Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belov (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 21 November 2009 (no it's me my computer sign me out.). 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.

    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

    Suicide threat or vandalism?

    I reverted what I thought was vandalism but then thought, maybe it is not vandalism and person is serious? See this diff. What are admins thoughts? Should a check user be made?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the fact that it was at Talk:Suicide, I think vandalism is a safe assumption.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Very borderline WP:SUICIDE. However, I generally advocate "better safe than sorry" in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They never actually said that they were going to commit suicide, but, if this is real, then they're definitely depressed and/or suicidal. However, it's certainly possible that this is just a troll. (On a different note, I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy about suicide threats. I was wondering about it just a few minutes ago. I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia.)--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, technically, it's an essay (and, from what I've heard, a rejected proposal)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an essay that is generally followed, but was decided shouldn't specifically be made policy. Singularity42 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CU doesn't accomplish anything for IP editors. This IP address geolocates to Thailand, and I for one would not be eager to try to contact Thai cops and explain the situation to them. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see there is anything we can do. It is the only edit by an anon IP address, and we have no way of contacting them. It would be possible, I suppose, to post a user-page message, but I'm not sure it would do any good. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Everything that can reasonably be done has been. -- llywrch (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia." I haven;t stopped laughing yet. Great bunch of people you got here, reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.177.148 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported the above IP to AIV, as its only purpose here seems to be to denigrate wikipedia's editors, in the manner demonstrated above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who? Me, or 84.81.177.148?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see now. Please be more specific next time, though.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not cool. We cannot take up the task of a suicide watch just because we're a top-10 global traffic website, but that means we need to be amazingly careful with words. Big website = big risks, regardless of disclaimers and legal policy. Just the Suicide article is natural and very legitimate, but "WP:xxxxx" article types (even a rejected policy), are things users very often assume things are okay to run with if they can pull up any of them as a guide. As admins and the admin-minded it does fall on us to keep that content in order. Matters this serious should probably be extremely scrutinized like we'd do with new or controversial BLP articles and temp blanked if looking suspicious. Articles could use work and clarification... Hell, I'll work on them myself, without reasonable objection. Mostly downplaying what we can try to do but still offering proper support since our policy is partially to direct people to where they can learn about the things we can't directly discuss or do. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.

    There was a request for it to be moved, the admin said there was no consensus: [1] There was also a request for the article to be deleted: the majority of votes voted to keep the article without it to be renamed: [2] User:Gilabrand has went against these things, moved the article himself while claiming "its not a list" and adding irrelevant text to the article topic: [3] [4] he has added the nuclear reactor thing before [5] and it was removed by another editor: [6]. He has also re added the hama massacre link [7] which was also removed by another editor: [8] claiming that the List is an article about Syria is destroying its own villages [9] notice here that another pro Israeli editor has removed three sources saying that Israel destroyed the villages. [10] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Gilbrand about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there's some POV-pushing by Gilabrand and others going on. While the move from "List of Pre-1967 ..." to "Pre-1967..." probably was in good faith (since the article did become much less of a list), the effort to remove any indication of destruction of villages by Israel (including the removal of a scholarly source as "unreliable" by User:Jalapenos do exist, here) while at the same time adding anything and everything "bad" the Syrians did, whether related to pre-1967 villages or not, makes assuming good faith rather difficult. Huon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan has no reputation and it is self-evidently radical and partisan. As such it is not an RS by a long shot. For the record, I did not add anything that anybody did to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reactor was sited 300 km east/northeast of the Golan Heights and 40 years later... Gilabrand seems to be throwing stuff on the wall trying to make it stick here.
    I am somewhat concerned about the POVness of the article without Israeli influence, but Gilabrand is certainly not adding reasonable additional content at this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Regardless of the article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral encyclopedic article discussing and/or listing cities or villages depopulated prior to Israel gaining control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words and is being used to vilify and trash both Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I do not agree with everything User:Gilabrand is doing, the overall consensus at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was not the finding of the closing administrator, who closed as "Keep". There was a significant "Keep but rename" contingent. Shlomke - attempting to misrepresent either consensus or the closing admin's determination is not acceptable behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert - where do you see me referring to the closing admin?? Attempting to tell a user what they are attempting to do is not at all acceptable either, thanks Shlomke (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, Gilabrand's page move isn't much of a problem. Whether the move done by The Anome a little earlier really had consensus may be an interesting question, but that's not what this is about, is it?
    And while Supreme Deliciousness may have a personal bias (who hasn't?), most of his edits to this article are backed up by sources, with the exception of his stripping the article back down to the list it originally was here and here. And I'd consider at least the first of those edits more of a disagreement about whether we want more than just a list or not than pushing any particular pov or making a point. The second does seem a little dubious. Huon (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from the move without consensus, there is this amazing bit of coatracking by user Gilabrand. It doesn't look to me like the behaviour of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, but the fault in the problems with this article lies not solely on Gilabrand, but also with the creator of this article, who has a history of making controversial edits and creating POV-articles; The subject at hand is how to turn it into a neutrally worded encylopedic article, instead of the POVFORK and POINT article is currently is. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created to stir up controversy. It started out as a long list of red links to dozens of "villages" with made-up sounding names, many of them simply the same name spelled differently. This person names an article 101 Cities and villages destroyed by Israel (after leaving anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments on a variety of pages) and then goes sniveling to administrators when his unsourced POV article gets "tampered with." Yes, I am guilty of WP:POINT. But now that I have made that point, I tip my hat and say goodbye. The article is already vastly improved compared to what it was before. At least it has a few sources and a little more substance.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help needed:

    After the afd and rfm there was no consensus for it to be moved, can some admin please move the article back to its real name from the one that Gilbrand forced upon the article? If people want to change its name we should begin at the articles real name, not something no one has agreed to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment -- Seems like a sensible move to me (and not that I wouldnt say that about most of this editors edits on this article). It seems to be the article name that is both the most neutral and the article name that corresponds to what the sources say (i.e. most, but not all villages were abandoned and then demolished or destroyed, making it unclear whether we should call the article List of abandoned... or List of destroyed...). In any case this is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page. But all the drama sourrounding this article makes it doubtful whether it is really a net gain for Wikipedia, or rather an additional drama magnet with each side trying to push its own POV into the article, thereby disgracing Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The proper way to move an article is through discussion on the talk page and RfM. There was such a discussion and consensus did not support such a move. There was then an AfD which also did not result in a consensus for rename (although I argued for a rename myself). We simply should not allow such actions against consensus to be left unreverted. I hope that an admin will move it back so that further discussion can take place according to our policies. Unomi (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope so too. I find it disappointing that the rules can be broken repeatedly by some users without anything being done about it, essentially creating facts on the ground according to their preferences. User:Gilabrand has moved pages to where she thinks they should be located before too without initiating move discussions. When asked politely to undo her moves, she has declined (See her talk page for an example). It would be nice if instead of flouting procedure time and again, someone would do something to make sure she understands this kind of behaviour is not conducive to collaboration and should be avoided in the future. Tiamuttalk 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as admins are looking at this article

    The most serious problem with the article is that, since its inception, it has been sourced almost entirely to the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan. This is an organization with no reputation and which is self-evidently radical and partisan. Retaining the article in this form without objection could set a precedent under which everybody will rush to create articles serving their own POV lifted straight out of - say - Richard Landes' blog (he is an academic after all), or - to take a more extreme hypothetical - articles like List of reasons the world is flat sourced to the Flat Earth Society. Bearing all this in mind, I think an admin statement reminding of Wikipedia's core principles could be helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not true, there are many sources other then the Arab Center golan-marsad link in the article, including Israeli sources saying the same thing. The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[11]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [12] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [13] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
    This should be discussed either on the article's talk page or on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'll answer on the talk page; involving the noticeboard seems overkill. Huon (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • as a commentator on the recent AFD, i was surprised to see this name change. i agree that it should have been discussed, but i really really like this new name. content is another issue entirely. this name allows for plenty of room to discuss why the villages no longer exist, and can include the most POV sources without difficulty. i support extremely NPOV names for controversial subjects. let the body of the article hash it out. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred1296 and Chris Rush

    Just trying to head a conflict off at the pass, so to speak. Fred1296 (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA for promoting comedian Chris Rush. Fred1296 is also probably indef blocked user Tony159 (talk · contribs), who made the same edits to the same articles.

    Fred1296 has also added small articles for Rush's book and three albums, the book has already been merged back into the article. Delicious carbuncle has merged/redirected the albums back to the main page for Rush [14] [15] [16]. DC has made comments on Fred1296's page (as have I) to discuss the matter, but Fred1296 has reverted the redirects repeatedly without adding any content, stating in his edit summaries "Good enough for a page" and "As good as anyother page in same category".

    I'd hate to see a full-scale edit war break out over something like this, so more opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all I am a fan of Chris Rush, and since there wasn't any pages for him I decided to create them. I am however NOT trying to promote him. I am just working with the available information on the web. I do understand why the book was merged into Chris Rush sice it didn't have much for its own page, but to delete the three album pages are ridiculous. There are hundreds of other comedy album pages with the same or even less on it, yet nobody deletes those or merges them into the artist's pages. First Rush, Beaming In and There's No Bones In Ice Cream have plenty of info needed for an encyclopedia stand point. There is obviously some problem these editors have with Chris Rush or even myself considering it seems to be the same ones always trying to delete the pages. When I start to see other pages in the same category being deleted or merged like FM & AM for instance (which is identical to what I created) maybe then I'll be more understandable. Untill then I'm going to fight to keep these pages up and updated too, but when I'm costantly having to undo edits that are made from users who don't believe Chris Rush or any of his works are notable or famous enough it makes it a bit difficult. Thank You Fred1296 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavioral evidence seems to indicate that these two accounts are likely the same person, but I would feel more comfortable seeing a checkuser on this one, as the idea that two different fans had created these pages is a slight possibility. --Jayron32 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony159, which I just started. Lets do this formally to put a nail in this one for good. --Jayron32 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that while FM & AM may be a bit sparse in the references department, it clearly meets the general notability guideline by virtue of having won the 1972 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Mussolini made the trains run on time. That fact does not address the (possible) block dodging issue... --Jayron32 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll defer to you in Mussolini-related matters. My point was that none of Chris Rush's albums appear to be notable unlike the example offered by Fred1296 of the George Carlin album FM & AM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you were... Nevermind. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The SPI case has been rejected. Meanwhile, the album articles remain and Fred1296 has recreated a twice speedied article about a comedy club... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree Fred1296 has been consistently reverting edits made by a number of editors, with the net effect being that he seems personally involved in promoting this particular comedian and the comedian's books and albums. Even without knowing if there's a relationship between this editor and this comedian, Fred1296 is exhibiting WP:OWN and, arguably, appears to be violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I admit to reverting edits and I believe the last one I made on First Rush deemed to be appropriate. I read the reason why it was merged into Chris Rush, and though didn't see anything that was remotely close to promoting him, I removed the statement to which had not been there in earlier versions. It was back to the same way it was when it received no complaints, but then its still merged again back into Chris Rush. Now I'm here having to write this and waist my time even though everything on the page had it's own references and that I said clearly in the edit summary that I had changed it back. This is becoming a big to-do about nothing. Why not go edit and delete the thousands of other pages that are not formatted correctly and have a bunch of BS on them, because my pages are to the best they can be and I'm always looking to make them better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "...my pages..."??? Either we have a massive WP:COI or a massive issue with WP:OWN. You do not have any pages. They are Wikipedia's pages, and open for editing/deleting as per the licence you granted when you clicked "submit". At that point they have to meet notability and have actual reliable sources - not just ones that you say are notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Updatehelper

    User: Updatehelper is currently replacing mass links from geocities (defunct) to oocities.com, which appears to have archived many geocities sites. i'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Updatehelper Theserialcomma (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to geocities was allowed? :blink: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least this will let us see what the content was long enough to find real replacements for the refs.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly; when I granted Updatehelper AWB, I considered the alternatives, one of which was that these links could be tagged as {{deadlink}}s, and I didn't think that helpful; another would be to tag as {{cn}}, which would risk us losing perfectly valid, if poorly-sourced, information . Obviously it would have been more appropriate for better sources to have been provided from the beginning, but as SarekOfVulcan points out, it gives editors a opportunity to seek more reliable sources. I note that Updatehelper hasn't hadn't actually been notified of this thread, just that there is some concern. Rodhullandemu 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been unable to link to the 'archived' sources. RashersTierney (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them? I know not all Geocities pages have been archived at Oocities, but I would have expected them to be checked. The alternative is to use the Wayback Machine, but for the effort involved, one might as well try to find a more robust and reliable source. However, I've notified Updatehelper and would be interested to hear his modus operandi before condemning him. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first page I checked resulted in a failed link. The page was however archived at Wayback. If the links are changed with AWB, it will make links to this archive less likely. I just have reservations about the overall effectiveness of this approach. RashersTierney (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hi! please excuse my english as iam from europe. yet im only doing a first run on geocities links. but the final result will be better. However most links i updated work again now and i check most ones. Second Step will be archive.org etc. that way i can easily make 90%+ of all geocities links work again without any disadvantage , but it will take some more weeks. (is there a disadvantage thats worse than deadlinks ?) For now there are only a few percent updated and a lot more are not updated now. i updated about 1000 links. for example webcitation.org-BOT updated about 1500 links also. i also use a "bad-words-filter" as i dont want to feel responsable for some really worse content links working again. please come back to the discussion for any other issues.

    please do not write to my personal discussion-page cause that always makes AWB fail 

    ...until then...  --Updatehelper (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I guess. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm from Europe too - that's where English originated. Please note, Updatehelper, that personal pages on geocities.co.jp/ appear to be alive and well, so no need to go playing with refs pointing to them. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yet i did not change any geocities.yahoo.co.jp... --Updatehelper (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Geocities.co.jp will be going down shortly as well. (Sometime next month.) While it might be a good idea to look at all of the geocities links (to verify their appropriateness), changing links to a live source is better than having to go through the wayback machine, which often has accessibility issues due to bandwidth limitations. Horologium (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    are you sure it will also go offline? (yet the main page dont say its going offline) http://geocities.yahoo.co.jp http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocities.yahoo.co.jp%2F --Updatehelper (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)- thanks.[reply]

    I don't know what Updatehelper has in mind ultimately, but I take his edits to be well-intentioned in preserving what sources we have until better ones can be found. Rather than have a multi-pass algorithm, some bot that categorised these, and pending, pages, would at least centralise efforts to replace these sources. I was intending to move on to articles tagged with {{deadlink}} once I've finished dealing with Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data (currently scheduled for February 2010), but I see no reason why the demise of Geocities should not be merged into the latter. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone cast light on the copyright issues here? On the face of it, it appears OOcities.com is in gross violation. WP:COPYLINK is fairly explicit, and it appears we should not be linking to OOcities.com from WP.--Yumegusa (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would depend on the original terms & conditions of Geocities; if content there was copyright-free under GFDL or even CC-BY, there would be no problem with even an ex-post facto mirror. If you want to make this point, please cite reasons. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone can show that Geocities content was copyright-free, it must be assumed that it wasn't. Therefore copying it is prima facie a breach of copyright. WP:COPYLINK states: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". It doesn't look like there's a lot of wriggle-room available. --Yumegusa (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for assistance regarding harassment

    In essence, this is a continuation of a prior debate that occurred on this noticeboard. Please see the prior thread.

    I have been repeatedly hounded and harassed by User:BQZip01. He has in the past accused me of slander, made a posting on this board demanding I be blocked (see the prior thread), has stalked my edits (case example: restores a fair use image to an article from which I had removed it less than an hour before, an article he had never edited before), has harassed me on my talk page and has now placed a userpage of mine for MfD (see MfD) when his own essay on his MfD standards would allow such a page. I am sick to death of his haranguing of me, and it must stop.

    I've been trying to stay out of BQZip01's way. But, I can't. Why? Because he won't let me stay out of his way.

    I am here to ask that an administrator please step in to the middle of this (what a thing to volunteer for! :)) and ask that BQZip01 stop stalking my edits, ignore my userspace, and stay off of my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I, in turn, will do the same with him (though I've not been stalking his edits). If this equitable compromise can not be achieved, this will spin out of control.

    Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left BQZip01 a note, but could you please provide some more recent diffs? The ones you've posted are from October, and I'd just like to see if the problematic behavior you mentioned is ongoing. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not everyday that this sort of behavior is happening. It has been happening over a broad span of time, approximately the last year. Whether it happens a hundred times in three days or a hundred times over a year, it's still a problem. I've tried to be patient, but my patience in regards to this user is gone. That's why I'm here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked, censured, or otherwise found to be at fault. All I'm asking for is for him to leave me alone (and me likewise). An outside administrator has considerably more authority in requesting that than I would. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's nothing really new since the last blowout thread you posted from October, and you just want that rehashed again? Tan | 39 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. Comment struck. Tan | 39 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on the merits of the case, but the MfD linked above appears to be current (posted less than a day ago). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment/Response Given HS's propinsity to delete images from articles where they are useful and apropos, but lacking in FURs, I have watched his edits. There is nothing wrong with watching his edits IAW Wikipedia policy: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." HS apparently feels compelled to remove inappropriately used images (usually copyrighted images without Fair Use Rationales). In these removals, he notes (as in the above diff) "This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does." Most of the time, I see absolutely nothing wrong with such removals as they are appropriate and would not be appropriate even with a FUR. However, as with too many of his comments about my actions, in this instance HS leaves out details: As requested by HS I provided a FUR and re-added the image explaining that merely removing an image from a page runs contrary to our policies/guidelines. We shouldn't just delete something from an article if a simple correction will fix the problem, in this case adding a Fair Use Rationale.

    I have placed a user page of his up for deletion as I believe it to be counter to the goals of Wikipedia with regards to Civility (for the reasons discussed on his talk page. I have attempted to discuss issues with him but in accordance with WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW (part of the page up for deletion), HS has decided that I am not worthy of talking with. Given that he has decided not to discuss matters with me, I am forced to go elsewhere (in this case WP:MfD) to address such problems.

    Again, contrary to what HS states, my expressed thoughts on user pages (see link above) do not contradict the nomination. While I agree that pages recording user actions are sometimes neccessary, I believe that such pages need to meet other criteria as well: it must not exclusively an attack page, it must have a limited timeframe, the page must explicitly state the WP:DR process in which it is intended to be used, and it must not be linked elsewhere by its creator. Hammersoft's page fails all of the last three criteria. — BQZip01 — talk 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • What I am doing in removing images lacking fair use rationales is something completely in line with policy. It is so much in line with policy in fact that it used to be done by a bot. I am sick to death of you stalking my edits. What is it you want me to do? Request your permission every time that I make an edit? That is what you have reduced me to. The very policy you quote states in the paragraph before, "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You sir, are irritating the living hell out of me with your actions. Why can you simply not walk away? Why can you not leave what work you perceive needs to be done in regards to my edits with other editors? Why do you see fit to declare yourself the arbiter of my edits, and my edits must run through your filter before being accepted? I am at the point now where I feel compelled to stop editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And BQZip01 continues to stalk my edits. See history of User talk:Wikiperuvian, where I was counseling a user on not using fair use images on templates. This is an editor BQZip01 had never interacted with before. Also see history of File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines, a file BQZip01 had never touched before I edited it. This needs to end. Now. Would an administrator please step in and issue a sterner warning to BQZip01 please? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left another message, hopefully he takes it to heart. Syrthiss (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the problem in the first place. In this case, most (if not all) of these aren't fair use images; they were improperly labeled in the first place. You keep requesting compliance with fair use policy and I have provided rationales and/or compliance (i.e. fixing problem image labels). It is inappropriate to request compliance with a valid policy and then complain when a particular user you don't personally like provides the requested compliance. Wikihounding is done "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit...work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I am not confronting you, I am providing the information you are requesting or fixing problem images. Accordingly, I am not inhibiting your work, but fixing what you have requested be fixed. If you are annoyed, irritated, or distressed with your requests being fulfilled, please stop making the requests. — BQZip01 — talk 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC), User:Juliancolton, after reading this thread, posted a request at your talk page [17] recommending you avoid me for the time being, and leaving it to other editors to fix my errors should I make a mistake. As Syrthiss noted, you did not respond to or acknowledge this request. On your very next login, the only thing you apparently did was check my contributions, which at the time you checked had as my last action leaving a message on User:Wikiperuvian's talk page. On seeing that, you checked my contributions in regards to his editing and after researching the history of the coat of arms of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you made a correction to the file [18]. Your subsequent edits during that login period dealt solely with edits that I had made, comprising edits to templates, files, and talk pages you had never before touched. If you want to work on making fair use images compliant with our policies, fine. You can start with places like Category:All Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale, or this list of NFC violations, or this list of NFC files likely to be overused or Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status or any other of a dizzying array of places where fair use compliance work can be done. There is no necessity for you to follow me around, if your motivation is altruistic. But instead, despite a request by Juliancolton to stop doing what you're doing, you proceed ahead and focus solely on edits I made to fair use content related work subsequent to that request. It's obvious what is occurring here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, this was to BQzip01...not Hammersoft) I believe at this point he's trying to minimize his contact with you, so I wouldn't expect him to make fair use policy compliance requests in relation to you. If that is the case, then there should be a good chance you can avoid each other. Does that sound reasonable to both of you? I'm not saying that he can't bring fair use issues up, but perhaps if he finds fairuse issues in areas that happen to involve you he should bring it to someone else (hopefully not me, I have a hard time totally grokking the fair use policy, haha). Syrthiss (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been attempting to avoid and ignore BQZip01 for some time now, so this is fine with me. All I'm asking is for BQZip01 to do the same; stop watching my edits, stay out of my userspace, and not post to my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I have been doing the same with regards to him. We are occasionally going to bump into one another by happenstance. For instance, we're going to (and have) bump into each other quite a lot on sports team logos, especially college sports. That's fine; it's going to happen. It's the intentional aspect that is a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat? I'm not sure if this qualifies

    Please take a look at the most recent post to my talk page. I'm not sure if this attorney is trying to make a legal threat, or just awe me with her awesomeness. It's certainly borderline enough that I'm not going to put a WP:NLT block on her myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's trying to intimidate you here [19], so that does indeed constitute a legal threat, though a minor one. I'm guessing you don't actually feel all that intimidated by his personal puffery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's neither a legal threat, nor is it very awesome. It's just a stupid rant about how Wikipedia is a lawless place and administrators can just do whatever they want. --Atlan (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm with Atlan. Now I need to go find some articles to delete. *swirls mustache menacingly* Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a lawless place where administrators pretty much do what they want. I don't see a legal threat. Perhaps an attempt at courteous communication would be helpful. People are human and do get frustrated by the rather impenetrable and often times arbitrary processes we have set up here. If the subject of their article isn't notable, I'm sure the reasoning can be provided, or it can be taken to AfD for wider input, or what have you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    She's trying to create an article about a realtor who's a candidate for local city council, and argues that squibs stating that he has filed for the race make him notable. She also claims to believe that language like, "In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ..." is not promotional. There's also a side serving of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your assessment and attempted to explain the situation. If he's a family man, involved in his community, and devoted to charity, I wonder what the heck he's doing getting involved in politics? I thought a squib was the tip of a pen. I'll have to go look what we have on the subject... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a lawless place where anyone pretty much does what she/he want. Fortunately, those smart enough to figure this out (& how to make this work) are almost always those who came here to write articles about subjects other people are interested in. Those who don't realize that this is really, honestly true? Well, they get tangled up in something stupid, like an edit war over where to place a comma. Or writing articles about unnotable real estate salesmen. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:NewPages again...

    I've nearly given up. It looks like almost nobody is working on these articles anymore. Can we get a collaboration going or something? And somebody please deal with the recent wave. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested a long while back that people sign up to take specific shifts. If 336 people would take 1/2 hour each week, we'd be assured of covering them all. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've wondered a couple of times why there isn't a new page patrol project, DGG's idea would be easier to implement through that. Although nobody would have an duty to turn up for their shift. But if NPPers put down the times when they are active, it would at least help those with too much time on their hands (i.e. me ) to see when more patrollers are needed - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Newpage patrollers are needed pretty much around the clock. However, you could check WP:HAU for a list of highly active users, and see when the least amount of those are on. (For the record, I believe that most people are on during American East Coast "operating hours", so any hours that might be considered "off-peak" would be optimal.) GlassCobra 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of us who regularly patrolled NP quit outright due to recent events and others are just waiting until the issues at WP:NEWT are resolved before they resume patrolling. Setting up some kind of wikiproject of NPPers and actively recruiting them would probably be a good idea. In my experience, the worst time for NPP is during the times when the Western Hemisphere is asleep. Hoax articles, attack pages and other garbage can roll in at frightening speeds during this time. If you can find folks, especially admins, in other countries who will agree to patrol newpages during these periods, the weekly backlog will shorten considerably. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)
    I tried to pitch in the other day, reviewed about 20 of them. Maybe one or two didn't seem worth letting in, & I got entangled in the rules around the whole process trying to flag that handful, so I decided the entire effort wasn't worth it. I don't care; let them all in. If they're a problem, I'll sort them out later when I find them. :-/ llywrch (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

    71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as 75.22.138.39 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo." As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami. Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eubulides

    I am an admin here at enwp, but I am just a template programmer so I need help with this:

    We have problems with Eubulides (talk · contribs). He is trying to do copyright infringement on a massive scale. He wants to unlink all icons here on enwp, for instance in different kinds of message boxes. His reason is to make the boxes more accessible to blind users, so that their image links aren't read out in screen readers. But as you guys probably know we are only allowed to unlink public domain images, since pretty much all other licenses require attribution and require that one can find out what license the image has.

    He has single-handedly done massive changes and extensions to the guideline Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and since then used it as a reference for his demands.

    When we refuse him to unlink an image in a protected template, he does this:

    1. He makes a new very complex version of the template and puts it in the /sandbox sub-page of the template. His code makes the image unlinked, and makes any other images fed to the template also unlinked by default.
    2. He changes the documentation of the template to fit with his new code, even though his code has not been deployed. And his documentation tells people to not link images, and usually fails to mention that we are only allowed to unlink public domain images.
    3. He repeatedly puts {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the template, no matter how many times different admins have denied the request.
    4. He draws a copy of the old image. That is, he paints a new very similar version. And he uploads it to Commons.
    5. He sets the license to "public domain", thus not respecting the license of the image he has copied.
    6. He adds a description that he made the image entirely by himself. He does not attribute the author(s) of the image he copied.
    7. He then comes back to enwp and tries to make people use his new "PD" image as icon, so it can be used without a link.

    No matter how much we try to explain to him he shows a total disregard for copyright, attribution and procedures here at enwp and at Commons.

    For instance, one case involves the {{portal}} box here at enwp. It is used on over 2.4 million pages. For the discussions, see Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility.

    (I have reported his image uploads at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Eubulides.)

    I would appreciate if you guys investigated his edits and do what ever the procedures say you should do with them and with him. I'm sorry that I'm not read up on the procedures regarding this, I was just made an admin here at enwp since I handle high-risk templates. (The templates I code tend to become very popular, so they get protected.)

    --David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has he uploaded any derivative images besides File:Portal-puzzle.svg? That's the only one I can find, apart from possibly File:Compass_rose_pale.svg, though that doesn't seem to be being questioned. Note: I'm not an admin, here or on Commons, just trying to help out. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the consensus on Commons is that these icons are not copyrightable, so making new versions is perfectly acceptable. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portal-puzzle.svg for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is not the only issue here. He also unlinks other images. That is, images that others have made and that certainly are not public domain. And he edits templates (or demand that we edit for him if protected) so the default when an image is fed to those templates is to suppress the linking of the image. Thus all existing usage of those templates will have unlinked images. And he refuses to explain it properly in the documentation of the templates, so most new usage will also have unlinked images. And he does this on many high-use templates.
    As I see it, if he is allowed to continue with this then we might get the following problems: Someone might sue Wikimedia for publishing their images without attribution, and people who want attribution for their images will refuse to upload them to Wikipedia/Commons.
    --David Göthberg (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

    A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

    The deletion log entries are as follows:

    The editors involved include:

    One of the variations is already protected from creation:

    Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
    Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

    I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had nuked another variant (same regex):

    Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
    I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Texasguard

    I came across this user page as the author was testing several edits on the Texas National Guard article. From the account's user talk page I got the impression that this account is intended to be used by several people (web staff) of an organization, so I think this is a violation of rules like "no password sharing" and WP:username. Also, conflicts of interest are bound to occur here. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. ♠The Ace of Spades♣♥♦ 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned for COI. ♠The Ace of Spades♣♥♦ 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell is a "Disclaimer" section of the article they are obviously copying from somewhere? DMacks (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea, but I reverted the article to a former, neutral version. De728631 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed out the relevant parts of WP:USERNAME, along with a link to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a name change would just make them harder to pinpoint. The account should have been blocked right away as a violation of the two policies pointed out already. This account is obviously intended to be used by multiple people, to only edit articles that they have a vested interest in, to give the appearance that they are somehow "sanctioned" or approved by the organization, and is thus totally inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such editing is indeed going on now, albeit by IPs. Again I reverted disruptive edits on related articles involving the Texas Armed Forces. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9

    Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) have been edit warring at User_talk:Firefly322 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_9 over BLP-violating comments, specifically [23] and [24]. Firefly322 has been blocked for 55 hours by PeterSymonds, but continues to restore the comments to his talkpage. William S. Saturn has passed 3RR on the RfD page, as well. Some more attention here would be appreciated. Nathan T 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked specifically what the BLP issue is, on the RFD talk page. This should not have reached this level. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should almost never restore comments deleted for BLP reasons without first discussing the issue. The fact that these comments violate BLP should be easy for anyone familiar with the policy to discern, and edit-warring over them past 3RR is unreasonable by any measure. Nathan T 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. If I passed 3RR it was unintentional and will accept the consequences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are preventative, not punitive - so if your comment means that you will not revert any more, then we're done and no block is warranted. MastCell Talk 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're incapable of understanding what the problem is with edits such as [25] then Wikipedia might possibly be the wrong place for you. Firefly322 was lucky to escape with 55 hours IMO - I would have blocked indefinitely until he could state that he understood the problem and would not repeat it. Black Kite 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will, I have to agree with Black Kite on this one. How is it appropriate to discuss living people in that manner on Wikipedia? Certainly Orangemike and others get away with doing it about conservatives like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who they don't like, and I know we're talking about a mass murderer and not a political commentator in this instance, but it still isn't proper. Once it was objected to I think you should have let it be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see anything in WP:BLP that specifically covers edits like the above "71" diff. There's a difference between making concrete claims such as "John Doe killed his children" with no links to prove it and saying "John Doe is a very evil person" or "John Doe is a very evil person because he did X" where X is something very clearly true. I think we have become too strict if it is no longer acceptable to make moral judgments about a living person on one's own talk page that are based on verifiable truths about that person. I also don't see where such a thing is covered in the current BLP policy. It doesn't seem to meet the legal definition of defamation, for example, which is given in the first paragraph of the article. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. That it comes on a user talk page (and, in this case, an RfD) makes no difference - the BLP policy applies there as anywhere. Nathan T 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the point, really. "John Doe is a very evil person" regardless of context is clearly an opinion and thus original research. We're not here to make moral judgements about people, we're here to write an encyclopedia. The fact it's on a non-articlespace page is irrelevant here. Black Kite 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The post did far more than assert that someone was "evil". Wikipedia's site mission does not include testing the limits on the legal definition of defamation. We're a nonprofit encyclopedia, and it would really be better if individuals who wished to test the acceptability of this statement did so at their own personal website. Durova366 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no comment on the comment made about Hitler on the user's talk page. However, I feel the edit on the RFD was not a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it strikes me that blocking was no necessary -- this IMHO could have been handled with discussion or other less punitive measures, which should have been pursued first. Second, it does appear to me that there is not a consensus at the RfD, nor should an involved party close a contested RfD IMHO. Third, as to Nathan's suggestion that he "can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia," I think that may perhaps be just a bit of an overstatement. I certainly can. Himmler, Goering, Idi Amin, Bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Ayatollah Khomeini, Leopold II of Belgium, Pol Pot, and Vlad Ţepeş might all vie for that honor for starters. And certainly there is something different in one making edits expressing their view (as here) than stating a fact as true, as in an article edit, though I would agree that BLP violations (which come in different flavors) should be looked at carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those is a pedophile, a brutal tyrant and an Islamic extremist? Nathan T 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're stretching what the original statements in dispute actually said. I think the bottom line is that we should try to conduct ourselves in a professional and dispassionate manner. Since we are writing the articles on living people, it's important that we refrain, generally speaking, from disparaging them. I acknowledge the points made though that discussion shouldn't be stifled by tossing around BLP accusations too freely, but when NAMBLA and Hitler are getting worked in I think the envelope is being pushed too far. We should strive to focus on article content work and collegial discussion rather than engaging in discussion regarding our personal opinions of whether article subjects are evil, or just very very confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those are very wise words, extremely well put. At the same time, I think the block was innappropriate. There were other wasy, short of a block, to be explored for this borderline (at worst) characterization elsewhere than in the person's article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we avoid having editors complain generally about how liberals get away with murder vis a vis enforcement and conservatives get hammered? General complaints degrade the signal to noise ratio. In case it isn't abundantly clear, I'm speaking directly to CoM, who has a habit of inserting him/herself in AN/I threads to complain about admin abuse in general and american politics specifically (a topic where they are topic banned from discussing broad subtopics). Protonk (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Kite's deletion

    I feel it was highly inappropriate for Black Kite, as an involved party, to close the RFD. I hope someone will revert this action and let the RFD run its course since discussion is ongoing. At the moment it appears to be No Consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly. It was the ANI thread which actually led me to the RfD, which had been open for ten days - and an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean I am "involved" in it. Very few of the "Keep" rationales were convincing, IMO. Black Kite 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through most of the discussion, and in the end I agree with Black Kite's closure. There was an opinion split among established editors, but the consensus to delete is fairly apparent based on the arguments presented. To be frank, Saturn, how is an outsider going to trust your word that there "appears to be no consensus" when you were so heavily involved in the discussion, replying to nearly everyone who supported deletion? JamieS93 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a poor close based on an opinion rather than a proper reading of the discussion by an admin who is involved in related discussions. But I think it would have to go to DRV now? Hopefully Black Kite will exercise better judgment in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What Child said. Perhaps BK can revise it?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't hold your breath. I think it's time to move on. I don't think a bad close requires admin intervention, so that probably needs to be pursued elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how commenting on an ANI discussion makes you involved in something. By your logic, if someone asks for a checkuser to be run on some accounts, and I run the check and post the results, it would be inappropriate for me to block the accounts myself, since I'm "involved".
    Ludicrous. J.delanoygabsadds 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the close. Black Kite articulated a reason not advanced by any other participant, but that's a DRV reason. What makes him an involved admin is his intense dislike of me. For examples, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Proposal:_.22Cry_BLP.22_blocks or peruse the archives of Talk:Rachel Corrie. If some other administrator would like to re-close the RfD, feel free. Black Kite is ineligible to do so, and should have known better. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I closed the RfD in a manner opposite BK's but I want to note here that I vociferously object to the classification of BK as an involved admin in this case. Even a cursory reading of WP:INVOLVED will reveal that commenting in an AN/I does not make an admin involved in a content dispute. Nor does some allegation of personal distaste (Especially given that the RfD only tangentially relates to Jclemens). Protonk (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised you treated it as a valid reopening, when even you seem to realize it was a valid close. You reversed Black Kite's decision, effectively, but on what rationale? Jclemens should simply have been reverted. Nathan T 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree. Jclemens is is no position to dictate who is or is not involved, and is certainly not entitled to unilaterally revert another admin's close. He should have been reverted. For the record, it is my opinion that Black Kite's close was correct. GlassCobra 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Jclemens should never have undone BK's close, and Protonk should have respected BK's decision. AniMate 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Un-flippin-believable. Jclemens has been EXTREMELY involved in both this and a related RfD (as have I, for the record). I cannot fathom how an admin can think it would be proper to undo another admin's XfD closure based on a perception of being "involved"...a tenuous perceptino that that...when Jclemen's own involvement is beyond dispute. I really, really wish Protonk had honored Black Kite's closure and not treated it as a legitimate reopening, but that may be a matter for DRV. The primary issue here is jclemens, and a desysop should absolutely be on the table here. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I wouldn't have closed it if I had thought it would be such a shitstorm. Honestly I didn't know about the extent of the drama-rama when I made the close. I just tried to justify "delete" multiple times and I couldn't. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you found it so close a call (and I'm not criticizing that finding), it might have been better to just leave it be and wait for the next admin to come along. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "delete" or "no consensus" were both valid closes, however BK's close should never have been reverted. Closing differently than they did gives the appearance of legitimacy in regards to Jclemens actions. AniMate 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that's a reasonable interpretation of "when in doubt don't delete" Protonk (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've undone my close. I never intended the original close to be a repudiation of BK (anyone who actually read the rationale couldn't have come to that conclusion). I'm not comfortable reinserting BK's close and I caution other admins interested in closing it to be mindful of the nuances at work. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protonk made the right decision, what was wrong was Black Kite's ignoring of the views of the editors at the RFD. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no official determination that this was a terrorist act, and it is not wikipedia's place to claim otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss this at the RFD page, it has been reopened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally recapitulating arguments from RfD will not be productive here. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Saturn is singularly obsessed with labeling that guy a terrorist when he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That's been the issue for the last week or two. There is no end to it. Except someone making a decision, which someone tried to do today, to no avail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding unblock request

    I believe this removed comment is relevant to the unblock request, but the user does not want me commenting on that page. That is understandable, so I am noting it here instead: The incident that led to Firefly322's block began with a personal attack against other editors, not just an insult against Awlaki. ~YellowFives 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yellow, might it not go back even further? For example, might it perhaps relate at all to, after your having had a dispute with Fire, your appearing at the page he created the following day to hit it with an AfD, and even now you are not withdrawing despite repeated requests and the clear consensus in favor of keeping it?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Firefly mentioned the new article on a talk page I was watching, and I thought it was non-notable. That might well be the reason why Firefly does not want me commenting. That is understandable, as I said. I'm not complaining about the removal of my comment. I just said I the personal attack is relevant to this block, so I'm noting it here instead. ~YellowFives 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My involvement here is through commenting at the RFD. Firefly posted a comment [26] which appeared to equate "BLP-screaming" editors, presumably including myself, since my delete rationale was BLP, with supporters of Islamic extremism. I would have responded there, except it was easier to just walk away chuckling. But there's no doubt that was a personal attack on anyone who cited BLP concerns at the RFD discussion. Perhaps made by an editor who stumbled onto the wrong website, I dunno. BLP is a policy here, and the editors who try to uphold it don't support any particular view, they just care anout the policy. Equating concern for BLP with support for Islamic jihad or terrorism or whatever - that's unacceptable. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and, in general, it is not appropriate for us to denounce even the worst evil-doers. Their deeds accurately reported speak for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rather surprised, after all this talk of BLP violations, that YellowFives just wrote (in a not completely unrelated discussion) "Daniel Pipes hates Muslims." If such statements are in fact BLP violations (and in his case statements less innappropriate than that have been termed libelous), I think this deserves some attention. I would appreciate it if someone would take the appropriate action, or let me know what should be done. Wikipedia just can't afford to have editors writing such things on Wikipedia, as it raises concerns of lawsuits and is otherwise innappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm generally in favor of considering the bulk of BLP as an articlespace content policy, and restricting its use in other spaces to only the most egregiously disruptive cases. Editors must have decent freedom of speech for the purposes of making their points if we're to remain an open encyclopedia embracing a wide range of viewpoints. YellowFive's edit was entirely allowable (if unhelpful and unconstructive), and, frankly, I think the block against Firefly322 cannot be justified on BLP grounds (disruptive editing grounds now, is certainly a possibility). That is, if it was the edit I'm looking at [27], it's a straightforward expression of opinion making no specific factual claims (that somebody is evil is by definition a matter of opinion) and cannot be considered legally defamatory. The slow metastasization of BLP beyond its role as an enjoinder to be cautious and conservative when dealing with articles about living people is, frankly, disturbing. RayTalk 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crum's deletion

    Highly inappropriate again. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Take it to WP:DRV. AniMate 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Useless. Undo the close and let the discussion continue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and if someone else does that I will block them for disruption. FFS thecorrect venue for this in the first place was DRV. ViridaeTalk 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop confusing "decision I disagree with" with "inappropriate" Protonk (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protonk took the words right out of my mouth. If the close was "inappropriate" DRV is the correct forum to make your case. AniMate 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first close came about from discussion on this page the administrator Black Kite was involved in while discussion was ongoing. It should have never been closed in the first place. This is a complete disregard of WP:Redirect and the true meaning of BLP. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good close. Saturn is obsessed with labeling this guy a terrorist, and he wants the debate to go on forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What guy? The redirect redirects to an event, not a person. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you obsessed with the terrorism label? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop it. This line of inquiry isn't going to produce anything useful. The correct course is to go to WP:DRV if there are objections to the close. Discussion about the terrorism label is not something that requires admin action. AniMate 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not obsessed. I'm irritated by this Wheel War brought about by Black Kite's terrible decision. DRV has been opened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is. I probably malformed it. I think it's best if I step away for a while. I need to cool down. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jclemens wheel-warring

    Jclemens wheel-warred in un-closing the discussion and un-deleting the redirect. While he cited "involvement" by the original closing admin, he too himself was involved, and proceeding in that manner was highly inappropriate. He only needed to approach BlackKite and comment on it, or go directly to DRV. Grsz11 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    False, he made the right decision. Black Kite disregarded the Keep votes and no consensus was appropriate. Jclemens did not close inappropriately while involved, Black Kite did. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There wasn't a wheel war. The third administrative act is where WP:WHEEL comes into play. That being said, Jclemens act was amazingly inappropriate. If he disagreed with BK's close he definitely knew better than to use his tools in the conflict. He was 100% involved and familiar enough with our policies to know there were other routes he should have taken. AniMate 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was Black Kite (who made the initial close) not involved? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did he comment in the original discussion? No. Grsz11 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did he comment here (thus involving himself) before closing? Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe in the "Everybody who ever disagrees with me is therefore unable to fairly judge any argument I've been involved in" way of looking at it. If that's the case, then I'd say he's involved. Grsz11 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BK was involved, but that really doesn't matter. When you see someone break the rules, you don't then break them yourself. AniMate 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I to understand that the "involvement" that Jclemens believes invalidated Black Kite's closure is BK's 2 posts in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9? I'm about to do some serious facepalming if so. Tarc (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, according to Jclemens' statement above, he believes that Black Kite is involved because Black Kite dislikes him. However, Black Kite is actually only involved on a minuscule level; as he noted, "an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean [he was] 'involved' in it." GlassCobra 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackkite's closing statement demonstrates a strong personal opinion on the subject matter consistent with his involvement and discussion here, but isn't a proper weighting and evaluation of the arguments. He should have offered up his opinion in the discussion rather than impose his opinion and personal preference as overriding those offered in good faith by participants in the discussion. This is not the first time Blackkite has done this sort of thing. It would be great if he would exercise greater restraint. The integrity of the process and showing respect for fellow editors is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's time to nip this drama in the bud. What administrative actions are currently being requested? AniMate 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Jclemens has disliked me ever since the Saint Pancake debacle and I doubt very much if he would've reverted the close if anyone else had made it. At that time he made great play of the fact that I supposedly wheel-warred to delete a G10 redirect (later supported by the community at DRV). Well, if that's the case, he has just done exactly the same thing - except it was a wheel-war to re-instate. Not only that, but he made this comment in the AfD ("Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up") and so was not only heavily involved, but made a comment which made a bad faith assumption on behalf of many editors. I think it's about time that someone asked this admin to keep away from anything that involves WP:BLP, and about his use of admin tools in this matter. Also, his claim that I can't close any XfD in which he's commented because I don't like him is frankly laughable. Imagine if we extended that to any admin who has had a dispute with another user. Black Kite 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what, BK? Feel free to open an RfArb if you really want to. Until then, I will continue my practice of staying away from things you're involved in, and I would welcome it if you did the same. I never claimed to not be involved with the RfD; I claimed you were involved with me. You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it. This particular facet of this drama would have been avoided if you'd simply left well enough alone and let the next admin close it. Oh, and saying editors are arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy is not WP:ABF when multiple editors are, in fact, arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it.". Had I the inclination to go to RFAR, that comment might well be a serious problem. But frankly, I haven't. I do see the good work that you do in other areas of the encyclopedia but we obviously have a major disagreement over the issue of NPOV/BLP on redirects. Not that I don't think you're wrong - I think you're very wrong, and I think the community position supports me - otherwise I would bow to consensus. But really, that's not a massive issue and I'm sure it's something that we can work round. Cheers, Black Kite 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Invitation to discuss

    • People at this discussion who are interested in the broader topic, as opposed to the individual behaviors, are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Section_regarding_neutrality_of_redirects. As you are likely aware, current guidelines are that NPOV (and, by extension, BLP issues) are not reasons to delete redirects, a fact about which editors (including myself) have strong opinions. If you have an opinion, I invite you to bring it to that page. I think it's past time people put up or shut up on the matter: are we interested in making our encyclopedia accessible, or more interested in making sure that redirects don't point in ways that convey objectionable opinions? RayTalk 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say I really put much faith in a discussion premised on a logical fallacy and biased against one particular point of view. One can support the use of non-neutral redirects while at the same time drawing a line at BLP transgressions. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only present the world as I see it. If you take issue with my characterization, feel free to do so at the discussion. If you choose not to participate, that is of course your prerogative, but failure to participate doesn't free us from an obligation to follow consensus. RayTalk 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus does not override BLP policy, especially in a discussion that starts off on such a wrong foot. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    without it being a judgment on either side of the particular question, within the very broad limits set by the WMF, consensus has made BLP policy, and consensus interprets it. To the degree any pronouncement is authoritative, it's because we choose by consensus to honor it. Who else is responsible for Wikipedia , if not all of us collectively? We have all worked or studied in places where a central administration of some sort made policy, and everyone there had to follow it. enWP has no such administration, and no such dictated policies. What we agree on is policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jclemens's POINTY behavior

    Resolved
     – Redirect at RFD --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jclemens (talk · contribs) has now created Hiroshima terrorist attack, which was brought up in the above RfD discussion, in order to prove a point. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a known issue; jclemens created this during the Ft. Hood redirect discussion, not just today or anything like that. That one at least seems headed towards an unquestionable delete, thankfully. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time to indefinitely block User:Ott jeff yet?

    Resolved
     – Indefblocked, endorsed, moving along Tan | 39 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His account exists only to promote MonaVie, which I'm 100% sure he's an employee of. He's been warned, he's gotten one short-term block for edit-warring, and he's recently created MonaVie Active as a content fork since he's realized that he isn't going to be able to turn MonaVie into an advertisement. I'm so tired of him, and so annoyed with him, that I'd prefer not to block him myself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing his edits and block log, I've enacted the indefinite block. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, he doesn't get to defend himself and you don't even have to post warnings and diffs? Oh, well, new user, that's how it goes here at AN/I. One complaint and BAM! IndefBlock. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not a newbie; he has been here for a month. He has been warned, although he has removed those warnings from his talk page. In fact, he's been blocked twice for shorter periods of time for the same things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You admit the block is retaliatory: you're tired of him. I think one month is not long enough to be considered an established user on wikipedia! I don't see any diffs that you've posted about his prior blockings. Just how tired you are of him. And quickly, 10 minutes later, he's blocked. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the administrators' noticeboards; I know that my fellow admins know how to look at his edit history for the diffs of his edits, and to his block history for his prior blocks. We've allowed him to advertise his company for a month, which I think is very generous of us. Tell you what- I'll be glad to support an unblock if he agrees not to edit on the subject of MonaVie or Acai in the future. I doubt he'll be interested in the offer, but I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable. I suspect you're right that he will not take you up on the offer, but there's no loss for trying. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) to IP: A little AGF on your part would be nice too. I have noticed this user before, and he has ignored every warning offered to him. I reviewed his contributions in full before I enacted the block, and I did so because it looked quite clear he had no intention of changing his behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice also the context of your quote. I didn't say, "I'm tired of him, so someone block him." I can block him myself. I said, "I'm tired of him, so I don't want to be unfair. Someone else who is less annoyed look and see if you agree he should be blocked." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You blocked him with one request and the input of two other admins after 10 minutes. That's fast! Give other users some time to post input, give the user time to respond, anything that shows I should AGF, and I'll be glad to. Wikipedia administrators don't look too closely when it comes to supporting a fellow administrator. I would have liked to be able to assume good faith by a balanced and fair discussion of the problems, rather than a rush to block. However, I accept your proposal above. Let's try it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, can you find any GF edits? Pop the diffs here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (side comment) Since when do admins leap to support each other? This page is basically a long catalog of admins bitching at each other. And the archive goes on and on and on... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to blocking or attacking a relatively new editor (case in point). Other than that, yes, it's pretty much a cesspool of absurdity intermingled with long blocks about the drama-magnets. Back on topic, let's just try once more reasoning and call it a done deal whichever way the editor chooses to respond to the offer.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why feed IP? He comes in here screaming about how the block is bad without having done any research at all into the problem. He has a right do do that, I suppose; we all have a right to ignore him. Endorse indefblock, closing thread. Tan | 39 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also endorse this block as entirely appropriate. Spamming is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FisherQueen

    If the editor agrees to not edit MonaVie, Acai, other problem articles

    The editor might agree to not edit the MonaVie and Acai articles as suggested above by User:FisherQueen.[28]

    If the user agrees to this in a request to be unblocked, I would like the wikipedia community to assume good faith and support this.

    I will teach the user how to edit wikipedia articles in a more neutral fashion. He can be watched and blocked again if necessary.

    In addition, I would like a neutral, by which I mean no one who has posted in this thus far, editor (administrator or not) to agree to check the final version of the article when its rewriting and editing to clean up problems is finished. If you are neutral and write well, please volunteer your services for a final read-through with an eye to neutrality and facts, at the Talk:MonaVie. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I satisfy IP69.226.103.13's definition of "neutral": in fact until I stumbled on this discussion I had never heard of User:Ott jeff, of MonaVie, or of Acai. I read the above discussion, and decided to offer my services for the checking that IP69.226.103.13 suggests: in fact I wrote an offer to do so here. However, before clicking on "Save page" I decided to have a look at Ott jeff's editing history to see what the controversy was about. Frankly I do not see an editor who, being inexperienced in Wikipedia editing, did not fully understand how things work, made a few mistakes, and may well learn with a bit of support; rather I see an editor with a determination to plug a point of view, willing to ruthlessly suppress information not supporting that point of view, willing to twist facts to support that point of view, contemptuous of other editors who oppose him, and unwilling to adjust to fit in with Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why anyone would wish to take steps to keep such an editor on board. Needless to say I have dropped my intention of offering to help bring him back. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not neutral if you come to AN/I to stir up a personal attack against the editor ("ruthlessly," "twist facts," "contemptuous") when that aspect of the conversation has been dropped. Your post is pointless. You can think about something and change your mind without calling it to anyone's attention. The request for someone neutral is for an article editor, not someone to monitor Ott. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, from your response it would appear that by "neutral Admin" you mean someone who agrees with your opinion about this user. Even if that was not your intent, what you wrote has now discouraged anyone else from taking an interest in helping Ott jeff -- even if JamesBWatson is being unfair to him. The matter is now over, except for the usual squabbling that follows. -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for someone to review the article, not Ott jeff, LLywrch. Don't know why anyone would dismiss one user based on the actions of another as you are implying you are doing, but don't know why you comment without appearing to have read what you are commenting on. You've missed the topic: the article is what needs a neutral admin or editor, any editor will do, doesn't have to be an admin.
    As the article is in wikipedia, the encyclopedia we are writing, there will be someone who cares more about writing the encyclopedia than about getting a free shot at AN/I. Always is. The quality of the encyclopedia is important enough to enough people that some things, even on AN/I, come with guarantees. That's why there's an encyclopedia. You might read the article yourself some time, see if you can contribute to it. That's ultimately the goal here: to provide articles for people to read.
    My opinion on the user doesn't matter. Wikipedia is about the articles. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for help in sorting out what to do to stop edit war at Ronald Ryan

    Ronald Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Check the article history. Two editors: Escapeeyes (talk · contribs) and Purrum (talk · contribs) have been at an edit war at this article, with little to no discussion at all, just back and forth, back and forth, for months now. I am about this close to indefinate full protection or some such, but then I thought its rather unfair to everyone who actually wants to obey the rules that these two should get away with this for so long. I don't want to act unilaterally, but I think that some sort of editing restriction/article ban needs to be discussed at the community level to shut down this rediculousness. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I am open to anything. --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence that purrum has been notified: [29] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    evidence that escapeeyes has been informed: [30] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That article appears to be a POV mine field. Your idea for a topic ban on the both of them seems reasonable, and then maybe a disinterested party could attempt to clean up the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Escapeeyes has edited nothing but the Ronald Ryan article and came right back after the 1 month block and continued the same behavior. Unless there are objections, I propose a block until he has understood and acknowledged our method of editing. (now implemented.)
    On a sidenote: Oh God, that article is in desperate need of a rewrite. I would suggest stripping it down to the bare essentials and starting over. henrik•talk 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or reverting to a version before their appearance. This looks like an acceptible candidate for the wrong version, & someone can sift out the wheat from the chaff in the later drafts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a starting point, though even that revision has significant problems.
    I've blocked User:Escapeeyes with the idea that they need to produce some sort of acknowledgment that they respect the fundaments of collaborative edtiting before being unblocked. Though I do not think User:Purrum's conduct has been any better, I've not imposed any sanctions on him so far. henrik•talk 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit uncomfortable with unilateral sanctions here. Perhaps a topic ban against Purrum proscribing him from editing the article at all; if he violates he could be blocked. Any objections? Ideas? --Jayron32 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no objections to that (Perhaps a strongly worded warning making it very clear that this is not the way we behave could be a thought as a lesser alternative?). But I think the real key to resolving this longstanding dispute is to write a better, neutral, article; one that doesn't immediately send either party off in a fit of rage. henrik•talk 08:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.202.223.133

    Is making legal threats at Long Term Abuse regarding that whole Joe Hazelton thing. I reverted his stuff at LTA, and issued a WP:NLT warning with Twinkle. He then renewed the same on my talkpage thus [31]. Can we get a block on this little charmer? Crafty (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked but I have questions about that email see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:76.202.223.133 and legal threats. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that and you have a point. I think that has been removed from the LTA report in the past. Crafty (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That e-mail, while amusing, probably should not have been posted. His threat to go to the police expresses legitimate anger over that, although I have heard of very few cases of the police arresting wikipedia editors for anything to do with wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very few"? Does that mean you've heard of any? :P GlassCobra 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Legitimate anger"? Seriously? He's a long-term stalker who doesn't want to be exposed, that's all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The truly legitimate part of his anger is the part about posting his e-mail here. The rest of it is of questionable legitimacy. It was nice of him to include his name, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Hazelton is not his real name. We know his name and address, but of course we will not reveal this on wiki. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should consolidate this discussion there? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and then put him on ice for awhile if he doesn't chill on his own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always entertaining people, out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wowsers, that anon is more entertaining them my own anon stalker. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some help at Nephilim

    I'd do something but I'm involved. We have an IP editor here 81.183.245.214 (talk · contribs) continually adding fringe stuff - it is definitely rubbish that doesn't belong, but this has turned into an edit war with the IP and another editor over 3RR right now. I think the sensible course is probably protection for the page, maybe block the IP, but I'd better recuse myself. I would have reverted if I'd seen at the right time, and I have reverted the same rubbish at another page that the IP has been editing, which would have helped. I't's also being discussed on the talk page but the IP isn't taking part in that discussion. Counting me there are 3 editors objecting to the addition. Thanks. I'll notify the IP. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. Will expect IP to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page first, which is why I've not blocked the IP. I will leave a note on the article and IPs talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message on the IPs talk page, requesting that they discuss the issue, and backed it up with a uw-van4im. I've also left a message on the talk page of Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) re 3RR. I feel that a block is not warranted this time, subject to no further offences of 3RR. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Best Selling albums Worldwide

    Resolved

    hi, I left a request a few days ago about a semi-protected page "Best Selling Albums Worldwide" does not link to (michael jackson cd) History: past, present, future could someone with access please fix this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be fixed now. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

    IP 87.244.124.68, claiming to be the subject of the article, has been making edits of various kinds, some to update the article, others to make it fit what he claims to be the importance of various aspects of his career. At no time has the IP provided any sources for these edits, merely stating that he know what he is doing, where he lives, etc. In the past, the subject has requested that we suppress various portions of the article (sourced to The Times, Debretts, and other such obscure scandalsheets) for privacy reasons. Any suggestions? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the editor. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, say thank you My Lord, Wikipedia is most honoured by your noble presence. Now, I must rush over there and introduce myself. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, it's possible this is the real Billy Villiers, and he's entitled to the same consideration under WP:BLP as anybody else. One of my concerns is imposture; the other is reliable sources and verifiability of the edits. (As a Quaker, I avoid all honorifics; no Milording for me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia:Autobiography you shouldn't really write about yourself on Wikipedia, so if it is him, he should stop. GiantSnowman 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read all of WP:AUTO, it's a little more complicated than that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact" - sounds pretty simple to me. GiantSnowman 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a control issue - the subject wants to control what goes into the article. There have been many similar cases in the past, such as Jim Hawkins and Sally Boazman. As long as WP:BLP is strictly adhered to, the subject doesn't get to dictate what is and what is not in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. The sum total of the disputed edits consisted of 1) an attempt to remove the description of Villiers as a "writer, actor and producer" and 2) the addition of the information that Radier Manor was off the market. #1 would have been harmless to leave stand for a day or two while talking out the present compromise (to describe him as a former writer, etc.) and #2 is trivial to verify, insofar as one can verify a negative. (I don't expect the Times to run a lengthy article announcing that Radier Manor is off the market, but it doesn't appear in the listings of either estate agent and its web page suggests that Jersey will be leasing the grounds for some time in the future.) I realize we have a duty to protect Wikipedia from the people declaring themselves to be the Hereditary Captain-General of Ruritania (and the people joe-jobbing others in such a fashion), but the vigorous reverting and referrals to Vogonesque bureacracy that occur as soon as someone touches their own biography hardly paint Wikipedia in the best light. Choess (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, Lord Jersey was, IIRC, helpful in getting one of our more persistent hoaxers—who was vandalizing Earl of Jersey, among other pages, about two years ago—to find a more productive use of his time. Choess (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William S. Saturn's behavior on this page

    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I added a section to this page which William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) has seen fit to remove twice. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, nor in a 3RR situation, so I will not re-add my comments, but it is not appropriate for any user to remove other people's good faith comments on this page. As I told him, if an admin felt my comments were inappropriate, they could have closed the section that I edited, but instead, he just deleted my comments again. Please deal with this. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether what you're trying to add is valid or not, but it is not Saturn's place to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments were not in good faith, you were bringing up a week's old issue and labeling it as "now," in order to inflame the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will, please just leave the comments of others alone. If they are inappropriate you can ask an admin to have a look at them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an IP or anyone is being disruptive and attempting to inflame a situation, I will most definitely remove it. I thought that was the case this time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will, you don't seem to understand that there are packs of POV pushing editors with admin friends on Wikipedia. If you allow youself to be baited into reacting to their taunts and trolling their allies will be more than happy to block you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware. I try not to fall into their traps, but sometimes I forget.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just call an end to this. The original posting by the IP editor was not really appropriate for ANI and there's a good chance it would have been removed or quickly closed by another editor, but as William S. Saturn was somewhat involved in the situation it was not really appropriate for him to remove it. Whether or not it was out and out disruptive was at least debatable. I would propose that the posting not be restored, that William avoid this kind of behavior in the future, and that we all move on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William S. Saturn's userpage

    Resolved
     – Image removed due to protests from intolerant editors

    Last night I approached this editor at his talk page regarding a photograph of a seminude porn star on his user page, to ask him to supply an encyclopedic context for the image. Other editors joined the discussion including Bigtimepeace, who provided articulate input. William S. Saturn refuses to discuss the matter on its merits. I'm no prude; in past discussions have defended this for at least having a context about the editor's political views. But per this discussion Mr. Saturn appears more interested in insinuating untoward motives of anyone who approaches him on the matter, than in (for example) justifying the use of the seminude porn star in encyclopedic terms. He has never edited the performer's biography.[32] Fewer than twenty percent of Wikipedia's editors are women. We wouldn't tolerate gratuitous racial objectification in userspace; gender objectification is equally problematic. Requesting review from the community regarding this matter. Durova366 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there something wrong with being a porn star? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about this issue regarding female editors in general, but I think if you have an image on your userpage that
    a) doesn't have any encyclopedic value (at least on your userpage)
    b) you don't really need
    c) inadvertently offends some editors who come to your page
    then it shouldn't be such a big deal to remove it. Nobody is attacking your right to have the picture, you can keep it saved on your desktop if you want. The problem exists with its posting on your userpage, a public place. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For that matter, should I also remove the image of Pim Fortuyn since some users feel homosexuality is "repugnant"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The picture doesn't appear to me to be "seminude". I thought there would be breasts or something (unless there's another image I'm not seeing?). He also has a picture of Hunter Thompson. Is that any more or less encyclopedic?

    I don't see a problem with letting him know that you don't approve of the photo and requesting that he put something more family friendly or academic up, but this seems to me to go too far in attempting to restrict what images editors can put up in their userspace. If that's how he chooses to represent himself or his interests I don't see the problem. It's not obscene (and there's certainly plenty that is across Wikipedia space). She's a porn star (apparently) but she seems to me to be clothed. The same issues arise with political displays and such. Are we going to restrict userpages according to what anyone is offended by? I do appreciate Durova's raising the issue of inclusiveness and sensitivity, but that has to be balanced with issues of censorship and personal expression (which is something that userpages are about). ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Ugh, I saw this discussion on your page. I don't want to go down that path, and I don't think it's entirely relevant. But I don't think you should have to remove the Pin Fortuyn image. The difference is in the content: if I'm editing Wikipedia at school or at work, the image of Lane is not something I'd want to come up on my screen unexpectedly. But regarding the other image, it doesn't contain the same kind of content. It's just a portrait. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Even tho I find fault with much of what Saturn does around here, this tangent today is just a wee bit pointless. Unless someone is going to articulate a policy-based reason as to why Saturn must remove them image, then we're at the point of this being a request to remove it. The request was made, the request was declined. Where else about this then necessitates administrative attention? Tarc (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer Tarc's last question, probably nothing, and I don't think we should re-run the "can I have naked (or kinda naked) ladies on my userpage" discussion that I'm pretty sure has been not very helpful in the past, though I've not bothered to participate. I have further explained the issue to William (at least as I see it, i.e. in part it's a simple NSFW matter) and maybe we can just wait and see if he's persuaded. I'm not sure there is a policy-based reason to make someone remove an image like that from their user page, and while to me that's patently ridiculous for a project purporting to relate at least dimly to the writing of an encylopedia, them's are probably the rules, so perhaps all we can do is hope William is willing to swap in a picture of a "sunny day" for the one of Sunny Lane in the interest of harmony and good will and all that. I came across this whole thing completely by chance and I've said my piece on the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't like getting henpecked? Please maintain a professional demeanor. Step one: button pants.
    Wikipedians routinely delete "wanking gallery" userpages and other material that serves no purpose other than to alienate a segment of the editor population. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yayay/Userboxes/Cleavage. Applicable policies include WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:CIVIL. This person refuses to provide any encyclopedic context at all and has never edited the biography of the person portrayed. An alternative portrait exists of the same person, and he offers no reason for refusing to substitute it. Now if you'll excuse me there's a newly restored image to add to the stereoscopy article. Durova366 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea but its not like the image up there now is a money shot or anything, just a little suggestive and a little scantily-clad. I looked at it twice this morning and really didn't see the big controversy. I'd go look at it for a 3rd time, but I fear for my eyesight... Tarc (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the image that was in the breast appreciation userbox would have been perfectly appropriate as part of a breast cancer awareness userbox. Context matters, and neither editor supplies any within project scope. MySpace is thataway. Durova366 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, WP:PORN's userboxes are G-rated. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    ...I do find the objections to eroticism, female sensuality, the human body, sex, etc., to be unreasonable and their suppression in the public sphere by people who are privately uncomfortable with them to be much more offensive and dangerous than any commercial exploitation. On the other hand, getting along in a collaborative environment often means respecting other people's mores and constraints even if one does not personally share them. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean to imply that I am "privately uncomfortable" with the human body, please review this gallery. It includes several nudes and other difficult subjects. It would be not be reasonable, however, to post this image or this one without encyclopedic context. Both racism and sexism are ways of reducing human beings to objects; neither type of image is acceptable when used crudely or gratuitously. If Mr. Saturn's userspace had degraded people of African descent, instead of women, it is doubtful we would even debate the matter. Durova366 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is the image "degrading of women"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the lady's face
    How exactly is it that the lady's face isn't suitable, and why do you use a portrait in userspace for a biography you have never edited? Please provide an encyclopedic context for your choices. Durova366 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it now a userpage policy that it must conform to an encyclopedic context? Was this true with the Bush image you defended? As you can see from the other images, I prefer a full body shot. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the burden of affirmation falls on you, Durova, to show that WSS needs to justify his userspace decisions to you. Why should his decisions need to be approved by you in any way shape or form? Protonk (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be uncertain of how an image of an example of a particular race or culture, without any commentary, would "degrade" that which is being represented; if we are to present such reasoning, would posting a picture of an aeroplane be considered as attempting to vilify aviation? I do realise the issue, in that glamourised representations of a sex might be an indication that the user does not value a part of humanity for aspects not related to a narrow definition of desirability... In which case the image serves its purpose - any editor sufficiently interested in understanding the editor will form their opinion based upon that choice of imagery. Both you and I do the same on our userpages, but with less (most certainly in your case, perhaps not so much in mine) adverse comment. Is this an issue that is so fraught that any example should be removed to prevent discomfort to a section of our editorship, or is it a useful indicator that a section of our editorship should take the views of that editor under advisement? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    LessHeard vanU, the point of the image is to convey the message that moralizing is unacceptable when dealing with a subject matter where no harm is done (pornography). --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a weird conversation.

    First, IMHO this image doesn't qualify for NSFW status, & clearly isn't as graphic as it could be. Further, we shouldn't be in the business of monitoring what people have on their user pages -- as long as it isn't hate speech or violates our image licensing. That said, this picture is offensive. It's not in how she is dressed; you can find something more provocative in the average Victoria's Secret catalog. It's not in her pose: she's standing with her back to the camera, looking over her shoulder. No, it's in her expression -- it's that same contrived expression, full of strained enthusiasm & sexual meaning, that women in every porn flick exhibit at least once. And which makes 99% of the genre boring if not without erotic interest.

    I can't believe anyone would want to have this image on their user page (unless with a funny caption, like "Are you chewing on Styrofoam? Wanna share?"). But then again, I can't believe we wouldn't want a clue like this on his user page, which gives us a revealing insight into he thinks. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to close this section. Consensus is pretty strongly in favor of allowing wide latitude on userpages for productive and active editors. Period. That wide latitude includes (but isn't exclusive to) images and quotes which would be objectionable in another setting, personal diversions and commentary. There is no requirement to present "encyclopedic context" for an image on a userpage upon request, nor should there be. Durova, I don't know what led you to believe that this situation is best resolved by a post on AN/I but might I suggest that this is best resolved by folks avoiding WSS's userpage unless the image itself is so offensive as to be inherently problematic (in which case it should go to FFD). Protonk (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no reason this can't be closed. I'm not thrilled with the image either, but can't see any administrative action that is necessary here. AniMate 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP:75.150.239.81 - School, or in need of a block?

    Resolved
     – AIV is that way. @Kate (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anybody check whether 75.150.239.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a school? They have a long list of warnings and have vandalized a lot of pages. If its not a school, something should be done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about a block - they have one edit today, three last month, and those were the first since May. TNXMan 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind they haven't made one constructive edit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of IP talkpages are studded with dead vandalism warnings. It doesn't mean they need to be blocked. Moreover the sort of block you're talking about could ensure that the first constructive edit from that IP never happens. Crafty (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the user(s) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Michael E. Mann talk page

    Would someone care to remind user:KimDabelsteinPetersen, user:Atmoz, and user:William M. Connolley that they do not WP:OWN talk pages. They are repeatedly removing a discussion topic on Talk:Michael E. Mann. In addition Connolley has a direct WP:COI with the subject as they both blog together.WVBluefield (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified all three editors about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be related to the re-insertion of a private letter [33] by WVBluefield that has been republished in part by i Wired I think (the letters were originally obtained due to a hack apparently). No real opinion on the merits, although i wonder why the source itself can't be examined (and why the letter needs to be republished in full on the talk page). Also, WVBluefield seems to have hit 5RR on this. Aside from that, I'm not sure what administrator action has been requested. Seems that WP:DR should suffice. --Bfigura (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting my contributions on the talk page is strictly prohibited, and 3RR doesnt apply. Nerv mind WMC's massive wp:COI on the topic. WVBluefield (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which exception to 3RR are you claiming? This isn't simple vandalism, since the other editors have articulated reasons why this material shouldn't be there. --Bfigura (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They have no right to remove my comments on the talk page, as they never provided one solid reason why they should. Where, exactly did they articulate a reason why the material couldn’t stay on the talk page? KDP's first edit summary[34], not the right place to "discuss" removing someone else’s talk page contributions, stated that the letter wasn’t reproduced by a RS is complete nonsense because the source is right there at the top of the talk page thread. The rest of the editors simply piled on. WVBluefield (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Either the letters are genuine or not. If they are, it's a copyright violation to reprint them on the talk pages. If they aren't, they are a BLP violation. Either way they have to go. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in any event, I've given 4 reasons why re-adding would be a bad idea on the talk page. However, since this is now under discussion there, hopefully things can be civilly hashed out there, and this can be closed. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be out of town for this weekend, but i will stand behind the fact that i removed the text. I did it because it was a forum like posting, with no relevance to the article in question - i also notified WV on his talk-page about this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments placed on WV's talkpage, by me and other editors[35], seem to have been removed right after posting this complaint, and while that is the WV's prerogative, it seems a bit rude not even to mention that we tried to establish at least some for of dialogue/rationalization for the removal of the talk-page comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a straightforward 3RR by WVB. I'll go report it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already reported by Atmoz. There is a bit of a backlog at AN3; could one of you kind admins nip across there and sort it out please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall that not so long ago, reports at AN3 were always handled promptly and efficiently by a very dedicated administrator. It's sad to see that things have slipped so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the good old days :-(. Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that WVB is deliberately erasing all traces of the warnings he was given e.g. [36] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot erase anything here and the record of the changes made to my talk page are archived indefinitely, I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll. I am more than happy to engage peopel who approach me in good faith and reserve the right to shit can the comments of those who dont. WVBluefield (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll is clear incivility. Please block WVB for it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, right. Whilst you are up on your civility high horse WMC, please note that calling editors dense as you did last month to WVBluefield is easily construed as a personal attack. Glass houses and all that.... Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, chattering admins: the AN3 report associated with this still awaits your attention William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment

    An editor has been harrassing me from the range of 166.205.xxx.xxx, for these last 2-months. He has 'in the past' boasted that Wikipedia can't do anything about. Could something be done about it? GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've meant to look into this and got sidetracked. this edit is most telling, and this user is making good on their threats. I think a range block on the 166.205 as nothing seems to come out of it. Pending someone looking at it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodday, if you like I can semi-protect your userspace. The down side of this is that it will prevent all new users, even the sincere ones, from contacting you. Let me know here or on my talk page if you would like this. Chillum 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want the innocent to suffer, because of that dick. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list out some of the IPs? We may be able to construct a rangeblock that's smaller than the 65,536 addresses represented by 166.205.*.*. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may take awhile, I'll have to check my contributions. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some IPs he's used. 166.205.138.250, 166.205.132.99, 166.205.133.112, 166.205.132.96, 166.205.133.79. This particular IP 166.205.133.38, might be the smoking gun. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    166.205.133.38 points to the 'Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More info about the ISP can be found here. They describe themselves as "non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote interoperability for wireless data subscribers and to provide a common Network Operations Center (NOC) for the management and distribution of IP addresses and wireless network identifier information." I don't know if it is an open network or if it requires membership. If they require membership then a collection of timestamps and IPs sent to them may allow them to suspend the abusing user, if it is an open network then little can be done short of semi-protecting the target pages or blocking the whole ISP. Chillum 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if nothing can be done about him, then we better hang on to our hats. If unchecked? after today he'll be more bothersome. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The provider is used via contract by multiple wireless companies. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regrettably for the innocent IPs, this tormentor is cementing my views on 'mandatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the IPs you've listed, I think we can cut it down to 166.205.[132-139].*. What we should do is ask for a checkuser to look at the range and see if there would be any collateral damage to innocent editors, and then we can get that range block put into place. I'll email them. Jehochman Talk 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be terrific. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All the users on that IP ranges are iPhones. That's probably why he thinks we can't do anything about it. His IP is dynamic. Anyway, I looked at 166.205.128.0/20, aka 166.205.[128,143].0. In this case, that'd be fine to block if you wanted to block 166.205.[132,139].0. There would be some collateral damage for one or two genuine anonymous users, but if it really is so bad that you want to block the range, you can. Please use a descriptive block reason though, so that the people that do get caught in collateral do know that they've done nothing wrong. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block to you. --Deskana (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the IP is going around and reverting all of GoodDay's contributions every time they come on. It's not just the occasional act of minor vandalism, it's a protracted campaign against a valuable editor. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just applied three range blocks that are narrowly targeted (/24), but should cover all the IPs noted thus far. Please leave me any additional IPs that cause hassles, and I will keep blocking until the perpetrator finds something else to do on the Internet. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking the range I suggested would have had the same effect due to the lack of users on some of the /24s, but that works too. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the rangeblock function accept a general purpose regular expression? Jehochman Talk 02:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately not. All it accepts are IPs and CIDR suffixes. --Deskana (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm grateful to you all. Thanks, thanks, thanks. Hopefully that anon won't be bothering anybody again. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects for every street in Manhattan

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Creating redirects is not in-and-of-itself disruptive, several editors have noted no problems with the specific redirects in this case. Reresolving. Guideline discussions regarding the notability of roads can be handled elsewhere. If deleting a redirect is needed, see WP:RFD. Otherwise, there are no admin issues here. --Jayron32 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Not an issue
    • Contested; non-admin resolve despite objections and lack of response offered to original poster, open for less than 30 minutes, 2 short comments without any citation of guidelines do not represent a consensus for anything, to say something brought to the ANI level. "Resolution" stricken per IAR. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JailBrokenIPODGoneWild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could someone take a look at this users contributions and counsel them about their current redirect mania? 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's wrong with the redirects? I see you didn't bother asking him/her about it before coming here. Grsz11 20:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, just looking at this quickly they look fine (and indeed useful) to me. If we don't have an article on those streets we should redirect editors who search for them to the main list article on all Manhattan streets. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per NYC streets precedent: See List of Brooklyn streets, 1-101, and how each street does not have a redirect. We're not mapquest. Other cities as examples against this style are Los Angeles, San Francisco where but a few numbered streets are in the city template menu as notable, London and Hong Kong has a list but specifically picks certain roads to prove notability and leaves the majority alone. Category:Streets in Japan is very extremely refined and specific, especially given the preposterous size of the city and region. Really, I wouldn't throw as much weight behind deletions, but the precedent set for Brooklyn shows is the format that should be followed, where each street does not have a redirect, and I see no requests in the NYC project for anything like this besides expanding the 42nd street article. ...I'm also curious why anyone would want to start a new user as a SPA to. blanket the encyclopedia with redirects for everything in Manhattan. Ship these to nywiki.com where they'll probably get by.
    Just as a reference, long-established notability guideline for roads are that expressway and national designation routes are always notable, state or province-level are almost always notable, and anything other than that needs extremely particular reasons to show notability. It would be a disaster to the encyclopedia if every street that every intersected any other notable street was deemed automatically notable (thus worthy of a redirect or article). Not a good present to start, especially when very particular guidelines for road notability have spent so long on refinement and there are very few superfluous articles in the project. Sorry... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A concurrent discussion that may be relevant is here. Shereth 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks... without that decided or put up for community consensus it still doesn't actually change this matter. If it comes to it they could be restored, or all moved to userspace for theoretical improvements. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well regardless as I see it these redirects are not candidates for speedy deletion, and as such no one is going to delete them out of hand. If you think they should not exist you should probably put one up for RfD and ask that they all be considered as a batch. I obviously see why we would not want articles on every street, but I guess I don't see what the problem with a redirect is. Anyhow I don't think there's anything for an administrator to do right now so ANI is probably not the place for this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP either a sock of banned banned user or impersonating said user

    I bring this up here, should this IP's edits need to be reverted or it noted that they come from a sock or impersonation account. Most urgently, it appears to be edit-warring and harassing certain former oponents who have already tried reverting him as seen here and here and thus may require faster attention than Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations gets. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done for 55 hours.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the fast action! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nate Silver

    Self reporting this edit, in which I removed a comment in which an editor speculates that the subject may have a mental illness. I believe this to be a just application of WP:BLP, but I submit my edit here for further administrative review. Also, FTR, I think the section immediately below it (in which someone asks about his sexual orientation) should also be removed, but I don't feel that the WP:BLP mandate is as clear in that case. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with your removal; there is something a bit creepy about that particular question. As to the other section, it's not particularly relevant, but it's not a BLP violation, especially since he is asking if reliable sources exist. It might be refactored a bit to remove some of the details, but I don't think it needs to be nuked from the talk page. As a side note, questions like that are a solid argument to make everything other than article space pages opaque to Google. It's not a BLP violation, but it *is* a bit speculative. Horologium (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Horologium.--chaser (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) BLP applies to talk pages, but I think there's benefit in that section remaining to inform people about the policy. If someone brings up things they've read in blogs and so forth about someone's sexual orientation on the talk page, it does make the rumor more prominent for those that read our talk pages. But that is a minor BLP problem, one of a different degree than talk page chatter about rumors of criminal acts, for example. The asperger's thread, OTOH, appeared to be wholly conjecture and so removing that was appropriate. That's my take.--chaser (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my read exactly; thanks for the confirmation. Also, FWIW I agree with your comment regarding masking non-mainspace pages from search engines. Is there currently an active discussion somewhere in the Wikiverse on this topic? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 5:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)
    Several, of various degrees of (in)activity. See WP:NOINDEX. Revive one!--chaser (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneaky vandalism?

    Resolved
     – Account indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU @Kate (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that User:Demoosfp is changing the height statistics on a large number of sports articles. I left a request for them to stop the unsourced changes, but it continues unabated. I have to log off for a few hours and won't be able to finish checking up on the changes, as such could someone here kindly direct this user in the right direction and perhaps block if they won't discuss the matter? Thanks --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked until they undertake to put up or shut up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock ips?

    Please compare this edit from the first IP with this edit from the second IP. These IPs appear to be edit warring with User:Verbal here, here, and here and are doing so with such incivil edit summaries as "Verbal, why don't you just take yourself somewhere else... like possibly self-fornicating?" The second IP's third edit was to an RfA, which is highly unlikely for any new user anyway. Not sure if it is who Verbal suspects, but something funny is going on here and the aforementioned incivility and edit-warring is totally unacceptable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Babb vandalism

    Resolved

    Can an admin semi-protect the Phil Babb article please; IPs from a forum have decided to start a rumour about him and vandalise the article accordingly. I have filed a request at WP:RPP but there looks to be a delay or backlog or something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. NW (Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a gem! Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. As for the backlog at RfPP, going to clear that up now. :) NW (Talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you're a machine! ;) GiantSnowman 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Raynec

    • Raynec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am requesting that action (ban or lengthy block) be taken against this user. Over a period of about two months, he has consistently engaged in acts of vandalism on a number of articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. He systematically deletes the words "Armenia" or "Armenian" and replaces them with "Azerbaijan" or "Azeri", in complete defiance of the cited sources. I reverted him on the articles related to Gardman and Mkhitar Gosh and formally warned him of the discretionary sanctions on his talk page but to no effect. Today, I reverted him on Erzurum article after he deleted the Armenian names of the city and replaced them with the Azeri alphabet. I warned him if he persisted, I would report him. And sure enough, he did not heed my warning and is once more removing the words Armenian from the History of the Nagorno-Karabakh article and replacing him with "Azeri". On the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article, he is deleting cited work and adding unsourced and POV material. He simply hits and runs on these articles and fails to ever engage on the talk page. I was turned away from the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page and told to report this user's problematic edits here. The admin felt that Raynec's edits fail to constitute vandalism but I beg to differ. I cannot see any worse examples than removing the name of a people and a place and replacing it with the name of another people, in complete defiance of all historical sources. Immediate action would be desired. Thank you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reinsertion of BLP violation by Connolley

    Will reinserted what looks to me like a clear BLP violation into an article [37] (and removed my formatting edits). The content has been removed now by two different editors. It's unclear to me why his POV pushing and BLP violating smears against global warming skeptics continue to be tolerated on this site. The article is about a meteorologist and commentator, so it's not at all clear to me why we would be putting in allegation made by an alleged blackmailer regarding his dating history? Furthermore, the accusations themselves violate BLP guidelines because they occured in 2006 and there isn't any evidence of a conviction or anything else against the accused perpetrator. Why is Connolley being allowed to use this unencyclopedic nonsense to smear people in a relentless crusade against article subjects he disagrees with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a problem with the source? Have you tried discussion on the talk page or at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN before coming here? This doesn't seem to be clear, as it looks like an RS, and you haven't provided links to other forms of resolution, or any other attempts. ANI isn't the first point of call. Verbal chat 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, that diff sure looks like he's inserting a reference for the statement. This seems to be a content dispute, rather than a BLP violation. The place to discuss WP:WEIGHT is on the article's talk page, not AN/I. Perhaps dial back your rhetoric a notch, too? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular bit was used to argue notability of Watts in the AfD by Alex Harvey. If this is really useful is open to debate. But I don't see a BLP problem, and I certainly see no need for this hectic complaint without any attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page or elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
    "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."
    "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
    "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
    This content is a clear BLP violation in at least four respects. If Connolly or anyone else thinks it's appropriate to include the allegations of a blackmailer in a meteorologist's article they are most welcome to take it to the BLP/N noticeboard. The policy makes clear where the burden rests. I will be fascinated to read what the subject's dating history has to do with his notability as a meteorologist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a straightforwards news coverage of an attempted extortion. The article does not rest his notability on that event; he is notable for the meteorology and climate change critic aspects of his life. He admitted the relationship and extortion to the press, according to the publically visible part of the article (rest behind paywall); he's not apparently making much effort to keep it private.
    I can see her name being there being somewhat BLP sensitive for her - is that your claim here?
    For him, it would seem significant enough for some notice, and the coverage seems to be minimal, accurate, and not particularly titilating. If a person is notable, having been blackmailed or attemptedly blackmailed and the blackmailer arrested seems significant in their life overall.
    I don't see how the comment puts him in a negative light, which is the primary focus of BLP. We need to be extra sensitive with private information, and negative information. Purient details here would be inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to be present.
    I think a case can be argued that it's inappropriate anyways, but I don't think that BLP's presumption of removal can stretch this far. If you can describe how this is negative, privacy invading, or otherwise inappropriate in more detail I'd be willing to listen to that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider this kind of material completely inappropriate in any article that is not about an individual specifically notable for such news stories. An encyclopedia is not to be confused with the yellow press. It's not Wikipedia's job to perpetuate temporary breaches of someone's private sphere caused by criminal action.

    Or to argue strictly according to the BLP policy: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." WP:NPF

    This minor incident does not magically become relevant to the subject's nobility just because someone's erroneous claim that it is played a role in an AfD. Hans Adler 02:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We include all sorts of information on people once notability is established - notability establishes having an article, not the limit of what we include once someone reaches that threshold. BLP cautions us on sensitive information which might harm the article subject - private information, negative information, etc. But having been the victim of a crime is not necessarily private or negative. In this case here, the subject of the article talked to the press about the incident - they do not seem to consider it too private, or too negative, or they wouldn't have made a statement.
    It still might not be best to have it - but the case that it must go is not well established yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If no urgent administrative action is requested here, this request does not belong on WP:ANI, which is not a venue for dispute resolution. There is a dedicated venue, WP:BLPN, for discussing WP:BLP concerns.  Sandstein  06:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Run-away AfD

    Resolved
     – No administrator action requested.  Sandstein  06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone with a cool head interject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) which has decended into not much more than name-calling and bad faith accusations all around? Appreciated. Grsz11 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more an issue of constant bad-faith accusations and attacks by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) that he had previously been carrying on because this issue wasn't featured at WP:ITN. Every user who votes delete can expect some sort of attack by this user for whatever reason. His disruptiveness has made it impossible to work collaboratively dispute being asked several times to cool down. Grsz11 23:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MickMacNee is stirring up drama and badgering other editors who disagree with him? No shit! Never seen that before... --Jayron32 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad faith accusations that abound don't come from me, that's for sure. I have been variously described as a POV pushing Irish fan over there by Grsz and another editor. The fact I have a rampant pro-Irish POV is surely going to amuse many regulars here. I have responded to plenty of people at the Afd, that's for sure, by either asking for clarification or examples, or simply pointing out that their rationale is too short and is likely going to be ignored (for both deletes and keeps). That other editor is the one person who is taking it too far and insisting on threading comments with me all over, but it is not unmanageable yet. I have hardly been 'harassing all deleters' as alleged, I have steered clear of anybody who has given a clear, full and on-policy reason to delete. Anybody can see that I have never advocated to keep the article by violating CRYSTAL or by invoking OTHERSTUFF, yet what was Grsz's post toward me? To accuse me of doing just that. Then he claims it was a good faith comment. He was either trying to get a rise out of me, or was simply trying to tell me my opinion having not even read the discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm marking this as resolved because no administrator action is requested. There seems to be no need for intervention; the closing admin will filter out any irrelevant comments when evaluating the result.  Sandstein  06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request snowball closure of this AfD.

    Resolved

    See Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination) for discussion. Pickbothmanlol 01:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     closed @Kate (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the hurry, though? It would be closed tomorrow anyway. Tim Song (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None that I saw. I just noticed the request, and as it was a relatively easy closure to make, went ahead and did so, since the request has been open almost two weeks. @Kate (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on second thought, it's actually not a snow close. Relisted debates can be closed once the consensus becomes clear. Not quite sure why this justifies an ANI post, though. Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with Delicious carbuncle on David Shankbone image

    Resolved
     –  Sandstein  06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    I am archiving this thread because no urgent administrator action is requested and WP:ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution. To discuss the merits of the image, please use the article talk page; to address problems with the conduct of other editors please use WP:DR.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting this here as I see with this rather inflamatory reply coupled with the completely unhelpful edit summary - "are you on crack?" - that rather than leave well-enough alone Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is again trying to take digs at me while trying to get an image that David Shankbone took and uploaded off the lede of an article. Delicious carbuncle has shown a keen interest in David Shankbone which I suppose is their right but in this case they are basically laying down ultimatums "all images from this list should be deleted", "Unless you can supply a more neutral image which shows a generic (i.e., unidentifiable) male gay porn performer (or performers), the image in the lede section should be moved.", etc. Without belabouring these points too much I am indeed the main author of the list since overhauling it five months ago. Delicious carbuncle seems to have only the interest in removing this image from the lede now that it's shown that indeed featured lists indeed have images including in the lede. Additionally it's a list of notable porn actors so using an image of "a generic (i.e., unidentifiable) male gay porn performer" wouldn't be appropriate.

    I'm posting here because based on my interactions with this editor, which seem like they have all been unpleasant experiences, I feel they will simply keep asking and pushing in what feels to me like baiting and badgering. I have previously asked them to leave me alone and would like to cut this cycle as it doesn't seem to be actually doing anything but antagonizing me. At its core the issue s whether an image is OK on the lede, the answer is yes and even Delicious carbuncle's request for third opinion affirmed this. I'm convinced, unfortunately that this will drag out and end up at at some image page as well as WQA. To me this seems like needless drama, baiting, badgering and I'd like it to stop and for Delicious carbuncle to leave me alone. Also if someone would be kind enough to notify them of this thread I would appreciate it as I really don't want to interact with them. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Delicious carbuncle about this fresh discussion. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content dispute. I'm not sure what the manual of style (wp:MOS) suggests as far as list articles and whether it's appropriate in a list of people to have one person represented with a photo in the lead. Whose photo to use in the subsections also seems like it could be arbitrary (unless all those with photos are represented)? Maybe try the WP:content noticeboard and see what experienced editors suggest? Also, I think I recall there having been suggestions of a friendship or some other relationship between one or more of our editors and the individual whose photo is being most prominently featured. If that's the case, it would seem rather inappropriate for that person's photograph to be the one featured most prominenty since it involves a COI of sorts and looks like it could be intended to be promotional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you GiantSnowman. ChildofMidnight, all those issues have been addressed as needed. Images in ledes are fine, even of one person on a list as we give our readers credit that they'll know we aren't suggesting they represent everyone. I got feedback from the featured lists folks to be sure. The rest remains a user conflict that I had hoped was forgotten but seems to go on. David Shankbone, as far as I'm aware has had nothing to do with imgae on the article. I have worked to add all the images seen there including appropriate captions. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best dispute resolution would be to get a third opinion (if it's just the two of you in dispute)already done, but dispute is wider than just two and continues so now other steps are needed..., to post a neutrally worded request at the appropriate project page requesting additional input, initiate a "request for comment", or post something at the content noticeboard and see what other editors have to say. Seek consensus. I think additional impartial input is your best out to lower the temperature and resolve the issue. Anyway, good luck. I'll try not to comment further on this issue. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was already done, I linked it above. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjiboi, this is a fairly simple, run-of-the-mill content dispute. I don't think most people would find my comment "inflammatory" or uncivil in any way. Your summary of the situation is inaccurate and misrepresents my position. For reasons known only to yourself, you have chosen to try and bring in some rather strange assumptions of my motivations and even phrased the title of your post to make it seem like it has something to do with an editor who hasn't been involved in the discussion at all. Since you filed this report, two editors have moved the image in question from the lede section to the proper alphabetical section ([38] & [39]), as I have suggested. Are they also "baiting and badgering" you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you would wish to cage this as simple and run of the mill, instead it seems like yet another round of wikibullying. That others agree with your or my position hardly means they have the same behaviour issues that you have displayed here. They can answer for their own actions and hopefully will also learn a bit more how and why we use images. This one aligns with the letter and spirit of our policies so the only reason seems like WP:IDon'tLikeIt. Why those editors - who have also never seen fit to otherwise work on the article - decided to jump in at this point without discussing chnages or declaring "consensus" when clearly there wasn't one to remove the image, will have to be answered by them. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you actually think that I'm attempting to bully you or you are just trying to justify posting here. Regardless, anyone is welcome to read through the discussion on the article's talk page as well as the discussion you started on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and judge my behaviour for themselves. This seems like a good time to repeat my request for you to refactor your comments at the latter discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, you want me to refactor Unfortunately I have run into a bit of a scuffle over the lede image with an editor I have had some poor experiences with elsewhere. They seem determined that lists shouldn't have images, which I'm quite sure isn't true, and/or the lede shouldn't have an image or it's somehow wrong for an image of one person should/can't represent everyone on the list. Sadly I think the motivations have little to do with any interest in actually improving the article. Yet you're fine with asking if I'm on crack? I think I'll let your own actions and words speak for themselves and you may wish to add the third opinion that you requested, it can be seen here where they state rather unambiguously, "Many list articles do have pictures, and in general the lede of an article should include pictures if available. So it seems like a good idea to include a picture of someone here." So we come back to the reason for this thread not being about any image, but more the Shankbone one. And you have shown rather poor judgment against that user and simply wouldn't let it go until other editors intervened. Deja vu. -- Banjeboi 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Shallow Reign

    Resolved
     – The shallow reign continues. ThaddeusB put it into deep incubation and the article was improved and eventually restored with some citations

    This is the second time I noticed it was re-created after I tagged it for speedy deletion. Should this page be salted before we end up in a upcoming recreation conflict? Pickbothmanlol 02:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the article about the band? Because Google News results indicate it's quite notable [40]. Why is it getting speedy deleted? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it was created very poorly, no offense to the creator of the article. Pickbothmanlol 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the proper search notability looks minor, but I have incubated the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Shallow Reign and informed the author of its new location. (It certainly does meet A7 as created.) Anyone is, of course, welcome to help work on it.
    For the record, the page was created once under Shallow reign and once on Shallow Reign which is not nearly sufficient reason to salt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I worked it up a bit and restored it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns with the actions of administrator User:Jayron32

    Resolved
     – We strive to be welcoming and considerate, but we have to warn people against vandalising and problem editing. No problem found with this admin's approach

    As a long-term anonymous editor, I am growing increasinly concerned with the way User:Jayron32 has been using his tools in regards to recent patrol, in particular, how they treat new users. For instance, here you see him warning to block an editor. While it may be true that the account wasn't here to be constructive, perhaps Jayron32 could've said something along the lines of:

    "Your edits do not appear to be constructive and you may be blocked if you continue. As an administrator on Wikipedia, I am open to justifying why your edits are being reverted and discussing with you what we can do to resolve this matter."

    A message like this one would let the user know that their edits are warranting admin attention and that they could be blocked if an admin sees the need to do so but would also let the user know that they can discuss with the matters with the admin intervening (remember, a lot of newcomers have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia operates) and perhaps try to come to a constructive conclusion. But instead, the user gets

    "Your edits look like vandalism and if you do not stop, you may be blocked."

    "Your edits look like vandalism"? WP:AGF anyone? "If you do not stop, you may be blocked." WP:BITE!!!!. OUCH, that combined with the lack of invitation to discuss the relevant edits by either them or the admin on either their or the admin's talk page. Also, look at the edit summary. Do administrator's really need to be writing summaries like that when editing this way?

    That is but one example. Another, and perhaps a more serious case, is here where the user is giving an only-warning block message. Once again, it can be hard to try to WP:AGF on edits such as this one but at the time of starting this post, that was the user's one and only edit. The only-warning block message seems rather extreme, especially when it could have been a deliberate edit of vandalism or it could have just been a badly misguided test edit and remember too that not all users are familiar with the Sandbox. (WP:AGF). WP:BITE seems completely tossed aside here, once again no invitation to discuss any matters, just a sharp "only warning, do it again, blocked from editing" and nothing else. If I was that user, I would probably be too scared to edit here ever again.

    Something needs to be done. If Jayron32 keeps doing this, think of how many potential contributors could be scared away from the project.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST [41] Had to say it... J.delanoygabsadds 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I think his warning was fine. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You think his warning was fine? Which warning? Or both of them? Think of how welcome a user who has made one edit, which may have in fact been a test edit (badly misguided edits are not always vandalism) would feel to get a message such as this one. We want to greet newcomers to the project, not drive them away. If it was blatantly obvious that the account wasup to no good, fine. But even changing football to a word like "faggot" doesn't begin to warrant such a warning.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BOTH. If I had my druthers, vandalistic edits such as the ones that merited those warnings would get an immediate hard block. Obviously not a test edit. But maybe I'm in the minority. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each administrator has there own personality and methods of how to best moderate or administrate the site and I don't see anything wrong with that, although I should tell him I already have the MajorMinorMark issue taken care of with another administrator. Pickbothmanlol 03:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yeah... I received the message at my talk page about this, and am confirming that I know the anon editor above has started this thread. Any other editor can read my comments and also check the contributions of the editor in question, and decide if my warning was appropriate or not. An interesting question is how the anonymous IP user in question knew that I issued that particular warning 2 days ago. But whatever. My actions here need no defense, and I let them speak for themselves. I have nothing further to say on the matter. --Jayron32 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I only know that you issued these warnngs because I began checking your contributions history, when I became aware of such actions when editing an article under a different IP at the same time as a "vandal" and seeing you give them an only warning for one single edit, that wasn't that bad. Too long ago to be able to get the diff or even remember the article but I remember the incident clearly.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a stalker. Cool. I always wanted one. --Jayron32 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have two administrators stalking my edits ever since I was unblocked. Trust me there fun. Pickbothmanlol 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry but I don't buy changing National Football League to National Faggot League in the article lede as a "test edit". If you can't find the sandbox, then you add a space at the bottom of an article, or an "a" or "hi" ---- those are tests. National Faggot League is blatant vandalism plain and simple. We want people to be scared of making edits like that. Wknight94 talk 03:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always found the warning templates with EXCLAMATION POINT signs in them a bit off putting, as if people can't comprehend a simple "Please don't vandalize" or "please don't experiment in article space, use a sandbox instead." It's telling that regulars here see it as a high crime if they ever get stuck with a template by some unsuspecting editor who mistakenly applies our protocols even handedly. But those issues seem like they would be better taken up at the Village Pump. If something looks like vandalism and it's an an only edit, some kind of warning seems reasonable. Maybe suggesting Jayron and other admins adopt one with a "please" and without the intimidation and threats in the usual ones is worth a try, but I don't even know if customization is possible with autmoated tools? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's funny is, in this case, I actually didn't use a template. I actually don't use them too often, more often than not my warnings are individually written, as this one was. I will sometimes use a template for the really eggregious, obvious stuff, but usually not. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I would do if my wiki was more active as I like to think that hand-typing it from scratch shows new users you actually gave a damn to look through there contributions and write an actual responce. Pickbothmanlol 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be a problem with AGF, potential new users, etc. With the amount of edits and vandalism pouring into this site each day, we don't have time to give every user the benefit of the doubt, especially in a situation where their only edit is just another piece of vandalism. I think Jayron32's edits were fine. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 03:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples cannot be called inappropriate. There is a limit to AGF, and when you replace "football" with "faggot", you are past that limit. Trying to AGF about obvious vandalism is just stupid, and will only encourage them more. AGF in cases where there is even a remote possibility the editor is acting in good faith, otherwise WP:RBI. Suggest closing this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on all points. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good use of tools. Edison (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaining IP turns out to be a block-evading sock. Surprise, surprise. "Plaxico" strikes again! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Proxy User and minor edits

    See a previous AN/I discussion here

    While the previous discussion about Proxy User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wasn't about his minor edits, its about his conduct in general. He made a rather blatant attack on an AfD. When I saw that I checked his contribs and noticed that he is marking every single edit as minor. Checking his talk page User_talk:Proxy_User#Minor_edits I see he was previously warned in June not to do that. I issued him a reminder and asked him to stop editing disruptively. He's made no response to that but, as is my habit of occasionally checking the contribs of people I've warned to see if the behaviour has been corrected, I noticed that he has persisted in marking every single edit as minor. While some of his edits are indeed minor, changing section titles [42], making comments on talk pages [43], [44] have all been written since the warning. he has neither acknowledged nor explained why he feels the need to mark every edit as minor. I think he's been given sufficient warning and time to change his habits but shows no interest in doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not talk to the user first? tedder (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was raised on his talk page twice, neither of which were templates and he ignored it both times.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see your note to the editor from four days ago, since it was up on the page a ways. OTOH, using edit summaries might help it be seen too. tedder (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to it in my summary of events. The edit summary also indicates which section I edited and he would have gotten a new message note the next time he edited. I made no effort to disguise the warning I left him. He was also warned in June and seemingly has made no effort to change his behaviour since then. You've questioned this editors behaviour before, and I would suggest that his continuance of disruptive editing that he's been warned for twice and the recent personal attack on the AfD seems to indicate someone who seems to have trouble editing with the guidelines and policies set out here.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a personal attack - it was actually a rather vile BLP vio. Some support for a block based on the BLP violation was noted in the last thread, but no block ever materialized. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except he ended it with indicating that people who wanted to delete had some kind of bias which assumes bad faith. Either way that comment certainly wasn't inline with our guidelines and policies nor is his current behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration of Twinkle

    Hello there, about a month and a half ago, I was blacklisted from Twinkle for making a few bad reversions. Since then, I have been granted rollback rights and have been fighting vandalism through use of Huggle. I would like to continue using huggle, however there are situations where Twinkle is more useful, such as when I am using university computers (which do not allow most executables to be executed.) I would like to be removed from the blacklist. Feel free to look at my actions as a rollbacker. I believe that I have demonstrated better judgment since losing Twinkle. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 06:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The admin that blacklisted me has been alerted of the thread here. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently Nezzadar is going to keep coming back here every fortnight until I surrender. Fine, I give up. He defeated the point of blacklisting him anyhow, when he went and got Huggle instead, and then some silly administrator decided to grant him rollback too.

        But before you agree to lift the ban, I suggest you go look at why he was blacklisted in the first place, and then check out the results of all the other times where Nezzadar has asked for Twinkle back, been declined, and gone off in a huff shouting stuff like "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't."[45]

        That's the only diff you're getting this time; I've already been through this three times. Hesperian 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested:
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Reinstatement of TWINKLE
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Testing the waters
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Restoration of Twinkle
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#New Account - Sinneed 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Nezzadar should really have been granted rollback until the underlying issue were resolved. It's really all the same issue, and one shouldn't have been granted if there were still reason to block the other. Seeking out one while being banned from the other is essentially just circumventing the ban, unless Nezzadar saw fit to make sure the granting admin was aware of the Twinkle ban (and something tells me he did not, but correct me if I'm wrong). FYI, rollback is required in order to use Huggle. Equazcion (talk) 08:05, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Request I don't see.
    Granting note here
    And a thank-you here
    Notifying user:Pedro of this thread. - - Sinneed 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Request is here, at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. A user who was banned from Twinkle for the reasons Nezzadar was should never have been granted rollback, and I doubt Pedro would have granted it had he known. Equazcion (talk) 08:28, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    That looks like wp:canvassing#Forum shopping to me.- Sinneed 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasons given for removal of TW are here: (admin only). If there is the slightest hint he hasn't changed his behaviour I will removal rollback. Does Huggle need rollback to work? ViridaeTalk 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. @Kate (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Nezzadar has the tools now. It's up to him to ensure that he retains the community's trust in their use. Let's give him a chance to show that he can use them properly, but I propose that if any of them are misused, then access is denied to all of them. If he can show that he can use them properly now that he has them, then he should be allowed to do so. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a quick flick few the last few days worth of edits and came up with three problems:

    • [46] Apparently good faith edit rolled back as vandalism without explanation. The IP was warned.
    • [47] Same as above.
    • [48] Same again.

    And this is just randomly checking about about 40 reversions over the past few days. ON the basis of this I am removing Rollback and his TW access should not be restored. ViridaeTalk 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor attempting to change to "truth" rather than sourced

    At Missy Rayder, some IPs have repeatedly attempted to change her birthdate. I do not doubt that the date that they are changing it to is correct. It seems likely to me that she got started in the industry using fake ID with her sister's (Frankie Rayder) birthdate changed or something. However, the WP:RSs all use this date that may be wrong. What am I suppose to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would revert the unsourced edit (as you have done) and educate/warn the user about sourcing (something not yet done). ArcAngel (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If it continues, should I seek page protection? If so how much further trouble would warrant such an act?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't enough recent disruptive activity to justify page protection at this time. I would just continue warning the IP and report them to AIV if they continue to not heed the warnings abour sourcing. ArcAngel (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user

    Rest west (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some very strange contributions, mainly copy-pasting messages that I've had on my talkpage, signing them himself and adding them again, as well as just general trolling. He appears to have several sock-tags on his talkpage. Could he be blocked, please? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They are being very odd - and not at all encyclopedic at the moment - but weren't warned very well that we're not a social networking site etc. I have left a warning. If the behavior continues for another day in the same vein, I think that's about it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not using it as a social networking site, he's being deliberately disruptive! Leaving false block-notices is not networking... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I refactored TreasuryTag's ANI notice to included a direct link to this thread - I hope you don't mind. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move help

    Resolved
     – In the process of so doing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    About a week ago, I filed this move request at WP:RM. Now, another editor has come along and, without commenting on the talk page, moved Thomas Blackburn to Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn—a title that certainly appears to violate WP:COMMONNAME. Could I please get an administrator to move Thomas Blackburn (disambiguation) to Thomas Blackburn (since the parenthetical "disambiguation" is no longer necessary) and close the move discussion? (I can move Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn to Thomas Blackburn (poet) myself and fix the incoming links.) It seems somehow wrong for me to have to file another move request to get this done, when the first one is still unresolved. Deor (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributor who moved the page has indicated no objections, so, sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Deor (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Mcjakeqcool - socking

    User:86.136.78.170 and User:Mcjakeqcool2 are both editing User talk:Mcjakeqcool claiming that McJ has been unblocked [49][50] . Obvious sock is obvious, could someone do the honours please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk will need some protection ASAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    is that the same IP as before? I wonder if it would be worth sending an email to the institution.--Crossmr (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Username indef blocked, IP blocked for a day. TNXMan 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wdford and colloidal silver, again

    Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:

    • Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.
    • I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

    That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.
    I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.
    I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.
    The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.
    There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.
    Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Check on a block for me?

    In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerryh7 all suspected accounts were confirmed for engaging in sockpuppetry. I have indefinitely blocked all registered accounts. I also indefinitely blocked the IP user 99.151.120.90 for a period of two weeks. My question is whether that is a good block length for the IP (who edited as recently as the 18th). Feel free to adjust the block length if you think I made it too long or too short. LadyofShalott 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "indefinitely blocked the IP user for a period of two weeks"? :-) Probably a bit on the long side, but within reason. Tan | 39 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two weeks is about what I would have done, considering how far back the contributions go. — Jake Wartenberg 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Oops... didn't mean to say that, and did not do that! I've struck the incorrect part above. Thanks. LadyofShalott 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belov

    I'm having increasing difficulty with Belov, who has repeatedly made unconstructive edits to articles such as Son Dam Bi and Kim Ok-bin. Belov claims to be a new user, but bold and aggressive editing and use of Twinkle suggest otherwise, and I'm also concerned that Twinkle is being used to edit war. Specific concerns:

    • Inappropriate revert here and again here and here using Twinkle.
    • Inappropriate labelling of edits as "vandalism" to restore disputed changes here and here, again using Twinkle.
    • Unwarranted revert here merely because Belov was apparently working on the article at the same time I was, and again here.

    Regarding the current content dispute at Kim Ok-bin, I have repeatedly identified the issues with Belov's contributions in my edit summaries and on the talk page, but has so far seemed content to dismiss theses concerns without properly adressing them. Best thing I can do is to step away from the article for the time being, but I would appreciate some assistance with the Twinkle/revert issues outlined above. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been getting help with my "vandalism" as PC78 called it. In the IRC chat (by Fetchcomms and Jake) and they have been helping me along. The editor PC78 seems to have ownership issues as well. And has told me not my problem, you can't revert perfectly good edits for no reason According to the Wiki policy "if you don't want your edits edited on Wiki then don't submit them." I don't see why this editor is reporting me. PC78 also has certain articles listed on her user page and that's actually proves her sign of ownership because she is not allowing editors to edit her favourite articles. And PC78 reverted my changes repeatedly after I explained my reasons. PC78 also seems to be going through my edits on articles that didn't include them. Another editor on that Son Dam Bi article had a discussion about it with me and we've resolved our issues on the Son Dam Bi article. Belov 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=327131360"