81.129.245.63[607]
    9. 81.157.55.189
    10. 217.43.234.190
    11. 86.150.37.92 [608]
    12. 86.147.52.238 [609]

    Here is an example just using the first IP used on the list. The articles they edit and the IP's they use.

    The Articles:

    1. Irish general election, 1918
    2. Dunmanway Massacre

    The Ip's they use on Irish general election, 1918:

    1. 217.43.234.190
    2. 217.43.235.73
    3. 217.43.236.11
    4. 86.147.52.238[610]
    5. 217.43.234.202[611]
    6. 86.150.37.33
    7. 86.156.113.180[612]
    8. 81.153.148.246[613]
    9. 81.129.245.63[614]

    Each IP can have a subset of articles using another group of IP's such as:

    [615] [616] [617] [618] [619] [620] [621] [622] [623] Fynire [624] [625] [626] [627]

    [628] [629] [630] [631] [632] [633] [634] [635] [636] [637] [638] [639] [640] [641] [642] [643] [644] Fynire [645] [646] [647] [648] [649] [650] [651] [652]

    Could Admin's please address this, as it has been going on from at least January. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Technically there's nothing to be done, short of semi-protecting all the articles involved. The editor is using a BT Broadband dynamic account, which are impossible to rangeblock (as you can see from the massive range of IP addresses). If there are particular articles that are problematic, WP:RFPP would be the place to request semi-protection. Black Kite 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism User:FenderMag

    FenderMag (talk · contribs) The user has blanked my article with no question and any kind of discussion! [653] --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which you've reverted (correctly in my opinion) - the article needs some work but looks valid and a viable subject and it's not appropiate at this time to blank and redirect. It's possible it should be merged at some point but that's another argument. If it happens again, try WP:AIV. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oversight?

    Can someone with oversight powers please oversight the first, deleted, revision of User talk:Spasticmustard? -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    people know I'm very much against username blocks. I'd have preferred to see you asking the user to chaange their name before blocing, but otherwise I agree with this block. You should have been clearer. "spastic" isn't just a playground insult, it's deeply offensive to some people. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, were you aware that Ian Dury - who contracted polio as a child and was left with a withered leg and arm - was asked by charities in relation to the International Year of Disabled Persons to make a record to both highlight their work and to raise funds. Dury released the record Spasticus Autisticus, which was promptly banned by the BBC owing to the perceived insults to Persons With Mobility Challenges... Has anyone asked Spasticmustard the reason behind their choice of name? Sensitive Balding Person (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Spasticus Autisticus" is an excellent record, and I wholeheartedly approve of it. As can be seen from the song's lyrics, Dury was using the word ironically in an attempt to mock the prejudices against disabled people. I don't think that level of nuance can be relied upon to be detectable in Wikipedia usernames; as said above the word is indeed very offensive to some people. -- The Anome (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Milowent Incivility / bad faith

    Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

    I warned this user this user for attacking me and assuming bad faith and linked him to the offensive edits, and I get "You are a turd editor and you know it." at User_talk:Milowent#Civility_.2F_bad_faith as a response. This isn't the first time either this user has acted in this manor towards me either.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Law Lord: Harassment and wrongly templating editors

    Last year, Law Lord wrongly templated me more than once (in what was harassment) about not using an edit summary...as partly evidenced in this link: [654] One of the main reasons his template warnings were wrong is that I was justified in not using an edit summary those times (it was clearly where edit summaries were not needed; edits marked as minor). Yet Law Lord felt the need to make a big deal out of it, by further templating me, accusing me of attacks on him and even proceeding to harass me further by bringing me here for an unrelated matter.[655] He was thoroughly warned about this harassment, which included no templating the regulars, and that edit summaries are not needed for every edit, especially not when the editor marks the edit as minor. He recently started back up harassment of me again, just earlier today, in basically the same manner but with a different article (Ephebophilia), as seen from the recent reverts on my talk page. And, of course, accused me of a personal attack on him again, when, really, I addressed him in an understandably angry manner about this on his talk page but nothing so offensive to be called a serious personal attack. Oddly enough, where he feels his warnings should stay on my talk page, he removed my message from his talk page.

    Can I have some assistance on this matter, that this harassment and misinterpretation of a simple Wikipedia guideline should not be tolerated here? Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had honestly forgotten about this, since it is almost a year ago, and I really do not go around remembering unpleasant experiences like that. I ask editors to please post en edit summary, if:
    1. They have not done so, and
    2. Their edit is to an article on my watchlist.
    Today I have posted 8 notices for lack of edit summary, and one of those were on Flyer22's talk page – and the day is not even over yet. As for personal attacks, Flyer22 is the only one making those, like this little one on my talk page today:

    "...You should not be watching the Ephebophilia article anyway; I doubt you are anywhere close to being an expert on the topic, just someone else who probably does not understand the differecce between it and pedophilia."[656]

    Those kinds of personal attacks are completely uncalled for. However, I thought it better just to warn Flyer22 about the personal attack and then stop further communications, since she obviosuly is intent on those kinds of insults, whether she is warned or not. Had she not "reported" the incident here, then that would have been the end of it, and I could have gone on happily improving the Wikipedia instead of having to respond here. I wish Flyer22 would stop being personal (making personal attacks) but that seems unlikely to happen – I realise that now, having reviewed the actions of last year that I had merrily forgotten. --Law Lord (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear to be harrasment as you are just one of several editors addressed, and the notices are not warnings (since there is no requirement for summaries - just a strong preference). I do not see that any admin response is required. Should Law Lord wish to officially report the personal attacks then that may be viewed differently, but possibly the best result would be for both to withdraw from this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that once Law Lord saw my user name, he remembered our previous unpleasant encounter. As soon as I saw him on the Ephebophilia article, I surely recognized his name and searched in my archives (in the correct spot) to see if I was correct; I, of course, was. I thought, "Okay, maybe he has moved on and will not bother me any longer." Clearly, I was wrong, as evidenced by today. He talks about moving on, but he is the one who continued to add a template to my talk page after I made it quite clear that it was not needed and that I remembered his earlier harassment of me. The first personal attack template he added to my talk page today is beyond laughable; it was added after I merely removed it with the explanation that I felt it was continued harassment of me from last year. It is also highly suspicious that my talk page is on his watchlist, either from a year or ago or recently added again to see how I would respond today. He could have let it go today once I removed his template from my talk page. But, no...Law Lord being Law Lord decided to harass. From the links above, especially the one of the thorough discussion about his harassment and gaming of the Wikipedia system, Law Lord plays the victim card even when he is the one who has victimized. He perceives almost every counter as a personal attack. I have no time to play these silly games, and ask that an administrator again warn him about this type of templating editors about edit summaries. I always use an edit summary when needed. Edit summaries, however, are clearly not needed when an edit is minor, and especially when the previous edit (in the form of an edit summary right before it) specifies the editor's intent. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Assessment: this is trolling by an expert. Hitting Flyer22 with three templates in a row, and using phrases like "merrily forgotten", is typical of Law Lord's provocative style of interaction. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising on user page

    Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs) has an link advertising a forthcoming book on his user page (as well as a promotional article about himself which shows up in Google as the 2nd link, the first being his Wikipedia article). I've been involved with him before and would like an uninvolved look at this. I wish user pages weren't indexed by Google, I've seen them used for self-publicity too often. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The following articles were started and substantially written by the user, and appear promotional and are about not obviously notable people:

    In fairness, both articles seem well written, and give the appearance of abiding by the rules. Whether the subjects are notable is borderline; if someone else had created the articles I would give them the benefit of the the doubt. Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes says:

    "One of the most common mistakes for newcomers is creating an encyclopedia article about themselves. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not expected to have a biographical article about every person who contributes. Your user page, however, is a perfect place to write about yourself; just click your user name at the top of the screen when you have logged in and edit to your heart's content."

    It seems to me that this guy is using Wikipedia to promote both himself and his dad. I have less problems with him saying that he has written a book on his talk page. If this was a normal editor who made normal, non-self-promotional articles, then it would seem not unreasonable that he/she should say so on his/her talk page. I have put {{notability}}{{advert}} tags on both articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also reviewed his article,(Alexander Fiske-Harrison) and it was found to be a self published article and not meeting notability criteria based on the references i reviewed at the time (ref 1 to 10). I was left with no option, but to add a PROD. his article may also meet CSD. I will inform him of this thread when others ve participated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave him a note about conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Policy doesn't actually forbid writing an article about one's self - it just strongly recommends against it. In my opinion, but subjects are actually notable and they certainly aren't ads - ads try to sell you something. Additionally, for being COI written they are actually relatively reasonably neutral. The correct tag for these cases is {{COI}}, not {{advert}}. The userpage is not a problem at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was considered about the "(available to pre-order from Amazon here" bit. I was under the impression we didn't want such advertising. I am still opposed to using user pages for autobiographical articles since they show up on Google and most readers probably don't notice that they aren't actual articles. We've been through an AfD on his article before and the coi stuff, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fiske-Harrison and it was never my intention to resurrect that. Also, after I finished this my alarm went off for my hourly hand exercises and I forgot to leave an ani notice. No one else has so I have done this now. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited that line of his user page to simply link to the book, rather than imply "go buy it". (Note, Clive has also survived AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Fiske_Harrison)--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    first, I ve equally no problem of him putting any promotional material on his user page. wikipedia need to change, to make sure user content is not searchable in google. problem is him writing about himself in the article Alexander Fiske-Harrison. I have added {{autobiography}}. he also uses blog entries, some mere comments on some websites as his refernces. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – user blocked indefinitely. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xxspirit4musicxx put a legal threat here. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also reported him to WP:AIV for the same thing. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you encounter a situation like this, you should leave a talk page message for the editor, not just rely on edit summaries. And when you start an ANI thread, you should notify the subject about it. I've just done these things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told him that I reported him. And I also reported him to WP:AIV as well. Should I not have done that? --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, user already blocked, but an administrator might want to change the block settings so he can't edit his page per [this]. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice sword, i would suggest you give him 1 week, rather than indef. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317671273"