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 JzG (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 20 January 2010 (→Notification and review request of block of User:Craigy144 for copyright violations: comment). 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

    MisterWiki. Again.

    User:MisterWiki has not learned. He was indeffed for acting inappropriately, and then unblocked on the provision that he would get his game together and stop treating WP like a place to have fun (among other things, such as, y'know, not socking). this and, to a lesser extent, this FPC shows that he's not taking it seriously. Comments? Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hehe, is this a joke or what? --MW talk contribs 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You, be quiet before you get yourself into more trouble!! </mom rant>
    Ironholds, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be fun? OK, the kitteh piccy isn't of the greatest, but two articles are using it. Why shouldn't he nom it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen: and redirecting piss-on-elmo? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he knew perfectly well it didn't meet the criteria and that it would fail. And that's plain disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be interested to hear MisterWiki's explanation of how this is non-disruptive activity, and the same for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI I have fulfilled a db-g7 request for Piss-on-elmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which consisted of #REDIRECT[[Pichilemu]] and had only one author (User:MisterWiki). –xenotalk 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be interested to hear how a poorly thought out featured article nomination is a WP:POINT violation, or more specifically, what point he was attempting to prove in a disruptive fashion. Shereth 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) OK, I'll tell you. It is very, very, very obvious, to even the meanest of intellects, and definitely to someone of MisterWiki's considerable intelligence, that the picture in question did not meet the criteria, particularly #1, probably #3, definitely #5 and #7. And nominating an image which so blatantly doesn't satisfy the required standard is, in my opinion, disruptive – particularly given this editor's standing in the community at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT is a specific kind of disruption. If you want to claim his nomination was disruptive because he knew it would fail anyway, then call it disruptive, but it is not a WP:POINT violation. Shereth 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm sorry. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my labelling MisterWiki (talk · contribs) as a WP:POINT violator over the FPC nomination, when he is, in fact, a WP:Disruptive editing violator. I shall strive never to make a similar mistake again. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, you're taking it the wrong way, but I'm not going to press the point further. Shereth 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd give MisterWiki a pass on the featured picture nomination, he was even encouraged by a couple of established editors there. But the Piss-on-elmo... although he requested its deletion himself afterward, I don't think creating joke articles in the mainspace is ever a good idea. I don't think this is enough to reconsider a block, but it's not a good sign either. -- Atama頭 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that they count for much, but in an IRC discussion in which an admin repeatedly tried to impress on MisterWiki the silliness of FP noms like that, he repeatedly laughed and tried to justify himself with an argumentum ad lolcat, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More lulz would've been had if the cat had a "I Can Has FPC?" caption. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MisterWiki, in spite of his apparent technical intelligence, displays a continual lack of fundamental understanding of what this project is for. Whether his apparent inability to stop treating Wikipedia like a fun joke is willful or not, is not a question for me to answer. Whether his toying around and his games are severe enough to warrant further action, I am not sure. He does contribute positively, and I'm not fully convinced that his disruptions are so egregious as to warrant a reinstatement of his block, but it is a fact that he's had his "second chance" and is running dangerously close to exhausting the patience of the community; the fact that he removed the notification of this report on his talk page, dismissing this ANI thread as a "joke" is worrisome at best. Shereth 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, removing the {{ANI-notice}} isn't wrong at all, its only purpose is to notify, and once that's been done, there's no real reason to keep it. This is one of the more legitimate things that MisterWiki seems to have done! (Also, I'm not sure that "inability" can be "willful"...) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't his removal of the notice but the associated edit summary ( rm; that ani thread is a joke ) that worries me with regards to how seriously he approaches things at Wikipedia - more as a joke and a game. I don't want to be all "I R SRS ADMIN" and I enjoy a bit of lighthearted humor from time to time but if this thread is not something he can take seriously ... Shereth 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, hadn't noticed the edit-summary, fair enough, point taken! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one am growing rather tired of these games, and wouldn't object to reinstating the block. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Piss-on-elmo was obviously a fail, I didn't had a dictionary near me and I didn't knew what does it meant (I will not give the name of the person that gave me the idea). Obviously, there are more bizarre redirections than this one. Also, I hadn't read the FI criteria before nominating the kitty image. All of this is not the motive of an Ani thread, this should had been resolved by posting it on the talk page, but a user just wants me blocked (again, I will not name him). --MW talk contribs 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it as a joke on IRC (we were discussing pichelmu (sp), which I can never spell, and I jokingly called it piss-on-elmo); the idea that a joke invites you to create a redirect is ludicrous. And you need a dictionary to understand what the word "piss" means? Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that "piss" meant to step. In Spanish means "pisar", I thought it was a cognate word. --MW talk contribs 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit. Tan | 39 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For once, I have to agree with the previous speaker, if MisterWiki is competent to use English phrases such as "cognate word" then he knows what piss means. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, "stepping on Elmo" is so much less problematic than "urinating on Elmo" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I also call bullshit. MisterWiki is clearly fluent in the English language; if he knows that "pisar" means "to step", well, he knows that "to step" means "to step" ... come on ... Shereth 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) ...only if one rides the AGF toboggan into the trees (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See, I thought that "piss" meant "to step", not to urinate. Someone explained me what "piss" means in English. I thought it was a cognate word of "pisar", that means "to step". I didn't knew what "piss" meant, but "pisar" yep. And, Elmo isn't the character from Sesame Square (or something else) ? --MW talk contribs 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, how is "step on elmo" an appropriate redirect? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, obviously it's not, but why too much problem for a simple redirect, this should have been solved with a post on my talk page, not this whole thread here in the ani, that is really bizarre. --MW talk contribs 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please at least remove the autoreviewer bit from him before we have Deficate-on-Oscar redirected to Shitaki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't you see that's not the problem? It's just that this should hadn't been never posted here. It's really annoying just because of a redirect! I know the redirect was bizarre but, c'mon, now I know perfectly what does "piss" means. Thank you. --MW talk contribs 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have autoreviewer since Jan 5. –xenotalk 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) My bad ... it's still listed on his userpage, and I failed to take the extra step to verify ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MisterWiki, you're missing the point. You're a user who previously exhausted the community's patience for acting immaturely, and within a week you're not only doing stuff like this but refusing to admit it's even a problem, or that you recognise the issue. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what taking the piss means? –xenotalk 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to five minutes ago the answer would, if we are to believe him, be "stealing steps?" :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    Ok, we have an editor, fresh off a socking block (reduced due to off-wiki contact). They made at least 1, if not 2 childishly disruptive edits. They then lied about knowing what they were doing, finally admitting they did understand when they did it. They considered the community discussion here on ANI to be a joke, and said so in an edit summary. How are we moving forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By letting MisterWiki know, in no uncertain terms, that any further disruptive editing, no matter how minor, will result in an indefinite block. This may be considered a final warning, and I highly recommend staying far away from the "line" by making only completely non-controversial edits. Tan | 39 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to avoid another WGB incident, I have invited MrWiki to acknowledge this warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth looking at this, where many people who opposed blocking him again after he was unblocked (including me) said that he was on pretty thin ice. I'm not quite saying he should be blocked again, but maybe he should. I think that MisterWiki has two big problems on Wikipedia; childish actions, which would be bad enough, and deception, which we've seen with his sockpuppetry in the past and now this feigned confusion about the meaning of the word "piss" that I don't think anyone is buying. I'm wavering on this, but I guess what I'm asking is, can we trust him anymore? -- Atama頭 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhmm.... no.
    I agree with what Tan has said, a final warning, followed up by an indef block if MW continues to be disruptive. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a block, per Atama. When this last came to ANI we had pretty good consensus for a block, which was eventually turned into a super-duper-final "here is a list of things you can't do" warning. Simply giving him another super-duper warning isn't going to work; he ignored the last one. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have a laundry-list of faults, but being wishy-washy is certainly not one of them. I guarantee you that I will make good on my warning if the time comes, without discussion. Tan | 39 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said before, I don't think why too much problem for a simple redirect that could had been solved by posting a message on my talk page. Always, the users and the admins focus just on the bad things the users had done, but many times, the users are not just that. I have recognized in the past that I've socked and I'm ashamed. I didn't knew what does "piss" meant, until a IRC user (not from #wikipedia-en) explained what does that meant. Yes, you can trust me, because I have good intentions, I don't want to produce problems to anyone but why don't you think a little bit on the person in question. An indef block is excessive. I'm against it in all the cases, not just in my one, maybe 1 year or 2 years for vandals or very very disruptive users. I repeat it, there's no need for this whole controversy about that shitty redirect, that I should have never created, never. --MW talk contribs 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As we all said before, this whole thing could have been "solved" by you not creating a childish redirect based on your attempt at humour. You are the antecedent to the consequence, so put first things first. When you're already on thin ice, it's recommended that you not light even a small fire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange how you know what “shitty” means but not “piss”. Oh well, we’ll see! Leaky Caldron 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not interested on know what does "piss" meant until this thread was posted. Seriously. --MW talk contribs 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please User:MisterWiki any Latino, knows that piss or "mear" in Spanish means to urinate. And besides, is sponsoring their family photos in the article Chilean people. Apparently Wikipedia is your means of auspice of your city, acquaintances and family, another example is to add your photo in the article Chile.
    PD: I do not think age is a justification for committing such acts of immaturity and vandalism (eg I have 16 years).Ccrazymann (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I know I'm not AGFing here, but I think MisterWiki has been having a bit of fun dragging even this thread into the dirt. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now it's vandalism. C'mon. --MW talk contribs 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For which I've blocked your account 24h. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Purposal to ban MisterWiki's left knee

    Hello, I recently seen MisterWiki evade a ban by moving his left knee. Should we ban him? BigHappyHarry (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is alleged to be another sock of MisterWiki, and if so would definitely be the last straw. But it might also be a joe job, someone trying to get him in trouble. I'm opening an SPI case for a CU to verify, as much to clear him as anything else. -- Atama頭 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, I am not a sock. BigHappyHarry (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought, not MisterWiki, but a different sockmaster stirring up trouble. -- Atama頭 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A "kitten stocking", since indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the sock in the above closed section went straight to the Governor's Island article, would it make sense to see if he's also a sock of DeKoning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He's asked Jimbo to intervene in this "urgent" matter. Shouldn't there be a Godwin's law corollary for running to Jimbo?
    Has this editor done anything to help Wikipedia? All I've seen is joking around and wasting other editors' time, and lying about what he thinks "piss" means. If this is how he acts after he has an indef block lifted, that suggests to me that another, but more long lived, indef is appropriate.—Finell 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should say this. See WP:YOULOSE, an essay I only just wrote. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, please - whatever about what this editor has done here (and it looks like a lot), can we please leave information about his age, etc, out of the conversation? Yes, he's a minor, and an immature one from all accounts, but I've just had to suppress vast amounts of his userspace due to his posting of personally identifying information relating to himself and others. It's been removed now, so please let's not propagate it any further - Alison ❤ 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading this discussion, I must say I am astounded that MisterWiki has not already been indef blocked. This type of behavior by editors gives Wikipedia a bad name. However, I feel that an indef block may be excessive. I like Crossmr's idea of a ten year block. RadManCF (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional unblock discussion

    I have been in discussion with MisterWiki to replace his 10 year block with a set of editing restrictions designed to curb his antisocial tendencies at Wikipedia. What thinks everybody?

    • MisterWiki is hereby placed on editing restrictions. These include: No use of the User talk: namespace except for brief messages directly related to article editing. No further comments directed at other users. Strict civility parole. Restrictions to stay in place indefinitely, but may be revisited after 1 years time (January 17, 2011) at the request of MisterWiki via ANI discussion. Violation of these terms may result in return of the prior indefinite block.

    Any comments? Are these reasonable for an unblock, or has this person worn out their welcome? --Jayron32 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that MisterWiki hasn't actually agreed to these. His exact words were "I agree, except for things that I would need" - so essentially, "I'm restricted except when I don't want to be restricted". Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and propose increasing block length to fifty years for this unashamed attempt to play us even more. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Enough with the damn IRC negotiations bullshit. We did this last time. Auntie E. (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is getting ridiculous. bibliomaniac15 07:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. If he could stick to the terms of the standard offer, I could see unblocking him sometime down the road but right now? I don't think so. Shereth 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - gods, no. Please - Alison ❤ 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support conditionally. The user needs a block, but not ten years. make him blocked for 3-6 months to let him know the seriousness. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let’s not and Pretend We Did — I just read through the above sections and I ran into this user a few days ago without knowing his history (but the above set off a few little tinkles (pun noted)); he was up to immature 'good users' navigation on Jimbo's user page. I reverted it on sight. At most, reduce the 10 years to 7 for good behavior (in 2017;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support conditionally. A block of 10 years, is practically to be out of Wikipedia forever, I believe that a blockade of one year would be more convenient for their maturation. Eg I have 16 years and if I look back one year ago, I realize I've learned, matured and evolved as a person. Do not be harsh with excessive blocks of 10 years, we can all make mistakes, but at the same time have the opportunity to rectify. Regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose After all the recent drama, it is not appropriate to start negotiating an unblock within three hours of the block being imposed; this user is not ready to contribute helpfully. The standard offer is adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Why does it seem like there's always a mad rush to put an offer on the table as soon as an editor gets indef (or 10 year) blocked? If being here is so important they need to negotiate a pardon as soon as they're finally caught, I think some time between the blocking and the conditional unblock would help them to understand what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, having been watching this it's got to the point of. "This is your final warning." followed by "This is your final final warning." Are we proposing to give him an "Ultimate final final warning for real this time." now? --Taelus (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:Reduce block to one year, but leave it in place for the year. At the end of the year, give him the probation for a year. At the end of that time, he'll be grown out of this phase anyway. Otherwise, you're just sending the message that anything is excusable if you beg and plead hard enough, and he'll have no incentive to change. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Keep the block as it is; there's no reason why the community can't consider it again in a couple of years. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Unlike say WGB, this editor knows he's doing wrong, he just doesn't care nor take responsibility for his actions. Normally, one could make a good judgement call about someone simply on the fixation on rickrolling. Yes, the user's disruption is reasonably minor, but it is done so cavalierly, and with no real sign that he understands that Wikipedia is not a game, and a lot of editor time has been wasted dealing with problems created by the editor. I will not suggest a valid length of time, merely that I oppose an unblock right now because of these issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We've been astoundingly patient with MisterWiki thus far, and his behavior has not changed. Keep the ten year block.RadManCF (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose MisterWiki has been given chance after chance. This community is remarkably tolerant, but at some point, "This is your last chance" has to mean exactly what it says. Calling another user a "nazi" is so far beyond the line of WP:NPA that it can not be easily overlooked. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most strongly oppose, recall this user has been saying "please, forgive me, I wont' do it again" for 2 years. His original sockpuppets were blocked for precisely the same he keeps doing, using WP as his playground to promote his town, and using it as vanity for his family and friends (speciall articles "Chilean people", "Pichilemu" and "Chile"). Keep uploading irrelevant images about jokes. He is also know as a repeated liar (when confronted, he usually makes up excuses until he's cornered and then "ok I did lie, I know it was wrong and won't do it again"). -- m:drini 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – MisterWiki has been given enough chances; it's been far too many times to assume good faith. Unless after a year he can prove he has been editing constructively on a different project, the 10-year ban stays. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New proposal

    Just when you thoguht this was over, I got a comment on my user talk suggesting a new way out for MW. Crosspost commence:

    Well, you do have a gory username so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by a decade-long block, which I'm sorry to say did make me smile.

    But still . . . yes, the perp merited a block. I'm not at all sure he merits an unblock. But if it were me I'd have given him a week at most. How about something like shortening it to a week from the start of the block, on condition that he demonstrates his likely value by actually drafting a substantial amount of sourced, worthwhile article content (on the subject of his choice) within his userspace? -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst I would be opposed to this, I can certainly see the merit in such an idea. It's better than what has currently been proposed and soundly rejected. What I might propose instead is to reduce the block to one month on those terms, provided there is support from the rest of the community. (Actually, I'm tempted to leave him blocked, but I think that's a good compromise). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A one month block seems appropriate, but 10 years is a tad excessive. henrik•talk 15:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most folk were actually for it. I'm gonna go crosspost this to ANI so discussion can continue there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Crosspost end. Discuss. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I support reducing the blocked to one or a few months depending on what the community decides, childish mistakes have clouded their collaboration in the Wikipedia, but not interest in helping her, a point which is also valuable. Moreover, due to his age and English language, not being their mother tongue, we assume in good faith sometimes not understand or knows how to use the English correctly. Ccrazymann (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful idea above, though I say it myself. So, a kid behaves like a kid, and tops it off by calling an administrator, or some administrators, or administrators in general, "nazis". Well, kids say the durnedest things. Though actually it's hardly the durnedest thing hereabouts; indeed, it's (sadly) humdrum. He seems to be a waster of others' time, but at least he doesn't seem to do the things that really hurt an encyclopedia, such as beans beans beans, and he does seem to do some useful stuff. I don't much care what he promises to do or not to do. If he intends to contribute, he can make a contribution. Well, let's see a draft contribution. Working on it might concentrate his mind wonderfully. -- Hoary (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A month is not long enough; it still gives the impression that if you whine and beg and plead enough, you'll get what you want. He now seems to be blackmailing the community by saying (to paraphrase) that if the block is longer than a year, he'll just resign. His behaviour was entirely inappropriate, he has not demonstrated that he's learnt from his mistakes, and reducing the block so much based on him crying will just allow him to think he can act how he pleases. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However this winds up, while middle teens sometimes don't understand the likely outcomes of what they do (and may stir things up a bit to find out), this kind of taunting and teasing are something else altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he misinterprets the GF he's given, seems to me as though he rather heedlessly plays users as if he's on a straightforward MUD. en.Wikipedia is a MUD in some ways, but these are not MisterWiki's way, hence perhaps the... muddle. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you are correct re: the editor's perception. I'm hoping for some solution to be found that will show MW that the community is serious (should he be allowed back). Nice word play, btw. Regards Tiderolls 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave the ten year block in place. Dealing with disruptive editors in the indecisive fashion that MisterWiki has been dealt with sends the message that we don't take disruptive editing seriously. RadManCF (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I do find those much fun to stumble upon :) As to keeping the ten year block, that's ok, since after a few months almost any blocked/banned user can send an email to an admin asking if an unblock might be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he asked for unblock once more. I'm going to warn him that unless he backs off for a while I will modify his block settings so that he cannot edit even his userspace, and he will be banished forever. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • a) I'll leave him email free b) He's already come back from an indef only to get reblocked and then call admins Nazis. He blew his standard offer. Even when we had a proposal above to help him, he's still wasting our time. This is hopefuly purely academic, he has promised not to post it anymore. Then again... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, he has already used up the standard offer, this sockpuppet was unblocked precisely because he promised to act maturely and stop disrupting. -- m:drini 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't remotely support standard offer. If the community decides to send him packing we can't form a new consensus 6 months later when everyone has wandered off and forgotten about them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems clear that we all agree with some form of block, even though the lengths differ. Can I suggest reconsidering the situation in say, two months, when he's had a chance to reflect? I personally oppose any unblock for a long, long time, because I feel the problem is his immaturity, which can't be resolved in a month, but we'll see what the community says when it comes up again. Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • opppose any unblock before 2020. I suggested it for a reason. He had his super duper last chance. How serious does the community look if after every super last chance indef, we turn around and go "oh well.. maybe it wasn't exactly your last chance.. let's reduce the block to a shoulder massage and tell him to have at it"?--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we'd be wasting our time. Let's draw a line under this. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MisterWiki's "wiki project"

    Just to note that just before he went down the tubes this time, MisterWiki for the second time attempted to create a wiki project (currently at User:MisterWiki/WikiProject_Modern_Talking). The first time, in December, he was warned to go thru the process and not just to claim he was a project and invent some templates to stick on articles. This time, he appropriated another Project's shortcuts [1] and was again advised not to start the project without any supporters [2]. Since he is gone for a while, I have moved everything back into his userspace (again), and suggested that he not attempt to restart this project if he is unblocked [3] as I for one would consider it disruption.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's likely about to push him over the edge. I'll AGF, but how many centiseconds before we see some socks related to that "project", and some angry diatribes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure we will. Trouble was, he started out in an edit war with another editor over the content of some articles about this german pop group, then started his "wiki project" to give his edits more 'status' than the other editor. I had some lengthy conversation with him the first time, about how he needed active members for the project. I didn't do it to annoy him - I've kept everything and moved all the pages back to userspace rather than just tagging for CSD, and corrected the transclusions - but I can't see why his deliberately ignoring the rules should be allowed to stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't. Every time we give him an inch of leeway it seems he screws something else up. I suggest deleting the project as improperly created and below the number of active users required; perhaps that will show him that negative actions have negative consequences, since unblocking him in two months certainly wont. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly Seconded. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support deletion. The projects's categories are under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:WikiProject_Modern_Talking, but in the circumstances I don't see any resaon to await the outcome of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     NativeForeigner is doing...

     per concensus NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've speedily deleted the category and templatespace pages. Not particularly bothered about the User space pages to speedy those, but another admin may wish to do so. –xenotalk 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stealing a userpage, abusive comments

    Resolved

    No administrative action required. All Wikipedia pages are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia page and read the fine print. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After I noticed User:TheRightfullEqual stole another editor's userpage wholesale without attribution (see his versus User:NDfan007), I deleted it with the edit summary "Remove copyvio; license for that text requires attribution. Copied from User:NDfan007." This disease of copying userpages wholesale without attribution seems to be going around in the last day or so. The response I got was this abusive comment on my talkpage and TheRightfullEqual's userpage now changed to be a personal attack on me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: also this attack from new sockpuppet User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool.[reply]

    I'm not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contributed to that thread, and have obviously read it. I am still not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I'm no expert, just going by what was said above, but the problem would be that the CC-BY-SA isn't a free license in the sense that it's like public domain material or something; attribution is still required for a subsequent use to be permitted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terms of CC-BY-SA are clear - re-use of content requires attribution, even within Wikipedia. However, although that is a perfectly correct reason to prevent unattributed userpage copying, the fact that it is deceitful and rude is more important but also more open to wikilawyering. CIreland (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    COmment
    SO similiar looking User Pages is a crime? O_O. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Idential userpages are violating US copyright law without attribution, yes. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about similiar looking? My User page layout is similiar to Deltype's. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar looking doesn't really matter; but if you've copied parts of it, you need attribution. The same copyright license applies in our article space and user space. We don't alow cut-and-paste moves in article space for this reason, and we can't allow them (by law) in user space either. CC-BY-SA requires attribution. I don't know if we have any views or polcies on it apart from the legal stuff, I haven't checked. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While what the user did would be considered rather rude and obnoxious, is there really a wikipedian policy that prohibits it? I thought this was supposed to be a free-content projet. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, there is, both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution for copying content. What we produce here is free as in beer and as in freedom, under the condition that credit is given where credit is due. MLauba (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it goes beyond Wikipedia policy and goes into international copyright law. Everything anyone posts here is copyright to them, they own it, and the condition they give to otherwise free use is that it be given attribution and that derivative works follow the same license. Using Wikipedia content, even inside Wikipedia, without attribution is copyright infringement. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see this is closed, so I will not re-open it, but I think Fastily's close comment is in direct contravention of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Woogee (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The idea that this should be pursued as a copyright violation is fanciful, but excessive unauthorized "borrowing" of other people's userpages (to the point of copying their barnstars, etc.) is uncivil, and if necessary I will blank or delete such pages if they are not revised after a warning and a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Newyorkbrad's comments notwithstanding; This is correct. The page would have been properly attributed if the edit summary of the initial edit had said "copied from (source)". However, lacking this, it was a violation of the cc-by-sa license. –xenotalk 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.. The edit summary would need to provide a hyperlink or URL from the original source, not just the name of the person whose page was copied. Woogee (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. That's what you would paste where I put (source). "Copied from User:Xeno" would be sufficient as Mediawiki would generate a hyperlink (the dickishness of copying wholesale a userpage without permission notwithstanding). –xenotalk 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone who doesn't know, WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NYBrad, I don't the pursuing this as a copyright issue is fanciful at all, that is exactly what it is. Not Wikipedia's copyright either, but the user who created the content. You can call it "borrowing" if you want, but the fact is that the content of Wikipedia is using has been given to use with some very clear conditions and attribution is one of them. That being said, I don't think anyone is going to involve the law, but it is entirely reasonable for a user to demand attribution for their content. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Butler's maintenance of an attack page against me

    Resolved

    Tom Butler has blanked his user page of his own accord.

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

    Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Relevant discussions:

    I am concerned that this particular user is maintaining an on-wiki WP:ATTACK page in violation of the userpage policy. Since there is a history of bad-blood between myself and this user, I have expressed my concerns to others and asked for their advice. The user is reticent and refuses to adjust his user page. I ask now for uninvolved administrator intervention.

    Thanks.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't see you referred to specifically on his page... I don't find pages complaining on how the skeptics are all blind particularly tasteful but... could you please specify the section of the talk page where he refers specifically to you. Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, most of the quotes that Tom Butler finds so abhorrent are from me, not ScienceApologist. The lead quote at "Expectation of safety" is from SA. I've been aware of the page for some time, and have even pointed to it in my RFAs. Mr. Butler has the same right to consider my views harmful to Wikipedia as I do to find his views harmful. So long as he doesn't stoop to name-calling and other inflammatory techniques, I don't consider it to be an attack page.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have been looking at an older version. Sorry about the refresh. Still, the entire userpage is somewhat distasteful and he does take a quote from me out-of-context (even though he removed my timestamp and username attribution). Anyway, I can't help but feel that the maintenance of this page is a battlefield tactic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer inspection you are referenced once by initials SA with an implication that your (low) opinion of conspiracy theory proponents makes Wikipedia unsafe. I bet you like that about as much as I like being called a pawn of the Communist Party of China! That would suggest that this particular anti-skeptical screed is a bit more targeted than some I've seen on Wikipedia. I'd present this as a much less problematic example of an ant-skeptical complaint on a talk page for the sake of comparison. It would appear that SA's complaint may have some merit. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Tom Butler is basically setting himself up to look bad if he gets involved in any kind of dispute that gets escalated. At this point I would be sitting back in my large black leather chair and stroking my long-haired white cat... Guy (Help!) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no objection to a person speaking the truth on their own page, but this drama is too time consuming. SA, if any editor is going to say things they don't want others to know about, then perhaps it would be best not to speak. Take responsibility for your actions! Tom Butler (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting Admin action

    Hi. There is a problem with user Gibnews attitude. Himself, me and other editors have been tensely discussing Gibraltar-related articles for some time already. This editor has usually resorted to ad hominem arguments, focusing in the contributors he disagrees with instead of in the actual content of editions or articles. Dissenting editors have constantly been described as 'Spanish', and both 'Spain' or the 'Spanish Government' have been pointlessly vilified quite often as well. Here are some diffs to illustrate my statement:1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-

    He has been asked more than once to refrain from this kind of uncivil behaviour. In fact, a moratorium concerning the disputed articles was agreed amongst the editors involved in the ongoing discussions "with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the editors". However, today I've seen this, and I feel that it is enough already. This can't go on forever. You may very well agree with Gibnews' positions, or mine, or neither. But this reiterated conduct is unacceptable. So long, there have been several attempts to engage with this particular editor in civil debate, the latter being the aforementioned 'moratorium' (to my knowledge -I am not the only editor involved here-).

    Thus, I request Admin action as a last alternative. --Cremallera (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't get it. The diffs predate the moratorium and the diff you've just posted isn't a problem from what I can see. Gibnews does have an attitude problem, made worse when he is baited. Which he most certainly has by editors that include Cremallera. I can confidently predict the usual suspects will be along presently to demand his head.
    The atmosphere on Gibraltar articles was getting quite poisonous, which is why Narson quite sensibly proposed a moratorium to cool emotions. DR is currently being tried, so I really wonder why Cremallera has suddenly appeared to make this post out of left field. Justin talk 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can provide post-moratorium diffs also. The latter I've provided is, in fact. However, you admit he has an attitude problem as well. And he has done nothing to put an end to it, even with past and current dispute resolution attempts. PS: do you really see no problem in modifying another editor's comment to state that his IP belongs to 'Telefonica Espana'? It is quite serious actually. --Cremallera (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Gibnews appending to the comment much the same way that a person would put a SPA template at the end of a person's comment in an AfD. I wouldn't call that "modifying another editor's comment"; that's a pretty harsh bit of hyperbole there. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary and certainly escalates the nationalist problems, which is a problem that Gibnews has (and others who edit those articles). That's one reason to have a moratorium, pointing out who is "pro-Spain" and "pro-Gibraltar" and constantly referencing it derails any productive discussion. Justin is absolutely correct in that Gib was baited though. Honestly, I'd totally give him a pass in that pointing out that the editor is editing from a Spanish ISP is the worst comment he made in response to an SPA (sock?) trying to stoke the nationalist fires. -- Atama頭 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was discussing with an IP (Firethingol, I guess) who hasn't attacked him personally and whose immediately prior comments have been labelled as racist and demeaning by Gibnews himself... He wasn't precisely baited, in my opinion.
    Anyway, how many more times should he get a pass for that, Atama? You know that he's been doing this repeatedly and for a long time already. He's been asked to refrain plenty of times as well. It is not an isolated case by any means, and I agree with you that this conduct is certainly intended to derail any productive discussion. Last, but not least, constantly profiling other editors by their putative nationalities is a racist attitude. I pointed it out before to no tangible gain, so I don't see the point in giving him a pass just another time. I am already sick of it. --Cremallera (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might like to visit Gibnews on YouTube and observe some of the appalling racial abuse heaped in Gibnews' direction by a person calling themselves Firethingol. I have to admit I like Gibnews, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, he is overly nationalistic in many ways but he at least speaks his mind openly so you know where he is coming from. I also observe that if you butt heads with the guy, he'll butt straight back. However, if you approach him reasonably and don't scream and rant about POV, or accuse him of a racist attitude he is direct but reasonable in return - something you should know about after you stopped screaming POV and discussed the Tireless incident in a reasonable manner. His attitude toward Spain is understandable given the history of the way Spain has acted since the '60s and I speak as someone who is half-Spanish who finds the attitude of a now democratic Spain towards Gibraltar uncomfortable. Sometimes the perspective of how others see us makes uncomfortable reading but that doesn't make it racism. I don't see his conduct as intended to derail discussions, his conduct is usually a response to being provoked. I see it as counter productive to run here, saying look at what Gibnews has done now and conveniently omitting the conduct of the editor that provoked the response in the first place. Equally counter productive is combing his contributions to find things to complain about. Is this the 3rd thread on AN/I aimed at sanctioning Gibnews in as many months?
    What interesting about the diff you've just supplied is that it relates to yet another thread aimed at sanctioning Gibnews. I say interesting because it seemed to be counter productive to that aim in that several commentators recognised the attitude of the person making the report as being problematic in disrupting articles to make a point. Equally that you were tag teaming with the same editor and there was a WP:Battleground mentality developing. When that comment was made, you instantly attempted to turn the comments into a racial issue. You didn't take on good faith the comments on your own behaviour were problematic.
    None of which is intended to justify the problematic aspects of Gibnews' behaviour but what does act as a counter point is that he is a very productive editor, who has contributed much in terms of imagery and is very knowledgable about a limited subject. If you wish him to refrain, then my suggestion is to avoid provocation and to equally condemn the people who provoke him in the first place. Constantly focusing on one aspect of the problem and myopically ignoring the other side of the coin won't help.
    As regards Atamas comments, yes I think there is a sock at work trying to stoke the nationalist fires again and to derail the DR that is currently underway. I could make an educated guess at who is doing it and my personal suspicion is that the person responsible is looking to stymy DR to push things to arbcom. Equally as Atama has quite reasonably pointed out in his mediation efforts, the behaviour of all of the editors on Gibraltar related articles has been unhelpful for quite some time. Narson's attempt at a moratorium to cool tempers doesn't appear to have worked as the first edits following its end were baiting Gibnews again. What needs to happen is to allow DR to run its course, if there is any admin action required it would be to stop the IP activities intended to derail it. I don't see demands for Gibnews' head to be helpful. Justin talk 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the first AN/I thread I start. The other ones I know of were posted by Ecemaml and Gibnews himself. In the first place, please stop the discourse concerning my attempts to turn his comments into a racial issue. He has been profiling dissenting editors as 'Spanish' for months. I've provided several diffs. To repeatedly describe or address people by their ethnicity is racist. And, myopically or not, I just can't ignore it. Neither you should, in my opinion.
    On the other hand, what are you suggesting exactly? To just endure the reams of offensive comments he keeps writing over and over, despite previous multiple requests, AN/I threads, moratoriums and the like? What exactly are WP policies for, then? --Cremallera (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems my suggestion to stop reducing everything to racial and ethnic lines is going right over your head. You don't recognise the problematic aspects of your own behaviour or the people on the same side of the dividing line as yourself. Brushing this under the carpet is unhelpful. As Atama observed if this goes to arbcom, no one will come out of it with any credit. And several independent observers have pointed this out to you, perhaps listening to them would help. Just a suggestion. To avoid the risk of another AN/I thread degenerating into a tendentious mess, this will be my last comment here. Un abrazo. Justin talk 10:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    RESPONSE

    1. I have not raised the matter of FireintheGol on Youtube as firstly I can't be sure its the same entity, and secondly I blocked him/her from posting further abusive comments there, and Wikipedia is another thing.

    2. I did not consider that the IP user who left an unsigned comment was that particular editor anyway as FireintheGol writes coherent English What you are complaining about is

    Where I added to an unsigned comment which signbot had added the IP that it had originated from telefonica Espana. Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else. There has been no further comment excepting it seems to have upset Cremallera.

    3. In relation to my two warnings that FireintheGol has made racist comments, This and This where he claims he is not being racist about Gibraltarians because we are not 'a race' I politely referred him to the wikipedia article which explains why that assumption is wrong. HOWEVER as we seem to be having a reasonable dialogue, and its Cremallera who is complaining here, I question the motives for this complaint. Looks like harassment to me. --Gibnews (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Excuse me but have you modified the title of the section?
    First of all, whether an IP belongs to 'Telefonica' or not is not useful information. I wholeheartedly think that this should be clear already, given your experience in Wikipedia and the previous queries. What the IP said may be relevant (or not), just like other contributions are to be considered by focusing on their actual content, regardless of your opinion on whether the editor who wrote them is 'Spanish' or not.
    Secondly, I'm not even getting into your issues with FireintheGol neither here nor in Youtube. That's your bussiness, as long as you behave in a normal fashion, which you don't so far.
    And finally, my posts here are the first ones since the moratorium was agreed to, the 22 December 2009, so it hardly looks like 'harrassment'. What does look just like it are your reiterated comments on other editors, namely concerning their POV, nationality or alleged nationalism. And, since you've agreed to refrain from this kind of attitude here, yet you engage on it, I have no further option that to request for external help. --Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing wrong with altering the title of the section here to something appropriate, after all it IS a complaint about Gibnews, whats the problem with that? As its on ANI 'requesting admin action' is a bit vague whats your problem?.
    Yes we had a moratorium, if you read what you have cited it expired last year, indeed one of the other editors broke it first. Thats all it was, you are making up the rest.
    This complaint is pure harassment, but lets see what others think. You have said enough and as have I. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cutting through all of the other complaints, I believe I see what the core problem is here. Gibnews stated, "Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else." No, it most certainly is not. Viewing editors through such a prism is a very dangerous thing. To label one person as Gibraltarian and another as Spanish is very unhelpful. Gibnews, I hate to say this but if you continue to approach the articles with such an attitude you're going to eventually find yourself in very hot water. Such attitudes tend to bring topic bans, because they are very divisive and prevent any hope of useful collaboration or participation in consensus-building. Fireinthegol is just as guilty of doing this, with such statements as "that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian", but seeing as how that editor is probably a sockpuppet you're bringing yourself down to the level of a banned editor. The proper reaction to such talk should be to ask the person if Gibraltarian opinions are automatically invalid as reliable sources because they are Gibraltarian, not to comment in kind. As to the comments about Signbot, Signbot only signs comments, it doesn't label editors as being a particular nationality. You really need to stop that mentality, and if you can't, perhaps you should stay away from Gibraltar-related articles. -- Atama頭 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the anonymous editor was Spanish, indeed they might be Romanian or Martian however the ISP used by the anonymous editor was Telefonica Espana and that was my ONLY comment on the subject, except for here. However there does seem to be an ongoing problem that due to the intransigent attitude of the Spanish government and its irredentist claim, currently being pushed by the PP opposition trying to wrong foot the incumbent PSOE prior to an election in Spain, that a number of editors from that country seem to want to rewrite Gibraltar wikipedia pages in line with the totally negative Spanish view of the territory and its inhabitants. Tactics include Filibustering on the talk pages, engaging in edit wars, and taking disputes to every available area and article. I'm sick to death about arguments over whether an obscure town in Spain should feature on the Gibraltar page, tens of thousands of bytes and countless hours have gone down the drain. Although arguments on the Internet are preferable to cannon balls and sieges, after 306 years and 99% of the Gibraltar population rejecting any Spanish involvement in our country, enough is enough. And a Wikipedia which contains a substantive amount of lies irrelevancies and propaganda is worthless. Goodnight. --Gibnews (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See, personally I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles in order to clear out some of this, but knowing those involved it would result in a sock fest. The nationalist accusations are, and I agree with Atama here, one of the most unhelpful things coming from either 'side' (I also dislike the concept of there only being two sides). It results in this concept that 'Oh, he is British/Spanish, he must really be biased and can be ignored' and that isn't good. The attempt at a moratorium worked in a way, in that it seems to have reduced the ad hominem attacks for a short period, but there was baiting from various parties almost straight after it ended and now we are back to the same position. I do not want to take part in that talk page as it is and I am watching some good editors or potentially good editors head into a bad spiral entering it. DR needs to be followed through to the end now. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama yes the nationalist tendencies on both sides needs to be tackled, equally the baiting issue does as well. I'd also suggest that people need to recognise bad behaviour on all sides of the coin not just the one they favour. Part of the problem is only labelling one person, when the problematic behaviour is endemic among a number. In the latter I would include my own tendency to rise to the bait. Justin talk 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with you Justin, I spent some time with most of the editors who regularly work on the Gibraltar articles over the course of the mediation, and I think I saw nationalist behavior come up from everyone now and then. My biggest concern is this... You acknowledge that labeling editors along nationalist lines is a problem. Cremarella certainly does. Imalbornoz seems to as well, from what I see on Talk:Gibraltar. I'm not sure about Ecemaml right now. But Gibnews doesn't seem to be acknowledging it. That's what has me concerned, not that Gibnews is doing what he's doing, but that he doesn't see what's wrong with what he's doing. -- Atama頭 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that all the editors you mention adopt a national view about the subject, and the Government of Spain spends a large amount of money generating adverse propaganda which influences their views. --Gibnews (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem began when Gibnews wanted to put this in the introduction: "Spain continues with political harassement despite improved relations". The only reference to state this severe accusation was an opinion column. I said that his reference was only an opinion column by a Gibraltarian, to say that his statement was based on an opinion and possibly not neutral opinion because Gibraltarian journalists talking about Spain never have a favourable thing to say. Gibnews answered that I was racist. Racist?

    I personally read an article in which an Spanish politician said: "Gibraltarian authorities must stop insulting Spain". So if, based on that, I write in the introduction: "Gibraltarian authorities continue insulting Spain despite improved relations" it cannot be considered a good edit despite having a reference. Someone will tell me: "That is an opinion by a Spaniard, not a fact". It is not racism, it is trying to stop POV pushing.

    What I personally think is that Gibnews wants to continue with his POV pushing in the article, so he calls other people racist and spaniards to spoil their activities.

    I cannot find Gibnews channel on youtube, I would like to look at it to see if the harassement is true.

    I think that Gibnews has to assume that Spanish arguments are not always based on fairy tales and have the right to be included on Wikipedia the same way Gibraltarian claims or arguments do.

    Also, he always uses the discussion as a forum to express his ideas. Fireinthegol (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all: yes this was as partisan as the minutemen. To edit war in order to publish this statement "Gibraltarians remain suspicious of the Spanish Government which continues with political harassment", moreover when it is based upon a sports article which is supportive of a particular position is a blatant POV abuse. To call you racist for pointing that out wasn't helpful either. And it is a weird word to be used by Gibnews, who is openly prejudiced against all things spanish (here's a diff showing another disturbing anti-spanish rant, written a few hours ago here in the AN/I thread).
    However, prior invectives can't justify statements such as these (the "unfair tax schemes" bit is not neutral either). Two wrongs do not make a right.
    Last, but not least: Gibnews, you've been asked several times in this very page to stop vilifying Spain, the Spanish government and other editors regardless of them being brainwashed by 'Spanish propaganda'. Your behaviour is noxious to civilized debate. You should be blocked. --Cremallera (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that both should be blocked if there are any blocks to be handed out, thats the bit you just don't seem to get. Justin talk 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I don't get it. That's it. Look, I'll be the first advocating for a block on both editors, provided that their behaviour is similar. Tell me, has User talk:Fireinthegol indulged dozens of times in personal attacks directed to other contributors? Has he calumniated for several months already any country or made slanderous remarks about its government? Not really, don't you think? --Cremallera (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Written defamation is called Libel, and neither I nor wikipedia engage in it. If Spain does bad things in relation to Gibraltarians, its reasonable to describe it. Editing it out, or banning people for including sourced material supporting that is censorship. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. The UEFA situation is widely reported - The Spanish football association has been ordered by its government to threaten to withdraw if Gibraltar was admitted (which is legally required) That is a political act of harassment. Where a reference does not use the word 'Unfair' introducing it is the POV of the editor and wrong, his current edit removing that is factually correct. So complaining has been productive and produced a more factual page. Someone else pointed it out before me and was ignored.
    Its naive to claim I am against all things Spanish I visit Spain regularly, indeed was there yesterday seeing friends.
    PS: Gibraltar journalists report the news about Spain in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it is logical that Spain oposses the Gibraltar entrance to UEFA, because Spain does not recognize Gibraltar as a country. Imagine a match Spain vs Gibraltar, it would be similar to giving up the claim to sovereignty. It is not political harassement, it is being consistent with your claims. But I think that now, the article expresses this well, it says that Gibrltarians see this as political harassement, not that political harassement is being produced as a fact. On regard to the word "unfair" to describe the taxes that are being phased out, it is not meant to be offensive or anything. It is used to describe taxes that can distort "fair" competition, so unfair refers to "not fair" competition taxes. This is he reason why they are being phased out, because there are not fair. It is even used in economy of Gibraltar. But well, now the article has other wording to avoid using "unfair". I don't think that Gibnews should be blocked, but he should try to avoid seeing spanish editors as a kind of evil imperialistic editors. Fireinthegol (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DegenFarang ignoring tendentious editing warnings

    A prior ANI complaint illustrated this editors histor of tendatious editing, including vandalizing BLP articles and Wikihounding. He was then giving a final warning, and then another warning and then a "last warning". To this he responded he would only obey Wikipedia rule which is he would be ignoring all rules. He editionally mocked all policy and guidelines and made up his own. He recieved "final warnings" for his previous BLP vandalizing here and here. He has recieved about five "final warnings" in total, yet he is allowed to continue his slash and burn editing. Today he as violated 3RR and has made a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger second OUTING] abusive attack at me, as well as inappropriately editting that article. Enough is enough. User:DegenFarang and his IP should be blocked permanently, immediately. It is a complete mockery that he has ignored numerous final warnings and continues to act far beyond anything acceptable to the Wikipedia comunity. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvass much ? Arkon (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not dignify this with a response, other than to say I reported 2005 for edit warring prior to this posting - and to say that this all stems from my editing a likely autobiographical article full of un sourced info, self-published external link spam and peacock terms DegenFarang (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Degen did get warned for tendentious commentary and for wikilawyering about WP:IAR (see my talk page). I warned him. User:2005 has a history of canvassing and was also warned about that. While the post to my page & Ed's could be considered appropriate as we both warned Degen [4] - there is maybe a wider WP:CANVAS issue here.
      I suggest a caution be issued to both Users to disengage from anything to do with the other. Both editors are edit warring and both should be blocked even though they technically have not broken 3RR - they have broken it's spirit and are both engaged in tit-for-tat pointy WP:AN3 posts. Additional Degen was reported for a separate 3RR issue by another user today
      Suggesting 36hour blocks for both if this behaviour continues--Cailil talk 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That advice echoes my own advice given privately to an editor asking what should be done about these two editors. Just stay away from each other. I don't see either one being particularly disruptive except when in conflict with each other, so like vinegar and baking soda they should stay apart. The problem is that both have an interest in the same subject (poker) so it can be difficult, but it should be possible as long as they don't do the following:
    1. Contact one another.
    2. Talk about the other person either on talk pages (article or user) or noticeboards.
    3. Revert each other or remove each other's content.
    Just pretend that the other person doesn't exist. Forget about reporting the other person for spamming, or civility breaches, or BLP violations, etc. If the other person is misbehaving, let someone else take care of it. -- Atama頭 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While in general I agree, Degen has exhibitted tendentious and pointy behaviour and is continuing to be uncivil and generally combative in his communications with sysops who are attempting to help him. He's also attempting to rules-lawyer using WP:IAR--Cailil talk 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shared user account with COI issues

    User:Etrangere is having issues with a BLP they (yes, plural, he/she and subject of article) created, L. Cedeño, including a possible COI, and personal attacks on another user,[5] claiming that User:Fastily was being a vandal by deleting an image (not certain what image).

    At this point, User:Etranger has admitted that they are allowing the subject of the L. Cedeño article to edit the article from User:Etranger's account.

    "During the course of the discussion about the article I have been in contact with him and today while going over the issues at hand he entered information through my account that we both thought would alleviate the questions. It would appear that the information (permission to use a photo) created more confusion as it now seems the community believes I am the author and the subject."[6]

    A single purpose account[7] has turned up to edit the article, and question why User:Etranger is blanking the article.

    Anyway, no specific board or warning for shared accounts, but it seems that an administrator could inform the user of the policy. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FALSE: While it is true that I am having issues with an article that I wrote I have not "attacked" anyone nor am I sharing my account. Any administrator is welcome to log into my account and check. What I was trying to express was - the person who is the subject of the article I was writing was here - at my physical location - and present during the point at which the photo of them came into question with regard to permissions. I asked the person to validate that I had permissions - and they simply typed into the DESCRIPTION area of the photo that they (L. Cedeño) were the person in the photo - and that they created the image and granted rights to use the photo.

    As for why I blanked the article? It's because various people have insisted that the article is not in keeping with Wiki policies. I don't think that is the case but I'd like to straighten out this tangle of problems before posting something that has not been cleared.

    This is beginning to become a bit of a witch hunt.

    Please advise me as to how to resolve this without further problems.

    Thanks

    Etrangere (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, admins can't do that, so that is out. Etrangere, can you assure us that no one but yourself is using your account or has knowledge of your password?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've listed these two pages authored by Etrangere for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball

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

    Talk page unprotected, then reprotected, email blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
    Talk page unprotected by Mjroots and prevented from using email function by TBSDY. However, due to WP:SUICIDE, the user page has now been protected again.

    Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs) has contacted me with the request to have his user talk page unprotected. This user was community-banned the other day and then had his talk page locked because he made comments mentioning suicide that led people to think he was mentally unstable. He now wishes to appeal his ban, and while I don't see this as particularly likely to succeed (and I understand the ban appeals subcommittee unblock-en list may already have turned him down), he certainly sounds stable and rational enough that those suicide concerns appear moot, so I see no strong reason to deny him the talk page further.

    He being a Greek user I'm not supposed to take action myself, so I'll ask here if anybody would grant him the favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the relevant discussions see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he offered any particular justification for unblocking his access to the talk page? In all honesty, this user has come up a lot recently and the community's consensus was pretty strong. No unblock request posted there could reasonably be acted upon by an administrator without at least first deferring to the community, and in that regard perhaps the appropriate course of action would be to open the request here, but I'll say flat out right now I personally see nothing to justify an unbanning simply for temporal reasons. Perhaps a few months from now, but not now. And, while I cannot speak on behalf of the community as a whole, if the community does in fact agree with me that it is too early to consider an unbanning, then I don't see a reason to unblock the talk page either based on the circumstances that led to that event. If there was any rationale on WGB's part, though, I think it should be noted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way thus far at least six admins/user have received an email with a request to unblock him, what in my eyes is a clear repetition of his previous behaviour and additionally suggests no change in his attitude. As he has done already with his notifications of bureaucrats, I would assume that he intends to sent this email to admins till such time as he has reached his aim. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I have no dog in this fight, obviously; as far as I am concerned anybody is welcome to close this and consider the request denied, if people feel the consensus is clear. My own view is there's little harm in him having the talk page, where he can make requests and argue his case in a transparent way, which would take away the incentive for the e-mail admin shopping. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why there's another checkbox in the block UI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow the talk page access, on the strict understanding that it will be blocked again if the talk page is not used constructively. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)As per the discussion at ANI linked to above, I see no reason why this unblocking should be considered for at least a month or two (although probably nearer 6 months). As for the e-mails to admins, I have sent (through Wikipedia e-mail user) advice to WGB not to contact any more admins about this, as this will risk the loss of Wiki e-mail rights. I have also suggested that he reads the 'standard offer' carefully - and that a discussion regarding his unblocking will be initiated in time. I have also said that if he continues to contact admins about unblocking, he is risking the block going from indefinite (i.e. with no fixed time set) to infinite. Hopefully he will use common sense and refrain from emailing admins. I would support allowing him his talk page access back - if he is disruptive there again, then he can have it removed again - in which case he also loses access to Wikipedia mail as well -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose, for now. The user has been repeatedly explained why his behavior was considered disruptive, yet, he has shown no sign of understanding. The reasoning of the user is that his mistake was to nominate himself at WP:RFA, when it was his attitude after being declined what was really considered disruptive. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events led to his blocking, I would support unprotecting his talk page. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support unblock of talk page. It is not onerous to allow WGB the opportunity to talk things through with any editor willing to help him understand where he stands and how he can restore his standing with the community, and I don't believe there is any compelling reason this should be done off-wiki. The disruption potential at his own talk page is contained, and talk page access can be removed again at the drop of a hat. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to know how many people he has contacted via email, as I have also been contacted. However, as he has been blocked and his user talk page protected, I guess that he took this course of action is not unreasonable. Perhaps we should unprotect his user page? Or is there an email address I'm not aware of that we can refer him to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be the unblock-en e-mail list. Apparently he's already tried that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right then. I'm restricting his on-email wiki access as he already knew about that email address. More examples of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He emailed me as well, before he was asked to stop. He claims he will abide by our 'site policies', but does he understand them? I guess I wouldn't oppose letting him use his talk page to convince us. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He also e-mailed me, received on 18th at 18:22 hrs. System put the e-mail in my spam box . Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also received an e-mail from him a few days ago. Ucucha 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—why don't we allow him use of his talkpage, but block email access? He's been effectively spamming tens of editors and (I think) most of the bureaucrats about this (talkpage-spammed all the bureaucrats, my mistake), despite being repeatedly turned down. If he has talkpage access, everything's open, so we can withdraw his ability to email. How's that sound? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support talk page unprotection. It will probably be several months before the consensus moves towards unblocking him completely, but I see no harm in restoring his access to his talk page- it's something we allow the most egregious vandals and trolls. Besides, it can be taken away again without any faff. HJMitchell You rang? 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now unprotected WGBs talk page. The e-mail restriction can stay for now. Any abuse of the talk page by WGB and the privilege can be revoked by any admin without further ado. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Going by posts here and on his talk page one can see he's sent, at least, more than half a dozen emails to admins in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen, I'm AGFing here - he knows that admins have the tools to unblock him, so as he couldn't leave messages on his talk page, he's contacting admins in the hope that one of them will. Hopefully, he'll read the messages on his talk page and realise that (a) he can post there now; (b) he won't be unblocked in the immediate future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed him to let him know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had previously blocked access to this page per WP:SUICIDE. No one a) thought to consult me or b) even brought up the reason it was protected. Excellent work, guys. Tan | 39 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you note this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the protection note and on the talk page, as one normally would. Here. Tan | 39 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice that... it looks like Gwen might have accidentally removed your suicide notice. I'm going to reprotect and restore your comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but FPAS mentioned it in the very opening post to this thread, and also mentioned he believe the user to be stable, which very much influenced at least my vote to unblock the talk page. To this otherwise uninvolved administrator, it starts looking like we're playing bureaucratic games with the user. I don't think re-protecting the talk page is warranted at present. MLauba (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Start a straw poll to find consensus that this user is "stable", and I almost guarantee you it will fail. I don't think unprotecting the talk page was warranted. The bureaucratic game was to unprotect the talk page while keeping him blocked and disabling email; what was that for? This situation was handled appropriately until this thread. Tan | 39 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All the more reason to keep that page protected. I think we should all cool it - nobody was playing a game over how to deal with this editor, indeed all I see is a desire to be fair towards him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm not being argumentative, but beyond the one mention he made when initially threatened with a block, has WGB made any other mentions of suicide? None of the messages that he sent me had any indication of such feelings - but as I'm not an admin, I've not heard from him recently. Has anyone had any further mentions? The reason I'm asking is, how long do we assume that he has suicidal feelings - as I say, none of the communications I've seen after that one have shown any indications. Also, with no talk page access and no e-mail access, how is WGB supposed to ask for the block to be lifted in the future? If he contacts ArbCom, they will look at the discussion here, and say that they can't lift it as it was a community decision, so it seems to me that he has no way of contacting anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From my communications from him, I also got the impression that the is no longer unstable. Ucucha 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm neutral as to unprotecting the page. I'm not aware of any later threats and I see no need for leaving a link to a suicide counseling service on that talk page (if anything, I think it's unhelpful to both the user and the project). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)He has already sent an email to the the unblock address, and was denied. He won't be unblocked, at least not any time soon. I don't think there is a problem here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think blocking + talk page protection + e-mail disabled is an excellent sock knitting system, hence the suggestion to unprotect the talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was there consensus to change the block like this in the first place? I don't understand how an admin can change it with just 3 clear supports when there are opposes to it as well. Especially when this comes only about a week after his block and eventual unblock request (which was denied with consensus clearly against it). This is not the same as overturning another admin's decision. A wider discussion should take place before we try to change something that was decided by the community. What's the hurry? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only concern about the suicide threat. As always, I put my actions forward to the general admin community. If they were in error, please feel free to reverse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ChamalN, there were more supports than opposes when I allowed WGB access to his talk page. I thought I spelled it out clearly enough that allowing such access was a privilege and not a right and that abuse of the talk page would lead to it being re-blocked. If I made an error in my actions I apologise. Even admins can make a mistake! As with all my administrative actions, I'm open to reasonable discussion and persuasion if anyone feels that my action was not correct. I notice from the talk page history that WGB did not edit his talk page before the block was re-imposed. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    E-mail from WGB

    Here is the latest (you can see my first e-mail to him today, and my reply to his response to that):

    FW: Your emails to admins

    From: Phantomsteve
    Sent: 19 January 2010 18:48
    To: 'Apollo'
    Subject: RE: Your emails to admins

    WGB,

    Firstly: I cannot allow you to edit your user page. I am not an admin, as I've told you in the past.

    Secondly: You did threaten to kill yourself when you were first blocked. Guidelines normally indicate that the account of a person who does this is blocked, with no editing allowed to their talk page. No one has said that you threatened to kill yourself today - all of the references are to your previous threat

    Thirdly, your access to email through Wikipedia has been removed because you contacted multiple admins.

    Fourthly, no one is going to contact the police - you aren't threatening to kill yourself, so there is no cause for the police to be contacted with your location.

    READ the advice on your talk page.

    READ the standard offer.

    I see that you have done editing on other Wikipedias:
    - Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia.org) - 11 edits - last edit 10 April 2009
    - Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org) - 3 edits - last edit 5 April 2009
    - French Wikipedia (fr.wikipedia.org) - 27 edits - last edit 10 April 2009
    - Italian Wikipedia (it.wikipedia.org) - 18 edits - last edit 10 January 2010
    - Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org) - 34 edits - last edit 5 April 2009

    I also see that you have an account on commons (commons.wikimedia.org), but that doesn't have any edits.

    If you go to one of the other Wikipedias (you are only blocked on the English one), you can sort out getting a Unified login (all the accounts will be linked) - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#How_to_unify_your_accounts for details. (To see the list that I used to find your contributions, go to http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wiki+Greek+Basketball)

    If I was you, I would continue editing on the other Wikipedias (also, you can edit at the Greek Wikipedia at el.wikipedia.org) - your block is *only* on the English Wikipedia.

    Regards,
    Phantomsteve

    ________________________________

    From: Apollo
    Sent: 19 January 2010 17:36
    To: Phantomsteve
    Subject: Re: Your emails to admins

    Can you please allow me to edit my user talk page? They blocked my email and they still won't allow me access to my user talk page. Mjroots the admin granted me access to edit my talk page and then two other admin took it off and claimed I threatened to kill myself and that this gave them the right to permanently remove any access to my talk page.

    I did NOT do anything like that. How can they say I threatened to kill myself just today when that happened weeks ago? You know that this is not true and you know that they are lying and treating me unfairly and that they are abusing their positions as admin. Can you please give me back my user talk page access and tell them to stop saying I am threatening to kill myself when they are lying about it. If the police show up to my house because those admin made up a lie that I threatened suicide then I will take the proper procedures to deal with them.

    --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Phantomsteve wrote:

    From: Phantomsteve
    Subject: Your emails to admins
    To: "Wiki Greek Basketball"
    Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 3:18 AM

    I would strongly suggest that you stop sending e-mails to admins asking to be unblocked.

    This is for two reasons:

    Firstly, following the community discussion, no admin would even consider thinking about it for at least another month (if not longer - I'd probably say nearer to 6 months)

    Secondly, if you continue to e-mail admins, then you are risking losing your e-mail rights on Wikipedia. Should this happen, the only way in which you would be able to communicate would be to send an e-mail through normal e-mail systems (i.e. not through Wikipedia) to ArbCom - and they would not overturn a block so overwhelmingly backed by the community.

    My advice would be to read the 'standard offer' linked to on your talk page, and just wait. In time, a discussion will be restarted regarding your possible unblocking. If you continue to badger the admins, you will risk putting yourself in the position where your indefinite block (i.e. with no specific time scale) will become an infinite block (i.e. no chance of being unblocked).

    I hope that you will pay attention to this advice - it really is for you own good.

    If you choose to ignore it, then that is your right, but I think I am only saying what you have probably seen on ANI and on your talk page.

    Regards,

    Phantomsteve

    -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think WGB's talk page (protected or not) is more fit for this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an admin, so I can't put anything on WGB's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I should have said is, WGB is only forum shopping and trying to keep things stirred up. There's no need to post his emails here, but I know you're being helpful and I'd be startled if anyone thought otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...forum shopping much? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bosniak

    Resolved
     – User topic-banned.  Sandstein  06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosniak (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

    User:Bosniak made a comment in the edit history of an article: "United States resolutions H.199 and S.134: here are both texts so Serb apologist cannot manipulate them anylonger".(Revision as of 02:05, 16 January 2010).

    On the talk page of User:Bosniak I asked what (s)he meant.[8]. The reply is uncivil.[9] If this user was not aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia there might be some excuse for it, but User:Bosniak is already listed in the Enforcement section. As the attack is against me, I would appreciate it if another administrator would deal with it. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosniak has already been topic banned twice for this. The last one was for 6 months. Maybe another year off is needed? Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be sufficiently straightforward ethno-religious WP:BATTLE conduct that no WP:AE thread is needed. Per WP:ARBMAC#March 2008 - May 2008, Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already indefinitely topicbanned from Kosovo (to which he reacted with ban and block evasion, according to the enforcement log). Impressive block log, too. Unless other admins object, I'll extend that topic ban to all of the Balkans per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. I am also notifying Bosniak of this thread.  Sandstein  12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Because of his continued, long-term misuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, which is prohibited (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia), Bosniak (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely banned, under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, from the topic of the Balkans, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this ban covers edits to all pages, discussions and other content related to the topic (such as Balkans-related content in pages that are not themselves related to the Balkans). He is also reminded that any infringement of that ban, or any continued disruptive behavior, may lead to an indefinite block without further warning. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at Public image of Barack Obama

    Resolved
     – Semi'd for a week by Fastily. —DoRD (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been some IP-based disruption going on at Public image of Barack Obama over the last few days. Various soap-boxy edits have been made to this article (and one or two loosely related articles) by the following IPs (listed with example diffs):

    It seems clear that these IPs are related. What would be the best course of action? Is semi-protection of the article the way to go, or should I bring this up at WP:SPI? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since they're all Bell Canada addresses, it appears likely that they're the same person, so I'm not sure what else could be done at SPI. SProt, on the other hand, would hopefully stop it long enough for them to get bored with it. —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Public image of Barack Obama semi-protected for a week. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just realized it's going to be a loooong week, though. —DoRD (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with userpage

    Closing Discussion for obvious reasons. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, a user named Blackmagic1234 (talk · contribs) that used to be my friend in real life posted about me on his userpage in the enemies section. Even though he put the initials R.S., I know that it is me because my name has the initials R.S. and though he won't speak to me about it, I find this offensive since he posted this on here. I hope that something can be done about this, please have him remove it, as it is offenseive. Queen_kitten 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs) [reply]

    Wikipedia is defiantly not the right place for this user to list their "enemies". I'll ask them to remove the section from their user page. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, I've removed the offending section. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackmagic1234 has been informed of this thread. I can understand Queen kitten not notifying him in this case. The offending material has been removed and Blackmagic1234 has been warned not to reinsert it. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh* I had just written out a message but got an edit conflict :D. I'd kinda hoped that Blackmagic would remove the section them self, but we'll see how this goes I guess. Thanks for dealing with the PA Mjroots :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't matter I'm through with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagic1234 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Marking as resolved. Warning has been removed, which means it has been read and understood. No further action required unless offence is repeated. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (un-marking as resolved) Can a CheckUser make a run through these two accounts? I have a feeling a certain banned user is trying to disrupt again. –MuZemike 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    why don't you usercheck Queen kitten And RubyGloomFan >.> oh wait add 142.162.12.185 to that to <.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagic1234 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I made the account RubyGloomFan since I was going to start using that one. For some reason I started to have a stalker on here(a user that I didn't know)reverting my edits, so I was going to make another account. Also Discussion pages for articles are about the articles, not when the show will end. And while we're on the topic of Sockpuppets, why don't you usercheck Blackmagic1234 and Higgys? Higgys was an account created back in May that attacked an old account I had(Kagome_77), and the user said stuff only Blackmagic1234 would know about. I have had to make and get rid of a few accounts for issues like this, and I'm sick of it. I stopped editing Wikipedia for a couple of months, and came back and started only editing a few articles, not as many as I was editing. I am officially sick of the garbage that has been going on here. Not only is there harassment in real life, but also on THIS SITE of all places. This is ridiculous. Queen_kitten 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs)

    Don't bother checkuser. I'm FINISHED with this site. It's users like Blackmagic1234 that make me sick. On an old account I had, I was harassed by someone that didn't even know me, named Soul Phire. I had quit for a while because I didn't realize that I could report them for "hounding." What made it even worse, AussieLegend started a discussion on me on Soul Phire's page saying how I don't disucss edits with other users. I was not asked to, so why should I have? Anyway, it's because of this crap that I'm officially done. Congratulations, Blackmagic1234, you have just put the icing on the cake of my decision to quit here for good. Why don't you take a bow. Queen_kitten 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    Banned user returns?

    Resolved
     – Sockpuppet indefinitely blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A newly created account, HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is posting personal attacks against other editors on Talk:Neil Gaiman.[10][11] The language and conduct of this editor is identical to that of an indefinitely blocked account, EchoofReason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which turned out to be a sock of a banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Block review, sockpuppet? for previous discussions on this user. I recommend blocking HomolkaTheAllKnowing and doing a checkuser run on the account, as per the previous discussion, since this user has had a habit of abusing multiple accounts. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO, that's a pretty blatant sock-puppeting. You would think after several bans he would've figured out that his 'DO NO HARM' verbal tic would be something to suppress. --Gwern (contribs) 18:18 19 January 2010 (GMT)
    You had it posted here before I saw any of the discussion, but I agree it seems pretty obvious. Has a new SPI case been opened, or is it just here? Having run afoul of him before, I hesitate to step in here. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's so obvious I didn't think it was worth filing an SPI case. This should be a block on sight case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the sockpuppet has now confirmed that it's ColScott again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probios and hoax article strumus

    Resolved
     – I'm marking this one resolved. User was fooled by a "joke" in a supposedly reliable source. That should remind everyone to make sure there are multiple reliable sources for new articles, per WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probios (talk · contribs) has created a new article called strumus, which purports to be about a part of the brain. As a neuroscientist, it was immediately obvious to me that the article is a hoax -- in addition to the "strumus", which does not exist, the article describes several other structures that don't exist, such as the "effluvium" and "trivium". I prodded the article and chastised the editor, who responded by removing the prod and claiming that a certain anatomy book describes these things. I don't have access to that book, but it doesn't really matter, none of this stuff exists. Probios has been around since 2007 but edits rarely; his talk page shows a history of vandalism and creation of bogus articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest immediate indefblock or permaban. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    - First of all, I have done a shitload of work for wiki (en. and fi.), although I haven't always been logged in so that some others could see this. Second, I'm also a neuroscientist and I do have this book about the human brain that describes this region at its glossary, check it if in doubt. The book has been reviewed and according to it, did not have flawed information.
    Third, my record of "vandalism" is based on an article about a black metal artist that -according to the first rumors that circulated @ IRC- was declared dead. I added this to wiki (erroneously?) thinking that a rapid response to events would be better than a slow and more certain one, even though it would be proven wrong at a later time point because this erroneous information would in that case exist only for a short period of time. If this would be proven to be the case -I thought- I would delete my edition. Before I had the time to do this, it was deleted by a black metal fan who gave me the "last warning". I have thereafter learned my lesson and refrained from updating wiki this way. OK, then the "bogus articles"... First one was about a physical theory that had hundreds of references at the journal of chaos, solitons and fractals. While the theory was new and suspiciously revolutionary (making the inventor a star at Egypt), I thought that it needed to be mentioned @ wiki. It was only later when the inventor of this theory was discredited as being the chief editor at the same journal and thus got his articles through without peer-review. However I still think that E-infinity theory should be mentioned here since there will be hundreds of future researchers who will be looking at these articles and should have a wiki-article to refer to. It should discredit the inventor but cite the ideas with the articles so that one could try to seek useful leads. The second "bogus article" was about a fictional virus during the H5N1 outbreak. It clearly stated that the virus in question was fictional and nothing else. I made it after a google search which revealed that some people believed the virus to be real. I just wanted to ease their stress by giving the facts.
    Bottom line is that -according to a legitimate and accurate neuroscience book that I cited- strumus is a real, rarely mentioned region in the primate brain and that I edit wiki with only benevolent wishes. If Looie496 doesn't know about this region, he should read more and try to delete less. I hope this was enough to clear my record and prove that the article about strumus should not be deleted. Probios (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    - Update: the article has been deleted by Mjroots (details below). I propose that he would be corrected for this and the article restored, if possible. I can also write it again if I will be guaranteed that this ignorant act will not happen again. Strumus is so rarely mentioned in the literature nowadays that the wiki article could prove to be the only source of information about this possibly important structure of the human brain that is related to higher cortical functions.Probios (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    19:08, 19 January 2010 Mjroots (talk | contribs) deleted "Strumus" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax)

    Probios has asked that the article be undeleted (I deleted it as a hoax). A Yahoo search for "strumus" + "brain" doesn't produce much to support the article being genuine. If any other admin thinks the article should be undeleted or userfied then I've no objection. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Probios's statement of intention to recreate the article, should the title be salted to prevent this while we deal with the issue? Alternative is to undelete and then AfD the article, salting if consensus is to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The index of the fourth edition of the Nolte book that Probios claims to be his source is avaliable for view at Amazon (click on the cover image), and, contrary to Probios's assertion, there is no entry "Strumus" in that index. (Nor is there an entry for "effluvium" or "trivium".) Deor (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I claimed that the source would be the 6th edition @ the article. Also, I mentioned "glossary", not "index". Surely you understand the difference? If "yes", what's the problem, Deor? I have the 5th edition at my lap. Strumus can be found at the page 625.Probios (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very hard to believe that a word would be entered in the glossary and excluded from the index, since textbooks' glossaries normally include only words used in the body of the texts themselves, which would as a matter of course be indexed as well. I also find it hard to believe that the fourth and sixth editions differ so substantially. But as this is the administrators' noticeboard, I'll leave the matter to them. Deor (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    - I wouldn't add the article before it is approved. I think it should be undeleted since this talk is still ongoing. You were too hasty, Mjroots. Please refer to the actual reference for the actual proof. Probios (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probius, it sounds to me like you need to stop creating articles on the basis of hearsay or single sources. Wait until you've got coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources before starting an article - and don't declare people dead because "I heard it on IRC". Try re-reading WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Fences&Windows 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, nice that you cared to join in and oppose the article and make me look ridiculous. As I said earlier, I have learned my lesson. Also, you shouldn't start to talk about things that you don't even know. I assume that you didn't have the time to check the validity of the information stated at the article before it got deleted. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    - I have now sent an email to John Nolte, the author of the book that I cited. I also gave him a link to this discussion. Please restore the article for now and wait a while. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The really curious thing is that Probios has actually made a number of useful and perfectly correct edits to neuroscience articles over the months. It's unusual for a good editor to go off the rails like this; I don't understand it. But one way or another, there's no doubt that the "strumus" article was bogus from top to bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looie496 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to put in a word in Probios's defense here. A hoax is a deliberate attempt at creating misinformation on Wikipedia. I don't think Probios did this, I think this was "jumping the gun" and writing an article based on a single source. It's just a mistake, and I don't want Probios to think that we're ganging up on him for it. On the other hand, I don't know what good the author of the book will do for us. Another source for the info is what we'd want, not more from the original source. -- Atama頭 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intentions to write bogus articles, or any misinformation for that matter. I really do believe that John Nolte wrote about an existing brain structure, even though it is not mentioned in the internet (excluding a Spanish translation of the glossary at a textbook). One possibility for this lack of info is that the structure has an alternative name, for example something that is not in Latin. Other reasons could be that the structure is included into some nearby region or is just so small and so obscure by function that it hasn't been studied much. If the article would be restored for a while, I could try to get Nolte to add his references to it, or give them to me. Active researchers usually reply within a day if the question is relevant and needs an answer. I think he could feel that it is his duty as the writer to straighten this fact out, but the references can be a hard to collect (as I feel as an owner of some 10000+ articles). Therefore, I anticipate that this question about the validity of the article would be resolved within a week or so; if not, I would not object the deletion of the article. Probios (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this continues to get weirder. I finally found the term, using Google Books, in a Spanish translation of the Nolte book. My Spanish isn't quite good enough to let me pin down the part of the brain in question, though -- but I'll keep trying. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (multiple ec) This is a very odd circumstance. Looking at the deleted article, my immediate instinct (as a biologist with an interest in neurological disorders) was that it was a well-written hoax. (Trivium? Part of the brain? Really? Cute.) On further investigation, Fences and Windows has found a putative Spanish translation of the textbook in question, which seems to actually contain exactly the content indicated: Google Books link. While my Spanish is quite rough, it is readily apparent that our article and that Spanish translation came from identically-worded sources. In other words, it is possible that this article is not a hoax, and is instead a word-for-word copyright violation. Either way, of course, Probios has some explaining to do.
    Unfortunately, there seems to be no English-language source with employs these terms in the context of the brain anywhere in the scientific literature. For that matter, I can't find any other sources in any language which use these terms for portions of brain anatomy. Someone somewhere has screwed up badly, but I really can't tease out where. I would be very hesitant to recreate this article (with any content) unless it can be sourced more thoroughly than this. I am also inclined, unfortunately, to recommend a more thorough examination of Probios' contributions, as it would appear that the content here was not his own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add that I had a look into the German medical dictionaries of my sister and found neither of the two terms, so if they're not hoaxes, they only could be local translations. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The simplest explanation is that it is a back-translation from the Spanish version, keeping all the Spanish terminology. Unfortunately the part of the brain in question is very complicated, and I can't quite figure out exactly what the "strumus" is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    - OK, I got an answer from Nolte:
    Sorry to have gotten you into this heated conversation, but strumus, effluvium, and trivium are all lame attempts at neuroanatomical humor. Most readers don't notice the strumus, but once a year or so I get an email from a medical student someplace in the world asking about it.
    I added the text at almost word-for-word accuracy as it seemed so strange, I didn't find any information about it, and yet it existed at the glossary of a respected neuroscience book. I'm sorry that I took your time.
    You can search my other texts for copyright violations all you want. The only time I have copy-pasted stuff was when I included (and cited) info about the inventor of E-infinity theory from his own page, and this has been deleted long ago. Probios (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, it appears that this is indeed a hoax, not perpetrated by Probios, but upon Probios. —DoRD (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Urghh. I think Nolte deserves a good trouting for this one. Glad it's finally cleared up, though. Trying to make sense of the Spanish was driving me crazy -- the location it seemed to be describing for the strumus doesn't contain anything except empty space. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the Nolte trouting, but I suggest that Probios is also in need of the same treatment. Probios, you are strongly cautioned to not create or change articles in the future unless you have verifiable sources. Okay? —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nolte is a reliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he can't be that reliable if he's in the business of inserting deliberately misleading into the glossaries of his books. That said, it wasn't unreasonable for Probius to assume that something he read in a textbook by a seemingly respected expert was reliable and verifiable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    The source is generally reliable, it's similar to a copyright trap or other fictitious entry. So WP:V would explicitly allow use of this information: "verifiability, not truth", remember? This is an excellent example of the difficulties we face when working with sources, and why multiple reliable sources are needed before one starts writing an article. Another example I've come across was Calverpeton: it looked like a hoax as I couldn't find sources, but it was started by an editor using a web directory of extinct species and that page had misspelled the name, it should have been Galverpeton. Fences&Windows 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suaveart and Seregain

    User agreed to mentorship, but has apparently not taken it very seriously[12][13] and continues to be disruptive.

    SA continues to violate the WP:NPA policy:

    • here, in which he apparently uses a crystal ball or some kind of mind-reading to determine my motivations for a deletion nomination, points out my religious beliefs for no good reason than to assume bad faith, once again brings up my first edit as if something sinister about my editing can be gleaned from it, blatantly lies about my editing of the Ken Ham article, and uses the edit summary "bad faith AFD started by evangelical POV pusher."
    • here, in which he uses scare quotes to not-so-subtly imply that I am not a "True EditorTM."
    • here, in which he again attacks my religious beliefs and uses them to imply my editing has some sort of sinister bent.

    Note: SA has engaged in these personal attacks against editors based upon their religious beliefs for weeks.

    SA improperly removed my comments to an AfD discussion:

    • here, with the summary of "rvmd disruptive, libelous comment with doesn't belong in AFD and is unverified"
    • here, with the edit summary of "rmvd inappropriate comment - Jack Chick's "Christian Porn" is totally irrelevent to this AFD" (note that the edit also conveniently deletes a personal attack)

    All while engaging in his own inappropriate, disruptive and libelous comments, ironically enough.

    SA edits improperly:

    • here, in which his edits had to be reverted for violating WP:RS (and he subsequently called it a "mistake")
    • here, in which he continues to insist on re-inserting material irrelevant to a person's biography

    SA has recently made a habit of targeting my edits recently under the guise of "fighting evangelical Christian fundamentalist spam" or whatever he calls it to give himself carte blanche to violate whatever guidelines and policies he wishes. I supported SA's mentorship and hoped he'd take it to heart, but that apparently isn't going to happen, particularly in light of these recent edits. SA has a serious chip on his shoulder that affects his edits here. Seregain (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive had my own run-ins with SA in the past. He has continuously nominated Userboxes for deletion in bad faith. And attacking those who vote "keep".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely untrue dude. Your definition of "bad faith" is that if the AFDs failed, than I must have made them in bad faith (or else they would have succeeded). That's absurd. AFDs fail all the time - that doesn't mean that every one of them was started with some "sekret agenda", it just means that the voters disagreed with me, and I respect that.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you saw the last AN/I about him, you'll know his likely response to this one will be pages of attacks against myself instead of actually addressing his own behavior. Seregain (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above posts are incorrect (as I explained in the earlier incident Seregain started) and are so juvenile that I'm not going to comment on them again.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have tried to assume good faith with SA's edits, but now that is kind of difficult to do, especially in light of things like this. Seregain (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. At this point he seems to be a WikiStalker with an evanglical Christian agenda. Here's a list of suspicious edits by Seregain that imply a fundamentalist Christian agenda (there have been others since then too, including his crazy AFD for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible).
    Please do not throw around terms like "WikiStalker." That's a personal attack. Really, you need to back off. You were close to being blocked for this behavior before. Auntie E. (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I never came close to being blocked since all of Seregain's assertions were untrue (which I explained point by point in the previous AFD). He has actually used the "Wikistalker" label against me first, but now he just attempted to "out" me by linking to an offsite profile which he believes is mine and complaining here about a comment I made (which borders on disruption). At this point it's somewhat obvious that he's here simply to disrupt and push his extremist agenda (and very likely is a sockpuppet of a banned user, given he has only 200 edits and his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance, like Guy mentioned). I left you a comment on your talk page.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I'm not the one posting at length on other websites about people's behavior here. Seregain (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is WP:EDITCOUNT a policy now? (Woah! That actually led somewhere. I had no idea when I typed it.) Anyway, AfD is a pretty simple process with clearly written instructions. Cutting and pasting is not difficult. Seregain (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New issue: SA has more than once deleted others' good faith and relevant contributions and replaced them with his own. An example is here. Seregain (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And then there's this, which has left me simply speechless. Seregain (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That last one is confusing. Did he get lost and think he was on his own talk page? Seriously, I don't even know if that was vandalism, that's almost like a stranger walking into your house, opening up the fridge, pulling out a drink, and then asking you if you want one. -- Atama頭 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that part of the edit was very strange, but I actually was referring more to his comment further down. Seregain (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was probably an accident. Jclemens, whose page I had been watching, changed the header just in the previous edit. Either an edit conflict ignored by SuaveArt, or he edited the page from a old version or diff view. Anyway, Jclemens fixed it back later, and he did not assume it to be vandalism. Pcap ping 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, some version of Hanlon's razor applies. The edit looks really strange without context, until you realize it just readded long-established text that I'd just changed in the previous two revisions. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unjustified deletion at article talk

    Resolved
     – Does not require administrator intervention

    an experienced editor, User: William M. Connolley is continually removing article talk page comments which relate to his conduct at that page. his removals of other editors' comments do not seem warranted. have no justification whatsoever. he has been warned repeatedly regarding his adherence to WP:CIVIL. please see this talk page diff. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    additional note: the deletion may have had good-faith reasons, as he was deleting his own comment as well. however i have restored another editor's comment there, so perhaps some outside review might be useful just to provide some objective advice. he has also repeatedly removed my comments from his own talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, per WP:UP#CMT it is perfectly acceptable for users to remove comments from their own talk page. Also, William M. Connolley has now been notified of this thread. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was article talk where William had been requested to remove his own response to an unhelpful comment – Sm8900 undid the removal without giving any reason in the edit summary,[14] so I undid that edit with the comment "unexplained restoration of contentious and apparently offtopic discussion". The statement "i have restored another editor's comment there" is misleading, as the restoration included William's comments which he had been requested to delete, with a strike through and additional comment. Per WP:TPO it can be in order to remove disruptive comments, though usually it's better to archive them. As the request to delete was to remove a contentious statement, I've compromised by redacting William M. Connolley's own remark, and suggest that the others consider removing their remarks. Telling someone to shut up after they write "please tell me to "shut up"." is rising to the bait and inappropriate, getting those who made them to remove the provocative remarks now that the response has been removed seems worthwhile. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate dave souza's response. I would just like to mention that his summation of the situation, though it may seem a bit convoluted at first glance, is actually a very comprehensive and accurate review of the facts. thanks for your willingness to address this matter, and to diligently review all of the facts relating to it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious concerns about User:J.delanoy

    Resolved
     – I have blocked the IP per WP:DUCK. NW (Talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has apparently gone mad and is out of control on very random blocking sprees. For instance, in just the last few days alone, he has blocked countless accounts as "sockpuppets" of the same user. I see these bulk "checkuser blocks" very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons:

    1. Some of these accounts haven't edited in a month or more. 2. Many of these accounts suggest very diverse editing styles. 3. The compilation of "sockpuppets" mixes in sets of vandal accounts (ie. Red Pistons Force), with accounts that have made less than three unconstrucutive edits, with accounts that have been around for almost a year and even accounts that in only very few edits have shown nothing but good faith for the project:

    Special:Contributions/Classic_Clock Special:Contributions/Prince_of_English13

    And then a user only a month old that has made hundreds of good edits and has created more articles in a matter of a week or two than most long-time users EVER do. 2 of those articles featured on the main page this month as DYKs:

    Special:Contributions/Domestic_Cat

    To be honest, whatever the checkuser says, a bit more common sense would seem critical here. Am I the only one who thinks this looks more like a random collection of accounts (despite the quacking of the RPF accounts with each other, that suggest no link to the master) that J.delanoy has just gone "ready, aim, fire" to than a legitimate category of sockpuppets? Many of these accounts are just far too diverse to be linked to each other.

    And then there's even more problems. For instance, he takes the liberty to block a good faith contributor as a sockpuppet of MacotGuy:

    01:49, 19 January 2010 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) blocked Baseball1015 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: MascotGuy)

    The user had to request unblock to get unblocked as a blantantly unrelated account. J.delanoy did later unblock the user, but only after other administrators realised what he was doing. Now, yet another innocent victim has the a J.delanoy block log stain. Who's next?

    A third issue is his dishonesty. He knew exactly who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.delanoy#Any_connection_to_... User:Blocky cuzco] was and when his lying was exposed he reverted as vandlaism possibly to cover up his actions.

    Even assuming good faith there is just too much going on here to ignore. Note that this is merely a few selected examples of his recent behavoir. Soemthing must be done..--219.89.10.35 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I smell someone on a mission here, and it's not Delanoy. Nevermind; I've read some of the history here. Nevertheless, you still appear to have an axe to grind against Jdelanoy given all your comments above; would you rather a different CheckUser run you down this time? —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I smell a blocked sockpuppet... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As winter progresses, we see that not all of the ducks have flown south. -- Atama頭 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I do smell a sock; however his comment about unblocking a user he initially hit thru a sockblock is indeed correct (though it can be chalked up to false-positives). Plaxico strikes again; there isn't anything actionable here even if complainant wasn't J.Delanoy's stalker. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno man, it just looks like he was getting all his ducks in a row. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Diicbtv2otwtdod23

    This one is on a page move vandalism spree with threats against an editors family. Needs blocked and the pages returned to their proper places. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've voablocked this vandal - but would appreciate some assistance in undoing his vandalism. The redirects needs unpicking. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the honors of revoking tp and email - I've seen this git before, and am about ready to ask for a community ban for him. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the LeeD vandal who apparently got autoconfirmed on purpose to do what he did. I asked J.delanoy for a checkuser to see if he is on a new IP range. Currently 3 of his ranges are on a long term block. I believe the actual user is ScienceGolfFanatic but not 100% sure. Momo san Gespräch 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone threatening "Tewapack" is virtually guaranteed to be ScienceGolfFanatic unless he's got friends working with him now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Filter 273, LeeD Vandalism may need to be updated as well to reflect the edits made. Momo san Gespräch 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have adapted filter 273 to account for this. Please let me know if there's anything still being missed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually saw this as it was happening because I have several of the pages that were vandalized on my watchlist. He was already blocked before I was able to send a report to AIV, so my response was to look at the unusual sequence of early edits to his own userpage to see what they were and why he made them. It looks like he was trying to evade Filter 72, so I spent quite some time looking at 72 to see what possible changes could be made. However I can't see any easy changes to make other than to raise the limit even higher, which might be controversial. I agree with your changes to 273. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    something that bears watching

    Resolved
     – Keanu217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by Jéské Couriano. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keanu217 (talk · contribs) looks like a spam account for 'Cheap Food for Hard Times' - I already reverted where it replaced the content on the doc pages for {{infobox}}, but I suspect it will try elsewhere and may start spawning new accounts. may need some looking into. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him and deleted his talk page as G11; as soon as I revert what remains of his still-standing promo edits I will place the spamblock template on his page. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia

    Resolved
     – Issue appears to be well in hand now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A few days ago, someone from The New Yorker left a message on my talk page asking me for an interview regarding BLPs (specifically concerning Neil Gaiman, on which I had been involved about a year ago). I see that The New Yorker has now published a cover story on Gaiman - a major biographical profile - which includes the comment: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors." [15] Looking at the page history, it seems that The New Yorker's comment is well-founded - two editors appear to be trying to WP:OWN the article are going against the consensus on the talk page by reverting out even new material cited to The New Yorker. The reasons for doing so appear to be very dubious - for instance, arguing that The New Yorker is a tabloid (!) This really doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia and being highlighted in a cover story is an embarrassment to the project. The issue has been raised on WP:BLPN#Neil Gaiman, which is how I found out about it. However I think, given the adverse press commentary, that the article would benefit from the involvement of the experienced editors here. (For the record, I'm not involved in the current discussion on Talk:Neil Gaiman#Scientology.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of the editors mentioned I don't see how one reverting a change I thought breached BLP, giving reasons in the edit summary, followed by lengthier reasons given immediately in talk, or any of my other contributions in that thread, means I have ownership issues. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll refactor that; although it does give the impression of ownership, I accept that you were acting in good faith. But I suggest that you should work with the other editors on the talk page to find a way to include the information rather than just reverting it out of the article on what seem to me to be very dubious grounds. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the single sentence in the New Yorker article which references Wikipedia: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors". I don't see that as a "swipe" taken at anyone. Although it does not make Wikipedia look good, it appears to be accurate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's accurate. My point is that the fact that it's accurate looks bad for us. I don't think it's been handled well, frankly, hence my request for input here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While this may be an interesting tidbit, I don't see any need for admin intervention. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think this is well in hand now. I'll mark it as resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

    [16] edit warring between 2 or more users with no basis in the actual subject (railways) - but seemingly based upon nationalist conflicts. One of the editors self reported the issue here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem. This issue has nothing to do with wikiprojectrailways, and clearly both editors are not working right - I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other.

    The primary editors involved are User:LAz17 and User:Ex13. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to mention that above statement I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other. is neither true or correct. How to work productively with user (LAz17) who is calling everybody who does not agree with him nationalist? It has to be noted that the same user (LAz17) is blocked repeatedly because of his abusive behaviour. I hope that puts some things in the right place/perspective. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. LAz17 has had big trouble with permanent conflict and personal attacks over a different issue, and I had to topic-ban him under WP:ARBMAC from certain issues recently. Hoped to keep him out of trouble but that doesn't seem to have worked out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We had this discussion in the past... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. I assumed that it was closed and let it be. Then after some time user ex13 reopened the can of worms.
    Shortfatlad proposed the idea that both templates be used - I suppose that this can be a simple solution. User ex13 has had a problem with this though - but that was in the framework of the discussion of "this one or that one", and he was against that one.
    FPaS, I do not believe that there are any personal attacks going on right now. User ex13 has been previously banned on wikipedia and from what I understand, he has given user Direktor much grief. User Direktor in particular is important in this issue as he was involved from the beginning - and he was on my side.
    This issue however should not be difficult at all to fix. And your words describe me as if I am some sort of animal??!? (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
    FPaS, I went to look for mediation to help in the dispute. I saw that the dispute will go nowhere with me and him. Therefore I seeked help. I wanted this resolved. Why do you think that I am some sort of troll? If I was interested in edit-warring I would not have seeked help. As for Shortfatlad, I strongly condemn how you worded this - on the wiki rail project I asked for help. Hence I am looking for solutions in order to stop the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
    But... I often see such disputes going off with totally unnecessary nonsense talk. My experience with the maps was that I was led to believe that one map has to be deleted, not that "the better one replaces the poorer one". So, lets cut down on the these unnecessary stuff and get to the points.
    1) I made a Yugoslav Urban Rail Article, which Direktor helped improve.
    2) In response, nationalist croat, user ex13, created a croatia tram thing and decided that the thing to do would be to replace the yugoslav rail template with it.
    so... what now? I find it bothering that ex13 has a problem with the yugoslav rail one. I think that the solution would be to redirect his croat tram, or to have both as shortfatlad suggested. If there are other possibilities please bring them up. If there are other ideas please bring them up. How hard can it be to resolve this simple issue? This is probably as simple as simplicity gets, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
    The solution would be to have both templates. Both do what they say on the tin. {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} covers all countries which formerly made up Yugoslavia, {{Trams in Croatia}} covers tram in modern Croatia. LAz17 - there are no nationalist Croats on Wikipedia, only editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From a rail transport point of view here is what should be standard practice:
    • {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} should cover only things that were in operation when the political entity yugoslavia existed. (just as "XXX in the former soviet union" does) - thus sections such as "planned trams in croatia" are not 100% correctly placed in that template; though basically acceptable. templates for each separate state would be preferable)
    • {{Trams in Croatia}} should cover only things in the modern political entity called croatia, if there is a historical political entity called croatia that had trams then this could be a separate list in that template.
    • There is no reason why {{Trams in Serbia}} ,{{Trams in Slovenia}} etc should not be created, this is what Ex13 should make instead of trying to re-purpose the yugoslavian template. (I mentioned this to Ex13)
    • Alternatively you could have templates by geography, and have subsections in those templates by chronology.
    However none of this will work until both contributors agree to work along the same lines - so you'll need to reach an agreement. It doesn't look like user:DIREKTOR is actually interested in the tram system articles - I would strongly advise not to invite friends to contribute to the debate as this makes it seem like a continuation of previous editor conflicts.
    Is that ok?Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BjörnBergman

    BjörnBergman (talk · contribs) got blocked indefinitely for discussing (in Swedish, on his talk page) his 24-hour block on Wikipedia, as well as Swedish Wikipedia. He really would like his block removed and given a new chance to contribute to Wikipedia. My recommendation is that he is given the chance to do so. --Petter (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It would probably have been best to simply ask the blocking admin, Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've notified). –xenotalk 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to ask Theresa the same thing when I saw the notice on the Talk page. GameOn (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with it. I'll do the unblock. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request an administrator intervention and assistance in editing of wp: Family Foundation School

    Resolved
     – Content issue already being addressed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved here from WT:AN —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a continued issue on the "Family Foundation School" wikipedia article, generally surrounding negative issues that surround the school. Some of the editors have voiced their opinions that negative information about the school is not relevant to the article, but some other editors have voiced their opinion that allegations of abuse and the youth rights activism surrounding the school, specifically the abuse allegations, are necessary and relevant content that should be included in the article. Please have a neutral administrator review this article and mediate this article's content.

    Thank you Flyboi9 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First, you probably meant this for wp:ANI, which would also not have been the correct venue. You already have a neutral administrator trying to help you Orlady (talk · contribs), and a neutral (though I confess annoying) editor, me, trying to help you. I have suggested wp:ELN and wp:RfC as avenues to gather support for your position, or guidance, or both. wp:dispute resolution is another good document.- Sinneed 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JCRB

    User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see [17], this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justin and User:Gibnews

    User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here [18], ending here [19]) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back [20] due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement [21] was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
    Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
    I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

    Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... Willdow (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.
    I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).
    I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...
    Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need an uninvolved admin to observe user behavior

    User:Valkyrie Red has been a persistent problem on Battle of Gettysburg. User's contributions are limited to debating and edit warring on the subjects of casualties and the insertion of the adjective "decisive" into the infobox results parameter. (Tonight, he's deleting cited material from Turning point of the American Civil War.) Established and respected User:Hlj has tried beyond patience to deal firmly and correctly with this user, but I'm running out of good faith with this determined page disruptor. In the past, I've called on User:Gwen Gale and User:Juliancolton as uninvolved admins. I'm asking for a fresh set of eyes to help observe my own biases in this process. BusterD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given Valkyrie Red two weeks off; there seems to be a firm consensus against the edits they are repeatedly making. Just one minor point, if you don't mind - you shouldn't really be describing their edits as vandalism (per your latest edit summary). Edit-warring, yes; disruptive, yes; but not vandalism as defined at WP:VANDAL :) Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I lost my temper a bit when the user blanked sourced copy as described above. Appreciate the feedback. IMHO this user is such a dedicated disruptor, a content ban seems the most likely outcome. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible socks

    CaitlinQuinn1 (talk · contribs), Jibbyjaba (talk · contribs) and Bianca7479 (talk · contribs) are all SPAs that seem focused on rehabilitating the public image of Pit Bulls (see also List of people killed by dogs in the United States). All three accounts were created in the space of a few days and have only edited the two articles. Seems pretty duck-like to me. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant vandalism from an individual on AT&T IPs

    For the past month I have been dealing with an IP user who has constantly been removing all references from a series of articles I edit on a regular basis. I have reverted these every time but because the IPs are only related through the ISP (AT&T) and data center (Hayward, California) there cannot be a range block put in place. The following IPs have all been used by this individual, with the first one (and the case name) being the one used within the past hour.

    I never get results when I contact WP:ABUSE, and very often my reports to AIV get dismissed because I don't bother leaving a warning in these cases (I seriously do not expect IP editors to bother checking the talk page nor one that has been doing this to do anything in those regards).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it always the same few articles being targeted? Semiprotection might would solve that. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Tbsdy lives appears to have semiprotected all of them. That's not really what I was looking for. I still think an abuse report should be filed. WP:ABUSE just isn't how I've gotten results.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have been happening over a month long period. I figure that they'll get tired of it after seeing that they can't edit the articles for a month. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unprotected the pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    False information on Scott Brown article (Senator)

    Resolved

    no action required at AN/I

    Massachusetts senator Scott Brown's article is the target of some well meaninged but technical vandalism. They keep calling him Senator-elect. He is not. He is just the presumed winner and has been declared the winner by news organizations. However, the election is not certified. We can say multiple news organizations have declared him the winner but we cannot say he is the winner without using a crystal ball.

    If Wikipedia was around in 1948, Wikipedia would have said that President Truman lost the election. Jimbo Wales said that we must get it right. Saying someone is the winner based on a very good hunch is not good enough. JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Coakley has called and conceded, so I have no reason to not call him senator-elect, or if you want, presumed senator-elect. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [22], JB50000, that is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFREF, please do not insert material such as that in the future. MBisanz talk 04:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, MBisanz but it was a genuine effort to get it right. Coakley is not the election commissioner. There have been a few cases that the loser was so sore that he or she refused to call and concede. JB50000 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in any case, it is not vandalism to note the election results that have been reported, nor is it productive to call it vandalism. If you have an issue with the particular contents of Scott Brown, then Talk:Scott Brown is the place to raise those issues - not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But bringing it here has gotten the article fixed. We now are reporting it correctly. I did not call it vandalism. I called it technical vandalism (not the same) and also said that people have good intentions but are putting predictions and stating them as fact. JB50000 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it "technical vandalism" is still calling it vandalism. Don't do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, the Content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard are intended for raising issues like this. Don't feed the admins content issues, it only encourages them.  Skomorokh  04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to post over the tag, but I just noticed this. JB50000 posted also on my talk page, since I was one of the ones adding "senator-elect". I told him he was being overly pedantic, since if we went down that road, we'd have to wait until the electoral vote was counted in January to have called Obama "president elect" and we are certainly not going to wait 15 days until Massachusetts certifies Brown's totals to call him senator elect. JB50000 should also be cautioned to notify other people that issues in which they are involved are being discussed. That being said, the Brown article seems a fine one, and I know of at least one committed editor who plans to improve it further (not me).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

    Rdm2376 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) this past hour has started mass-deleting articles with the rationale "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months". He continued even after two of asked him to pause until the community has a chance to discuss his actions. Finally he paused after I pointed out to him that one of his deletions was in error. Thoughts? In my opinion the deletions ought to be undone, as they are not in keeping with our current deletion policy and many of the articles can potentially be improved. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable to delete biographies of living people that are unsourced and unmaintained. They're ticking time bombs as people can insert harmful content that has very real consequences. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You would support undeleting unsourced biographies of living people? For all intents and purposes, that is the same as creating an unsourced BLP. NW (Talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This method of deletion is blatantly out-of-process, but really it's our only option. What else are we going to do with the hordes of unsourced, stale, and marginally notable BLPs? This has to happen eventually IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not our only option. We have a process for this - PRODding. --NeilN talk to me 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PROD works for isolated cases, but is neither appropriate nor practical for hundreds or thousands of pages. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? --NeilN talk to me 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it requires twice the work, for starters. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone PRODs 1000 articles in a day, someone will start an ANI thread about them abusing the PROD process. Additionally, PROD fails miserably for articles like this. A few months ago I tried PROD-ing about a dozen of the oldest unsourced BLPs (longest time without sourcing). Around 3 were actually deleted, about half just had the tag removed with no improvements made. Mr.Z-man 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Based on the recommendations here tonight, I've just prodded the articles beginning with the letters A and B in Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_April_2007, which is a long enough time ago for some sort of sourcing to have happened. I didn't prod any articles with sources where the tag was mistakenly added, or where the tag was left on after sources were added. After just five minutes, one tag was removed (but there was still no subsequent sourcing of content).
    However, I could use some help on the prodding; if several editors assisted, we could be done prodding old unsourced BLPs in a couple of weeks. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take the time to think what you're doing before prodding articles. Nominating an article on a former deputy Prime Minister of Australia like you did to Doug Anthony is very unhelpful, and there's nothing obviously wrong with several of the other articles you've nominated for deletion. If there's a reasonable claim of notability and nothing wrong with the article it shouldn't be touched, and some basic editing can remove most BLP concerns. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply prodding WP:BLP articles with no sources. You are forgetting that there is something definitely wrong (not "nothing wrong") with BLP articles with no sources. The policy is very clear. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; WP:BLPDEL states that "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard." As the articles here aren't problematic for reasons other than the lack of references, they shouldn't be mass-nominated for deletion without any attempt to fix the article up first. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it is a last resort. You may think that PRODding articles left completely unsourced for three years is drastic, but it certainly improved one article rather quickly. Removing prod tags will not in any way improve them, Nick. Are you going to take responsibility for improving and reverting vandalism to these neglected articles? And the 55,000 other BLP violations? Also, the only way to prove a subject's notability is to source it. These articles have no sources, and thus have no proven notability, no verifiable content. I am an inclusionist, but these articles have the ability to harm real people. If there's no effort to improve them, we shouldn't have them. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve of his actions. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rdm2376 is doing good work. Unsourced BLPs that show no sign of ever being sourced should be deleted. If someone personally would like to take on the task of sourcing all of them, ask him to userfy them for you. Wikipedia is full of this kind of stuff and the solutions are to either source them or delete them. Both work just fine. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles are not speediable then the deletes are out of process. It makes me nervous that no second opinion is being potentially sought for these deletes. --NeilN talk to me 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my problem as well. The deletions are well out of process, if the current process isn't working then it should be changed but the community should be involved in making that decision. Camw (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The community is incapable of such a conversation and decision. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, Mayor Daley, I didn't realize that you edited Wikipedia! GJC 09:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly gives you the right to hold a conversation and make a decision to go ahead with it elsewhere because you don't think the community should be involved? Was I wrong when I thought this was a collaborative project? Camw (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my actions. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More worrying because it's obvious from the discussion that s/he isn't even bothering to check whether the tags are correctly applied or not. Guettarda (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which discussion indicates that? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true. The one that Paul Erik mentioned had the references very well hidden within the text, and was restored when this was pointed out. It certainly does not invalidate the general principle. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an example, though, of the value of having more than one person's eyes pass over the article before the speedy-deletion happens. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to go through this list ahead of time and tag the bad biographies for deletion, I'm sure Kevin wouldn't mind. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Was there a discussion of this somewhere already? (On-wiki or off-wiki?) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? --NeilN talk to me 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia Review. Careful, I've been told it's an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no community discussion? --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there was community discussion. Perhaps not the community you're thinking of? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cute. You should know that the only community discussion that means anything involves the Wikipedia community. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand the problem, but I just don't get the whole idea of deleting articles because they lack sources. Delete articles because they're crap, delete articles because they aren't accurate...but unless you're checking the sources, the mere presence of a source says absolutely nothing. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's about a lack of adequate sourcing, not the presence of poor sources. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Deleting articles because they lack sourcing does nothing to reduce BLP violations. The fact that an article has a source doesn't stop someone from inserting smears. In fact, a crap article with sources is more misleading, because it creates a false impression of being 'authoritative'. Deleting articles because someone fails to tick off the proper box is doing something just for the sake of doing something. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPs are required to have sources. An unsourced BLP is therefore a BLP violation. Deleting an unsourced BLP removes the violation from the site. As long as the number of unsourced BLPs being deleted outpaces the number being created (which is a lot), it will reduce the number of BLP violations. Mr.Z-man 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand our BLP policy, the onus is on the user wishing to restore unsourced content about a living person to show the inclusion of sources for the alleged claims, this can easily be done using the normal process at WP:DRV as we would for any other situation in which sources manifest themselves after deletion has occurred. MBisanz talk 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on. BLP overrides CSD criteria? --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP overrides any policy. I like to think real lives are more important than needless wiki bureaucracy. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP policy on deletion says that if the article isn't policy compliant then it should be improved and rectified and only deleted if that is not possible. This skips the attempt to improve the article. Camw (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, but who's going to do that for 51,864 articles in dire need of either attention or removal? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spent days going over those categories adding references, PRODding sending to AfD. It's both endless and thankless. Kevin (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We thank you for your prior uncontroversial work, but having done that and gotten tired of it is not a justification or excuse for overstepping other existing policy and treading to or past the limit of WP:BOLD... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved in it right now. Once the ones in the project are done then I'll help with the rest happily. Others will help I'm sure. Camw (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) CSD exists to have a reference sheet for common deletion reasons. It has never been and never will be completely inclusive of what can be deleted with haste. (And these articles have existed for months without proper sourcing.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're throwing the "credible claim of notability" criteria that stops CSD tags out the window? --NeilN talk to me 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) BLP applies where a violation of BLP is credibly alledged to apply; simply saying "this is unsourced" does not invoke BLP. See the shortcut WP:GRAPEVINE to the BLP subsection, quoting:
    No allegation of good faith content objections, or attack page status, has been made here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While we sit and twiddle our thumbs on thousands of unreferenced, marginally notable BLPs, the articles can have real life consequences for people. I think these deletions, and MBisanz's idea particularly, is a step in the right direction. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank fuck someone is doing something. ViridaeTalk 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. Because the illusion of progress is so much better than actual progress. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fewer unmaintained biographies. It's small progress, but I wouldn't knock it. You eat the elephant one bite at a time, after all. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One libellous article is worse than 1000 unreferenced articles that aren't. It also takes a fraction of the effort to fix. But, of course, it's more important to look busy. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point. No one is really doing anything about unsourced BLPs or libellous ones. Surely working on a lower-priority problem is better than working on neither? You're also assuming that there's no overlap between the 2 groups of articles. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not better. Because it pushes people to include any source. Pushing people to hide the problem makes it harder to solve. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, do you have any alternate ideas that don't involve either mass deletion or something substantially similar to what we're doing now (which consists of working through the backlog at only a fraction of the rate that its increasing)? Mr.Z-man 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said on Kevin's talkpage, various projects exist to reference articles in areas of interest. Thousands of articles have been improved or deleted. Deleting these removes the chance of improvement. Going ahead with this without consulting our community here is entirely the wrong thing to do and running something based on the consensus of Wikipedia Review is insulting to editors here. Camw (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support Rdm2376's deletions. Not that anybody cares what I think, but it seems like the articles have been tagged, then deletedm because nobody cared to add sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Kevin's actions are deemed inappropriate by the community, I expect to see Category:All unreferenced BLPs empty shortly thereafter. For what it's worth, 339 biographies have remained unsourced, unmaintained and stagnant since January 2007—three years. It's high time we stop selfishly worrying about our own petty bureaucracy and thinking about the real-world implications of our efforts to harbor these very questionable and low-quality articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kevin's proposed actions should have been given a chance to be reviewed by the community before going ahead with them. Did you think nobody would notice or disagree? Maybe all project decisions should be restricted to a few selected editors, it's much easier and way less work that way. Camw (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP clearly and unambiguously supports dealing with articles with identifiable real world issues, such as unsourced negative comments, false statements, potential libel, and the like. It does not support (and other policy does not support) blanket removal of potentially but not specifically problematic articles.
    If the community wants to nuke all unreferenced BLPs then that's fine - as a new policy or behavior standard. But we don't have that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
    Why do we need explicit policy to take actions to prevent real harm to real-world living people? –Juliancolton | Talk 06:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So the only articles to be mass deleted are the ones causing harm? --NeilN talk to me 06:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No specific allegations of harm were made regarding these articles. The general allegation - that as a project, we have a lot of unreferenced biographies which arguably contain a lot of bogus data - is rhetorically supported universally but not a validly recognized aspect of WP deletion policy either in precedent or written policy. Specific examples of harm are required under existing policy, and either community consensus on this being OK per further discussion here, or a policy change per discussion there, are required to legitimize the mass deletions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I think deleting all unreferenced BLP's two weeks after creation would be great. But this standard needs to have the approval of the community. --NeilN talk to me 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect example: DASHbot is in the process of notifying people that they have created unsourced BLPs. The responsible thing to do when you get a notification like that is to source the articles. Properly. Or nominate them for deletion. But actions like this would rather push people to add any sourcing. And once the problem is "solved", there's no longer a push to actually fix the problem of sourcing. But, of course, if you only care about numbers, not quality... Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you see the moral imperative here? Most of these biographies are trivial to re-create (or can be restored) when someone is willing to provide sources. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Which means that once they're recreated, they'll be that much harder to find. No more accurate. Just better hidden. Which makes the problem worse. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your point. Are you saying that once an article is sourced, it'll be more problematic? —Dark 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's got false or damaging or libellous content then yes, of course it's worse if it's sourced than if it's unsourced. Because, of course, it's that much harder to find. And if it doesn't have anything damaging, if it's accurate, then it doesn't hurt if it's unsourced. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all specifically reflected in WP:BLP now, I think - but, doesn't directly apply here, as the deletions didn't make specific allegations of overly negative, positive, or questionable content, only unsourced. If there's a specific problem with the article that's different, but those weren't alleged with specificity here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, if content isn't negative, or positive, or questionable; then, umm, what content isn't in the scope of that phrase? I would say simply asserting there is content and that none of it is sourced is sufficient to fit it in that phrase. MBisanz talk 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Obama decision says, and I quote:
    Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately. (sourced from your link).
    "Contentious" is a feature of that. You are going beyond that and claiming that it supports removal of non-contentious material.
    I do not believe BLP or either decision cited supports that claim. It's a valid community decision if we want to extend that to say so - but it's not what it says now. A specific claim that something in the article is contentious (or wrong, or overly positive or negative or questionable) needs to be made to justify a removal under existing as-written policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence has two conceivable readings. One is that "unsourced" and "poorly" are modifiers of the phrase "contentious material about living persons", another is that "unsourced" modifies "material" and "poorly sourced contentious" also modifies "material." I am reading it in the second manner. MBisanz talk 06:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that reading in the plain english sense. If Arbcom intended us to nuke all unreferenced BLPs as an outcome of the above cases it was not clearly supported by discussion then or since...
    Community can decide now that we want to; it's within our remit. But stretching grammar parsing to the point that we break the language to try and support "oh, we already say you should do that" is not a good way to do this. If the communty supports it, it's fine, we can do it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom did also rule that admins can do anything, including deletion, to protect BLPs, all at the admin's discretion. That seems to fit with my broader reading of it. MBisanz talk 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (after multiple ECs) Still, Arbcom's intention does not appear to be that we proceed with deleting all BLPs simply because they are currently unsourced. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they left it up to individual admin discretion and also said that reversal would lead to desysopping. MBisanz talk 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true in specific cases (where there would be a reason to believe that deletion may be necessary for this sort of protection), not in a general sense, as far as I can tell. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just AfD them if you can't speedy them. They'll be deleted or they'll be improved. Grandmasterka 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I think its great that Kevin is doing something about what is a serious problem on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is the best course of action. A random spot check of the articles he deleted reveals that a quick Google search was all that would have been needed to source many of them. Before I nominate any article for deletion, I at least give it a quick search to see if any valid sources exist. If they do, I add it to the article. If they don't, I proceed with the nomination. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because Kevin feels like doing that instead of doing the briefest of checks for sources. Just because there's <BIGNUM> unsourced BLPs doesn't mean we shouldn't try to source them. If they've existed without being edited for six months or more, they can survive a few days more, especially since many of them don't seem to have any contentious claims. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I applaud Rdm2376 here for what he is doing, and I hope his talk page is flooded with barnstars by now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I oppose all out of process deletions. If people think it is a good idea to delete all unsourced biographies, and it may indeed be a good idea, they should first start an AFD discussion that explicitly applies to all articles in that category, and find out whether there is community consensus for this mass deletion approach.  Sandstein  07:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and block for disruption anyone who continues such out-of-process deletions. Deleting articels with no attempt to source them, and no specific allegation on problems (such as contentious unsourced content) is nothing less than disruption, and will do far more harm than god to the project. DES (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I think Rdm2376 actions are positive. People should not expect to be able to write stuff and just expect others to source it for them. This sort of behavior is disrespectful and is the real disruption not the person who removed these unsourced comments.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, and request he undo his mass deletion. Yes, there is an argument that unsourced BLPs should be deleted via some process. That process is not one admin (or even several) going off on a deletion crusade, however well-intentioned. There is discussion at WT:PROD on instituting such a process, and if that fails, something else can be proposed. Until then, precipitate action is not a good idea. Rd232 talk 11:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, PRODding doesn't work. Tonight I PRODded a couple dozen completely unsourced BLPs, and was reverted by user:Nick-D, who sees "nothing wrong" with completely unsourced BLPs. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clearly, PRODding doesn't work." - well no, in its current form, PROD isn't supposed to encompass this. Hence the discussion at WT:PROD about amending PROD so that it does. Rd232 talk 11:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly, PRODding doesn't work

    I did no such thing as what Firsfron is accusing me of: I reviewed his prod nominations, and removed the templates from 10 of them. As I noted on my talk page in response to a post by Firfron (see [23]) I actually agreed with most of their nominations, which is why I left them in place (Firsfron has responded to this post (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick-D&diff=next&oldid=338936564) so it's clear they've read it. Moreover, in a post on their talk page I stated that the only thing wrong with the articles I de-prodded was the lack of references, and not that I see "nothing wrong" with this as they claim ([24]) Lying about the actions of other admins and falsifying a quote is pretty poor form. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and block for disruption anyone who reverses such clearly necessary deletions. Undeleting articles with no sources, is nothing less than disruption, and will do far more harm than good to the project. UnitAnode 11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop. This is disgraceful behaviour, it is outright abuse of his tools. If this continues I will open an RFC/U and call for his resignation as an admin, and I will personally restore all articles deleted out of process. Fences&Windows 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If you restore unreferenced BLPs, you'll be doing far more damage to the project than these bold deletions have done. Which of you would deserve to lose their tools in such a case? UnitAnode 12:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Less of that. Restoration of improperly mass deleted articles is clearly not disruptive. Nor is the original mass deletion, which stopped before this thread was started, so disruptive that it merits immediate sanction (though if it continued in the face of this discussion, it would). Rd232 talk 12:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If the "mass deleted articles" being restored are unreferenced BLPs, then yes, it is disruptive. UnitAnode 12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I guess you're not ever planning on being an admin, because I'm pretty sure this view - that mass deletion is OK, and reversal of it pending more organised attempts to address the problem which motivated the mass deletion potentially desysop-worthy - would be held against you. Rd232 talk 12:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You may find it shocking, but I don't give a damn what you think would be held against me at a potential RFA. You may also find it shocking that not everyone who edits this project aspires to wear the gold badge of adminship. UnitAnode 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      No to both of those; it was just an observation, made in an attempt to "zoom out" and look at the big picture of "how admins are supposed to act". Rd232 talk 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFIXIT It takes a marginal amount of time to find a single reliable source. If you find one in Google in 2 minutes, add it. If you can't, PROD it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo the mass deletion if it didn't already happen, and ban the admin from anything related with deletion. Mass deletion at odds with deletion policy is one of the most serious abuses of process possible, no matter how "good" the intentions, and should be dealt with very seriously. --Cyclopiatalk 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      No, the "most serious abuse" is in BLP articles that no one watches and no one has sourced in years. This attitude is, again, the reason why you should be banned from coming within spitting distance of an article with a BLP tag on it, honestly. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rrrrright, Tarc, someone who mass-deletes articles against policy and process (and reason) is a hero, someone who asks for process to be followed and for abuse to be controlled should instead be banned. Makes perfect sense. Always a pleasure to see you. --Cyclopiatalk 15:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What's the hurry? These BLP have been here for some time. Although "Unsourced BLP must go" is reasonable enough, there is no reasonable reason at all why they have to be deleted today, or even within the short lifetime of a PROD.
    Suggestion: we should create a new tag for this, use it (as per these additions) and then process those tagged articles more slowly, so that we can do something useful with them. Then at the expiry of that period, they've either been fixed or can then be deleted as real "BLP orphans without sources, or reasonable likelihood of sourcing".
    Comment on the process brought to ANI: This has a number of problems:
      • Firstly it's out of process and controversial. Even if it's right, it's wrong. We don't just need to do the right thing, we need to do it by some vague approximation of consensus, or else politics and emotions will derail it.
      • Secondly, it's too quick. These articles have been here for some time. Bad as they might be, they don't need to go today.
      • Thirdly it fails to give any reasonable chance for interested editors to fix these articles by sourcing them (surely the desired outcome?), before they're deleted for being out of time. Even using PROD would have this problem. Note that we're not dealing with a few articles here, and any editor concerned is likely to be swamped by the volume of them simultaneously. That does seem like an action that fails to AGF those creating or having an interest in these unsourced articles, or to provide them with reasonable opportunity to fix the articles before deletion, which is a harmful action against effective community editing.
    I'd also note that it's impossible to know that an article is "unwatched", when the action is applied to so many articles, over such a short time scale. Any concerned editor who might save one is likely to be busy doing triage amongst other affected articles, so we're still going to lose articles that we ought not, and need not, lose. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - clear and obvious abuse of the tools. If user(s) do not agree to stop, an RFC/U and if necessary an RfAr can be initiated. Note that I am in favour of doing something about the problem - but mechanised bot-driven approaches without any thought process going into them usually ends up in unmitigated disaster, and the refusal of those involved to take on feedback is worrying to say the least. Orderinchaos 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where were bots used, Orderinchaos? I'm not saying they weren't used, but certainly not by me; who used them? Firsfron of Ronchester 12:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was discussing this with my wife over a lovely continental breakfast of croissants and coffee and we both came to exactly the same conclusion - that this is exactly what need to be done with unsourced BLP articles! People who are complaining that this is an abuse of the deletion policy are quite clearly missing the point of what the main issue with BLP is. There are thousands of articles which make assertions about living people, are not based on any sources whatsoever, and do not seem to be watched by anyone. This is surely a disaster. If a person is notable enough to be on the Wikipedia then they will have sources to back up what is said about them, and the article can stay - but if an article about a living person is unsourced then there is no indication that what wikipedia is saying about them is true - and often it isn't. Given that wikipedia is very well indexed on google, there is no way to stop false and potentially damaging information remaining here, essentially committing libel and real life harm to these people. My wife was saying, if someone is worthy of having an article, then it is only a matter of time before they can have one, with proper sources and no libel. This deletion is the best thing anyone has done on wikipedia for a long time, and both me and my wife would like to raise our coffee cups and toast User:Rdm2376 with the utmost of cheer. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! MR HANDS APPROVES! REMOVE THE ARTICLES NOW! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Something needs to be done and taking care of unsourced, stale and unwatched BLPs is a very small step in the direction I'd like to see this process go. However, I'd like to see this happen as a result of community consensus and by that I don't mean a thread on WR. I have great respect for Kevin and I think he had the best intentions but if he hadn't stopped when asked to do so this would have backfired. Hopefully something productive will come from the discussion on WT:CSD. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem was that he didn't stop when asked to do so by two other editors and he hasn't so far given any indication that he will stop as far as I can see. Discussion with the community is important when it comes to a collaborative project, if Kevin and his supporters want a change in policy made then they should have to discuss it at the appropriate venue like everyone else is asked to do. Camw (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the latter part of your reply as I think my initial comment made clear. He did stop and reversed some of the deletions. Progress had once again staled despited the renewed call for flagged revisions to be made available and it needed a kick in the butt. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely you people know how to write articles. So please, someone, explain why an article with a single source is better than an article with none. The issue isn't unsourced articles, the issue is unsourced statements. Any statement in an article that cannot be tied directly to a source is equally bad. There's really no difference between an article with no sources, and an article with statements that lack inline sourcing. In either case, it's impossible to tell what's sourced and what isn't without doing a little work. In some cases, without doing a lot of work.

    Deleting articles about living people because they lack sources does nothing to solve our BLP problem. It's a way of improving "the numbers". But fetishising numbers doesn't improve the project, and isn't guaranteed to undo any actual harm. One could spend the same time going through articles and remove unsourced negative statements about living people. That wouldn't "improve the numbers", but it would improve the encyclopaedia. I used to think that was our goal here. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, another way to look at it: how many people here removed an unsourced statement from a BLP? I looked through a few people's contributions since this discussion. I didn't find many edits along that way. I did see at least one person (who endorsed the deletions) actually edit a section, in a BLP, that had unsourced negative information and a "citation needed" tag. Did this proponent of deleting unsourced BLPs delete the unsourced negative section? Nope. S/he removed a Wikilink. People fetishise numbers, but can't be bothered to do anything about the real problem. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ecx2) I agree in oh so many ways Guettarda. There's a reason that we have thousands of BLP's on Wikipedia: people come here first. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, and because of this, we need to have clear "safe" articles about those people. Most poorly-sourced BLP articles could/should be stripped down to simply say "Person X is a TV actor, who was in the show [[[TV Show Z]]. Then, add a reference (or two). If we're going to visit all of the unsourced BLP's, then we should do a quick scan for notability, strip out the unref'd cruft, and add one reference and therefore return it back to stub-status. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that poorly sourced BLPs are a problem, saying that deleting these articles "does nothing to solve our BLP problem" is false on its face. It at least removes articles that have no sourcing whatsoever. You may disagree with the method, but it does deal with the problem by removing all the unsourced text. That said, WP:SOFIXIT yourself. We're all volunteers here and crying "number fetish" isn't fixing the problem either. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say we get rid of every unsourced BLP on Wikipedia. Delete the lot of them. Then the people who are obsessed with numbers can say "we have tackled the problem" and pat themselves on the back. Is the BLP problem solved? No. Is the BLP problem less visible? Yep. So are we better off, or worse off? Having thousands of unsourced BLPs is a call to action, or at least a nag in the back of your mind. If you mask the symptoms, without addressing the underlying problem, we're worse off. Why? Because people are obsessed with numbers. But the numbers aren't the problem. They're the symptom. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that the obvious "solution" to this is to add a source, any source. Your article is given a reprieve, it's harder to find, it's no longer got a big orange warning sign...and the problem isn't solved. Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disgusted, not just at the out-of-process deletions, but also at the number of people here who endorse the idea that "my fellow Wikipedians would never agree to this" is a legitimate reason to take unilateral action. The arrogance is breathtaking. Hesperian 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Kevin should have obtained community consensus for this first. I'd support a mass reversion of his actions. Aditya Ex Machina 16:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support this person of action. Like Tarc said, fuck the bureaucracy. This is good for the project. Anyone arguing otherwise is a supporter of unsourced BLPs (and unsourced articles in general), or a supporter of process for the sake of having a process. Either way it's red tape. WP:V is a central pillar of the project. Tan | 39 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTANARCHY - this is a collaborative project, and processes are required to manage that collaboration. Generally, this is more work than letting everyone do whatever they want, but leads to better outcomes. More pithily, if you want to permit people to "fuck the bureaucracy" one way, what argument will you have against others fucking it another way? Also, characterising people who disagree with you as supporting one of two unpalatable options is a cheap debating tactic. Rd232 talk 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please link to that anarchy essay one more time? I didn't hear you the first two times. Or, better yet, present an argument against mine that is germane to the issue instead of simply stating that it's cheap? Seriously - counter my arguments; I'm open to changing my mind if I'm presented with reasonable opposition. Above and below, I see no reasonable opposition. Tan | 39 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's nothing so wrong with unsourced BLPs that can't wait a week for an RfC to run its course, such that the community input is clarified. Obviously, a lot of people have issues with out of process deletions, while everyone does seem to agree that there's some benefit to a well-orchestrated cleanup of unsourced BLP. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; unsourced BLP articles should be removed immediately. There is something "so wrong" with them; the integrity of the project are at stake and there are legal ramifications. Tan | 39 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "[T]he integrity of the project are at stake and there are legal ramifications" - no, that's simply untrue. There are no legal problems with unsourced biographies. The problem is with defamatory or, to a lesser extent, damaging information about people. That's quite independent of whether an article happens to have anything in the "references" section or not. Accuracy and NPOV matter. Whether the article happens to have something in the "References" section is secondary. Outside of recently passed FAs and GAs, you're going to be hard-pressed to find an article that lacks unsourced statements. And even then, as I've seen in many a contentious article, the sourced statements may still be defamatory or damaging. Guettarda (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's untrue at all. If a BLP article is unsourced, how are we to know what is or isn't defamatory? For all we know, the entire person could be made up. All the facts could be made up. How you think this doesn't damage the integrity of the project is beyond me - when you see Wikipedia being trashed in the media, this is exactly what they are talking about. I know, I know, it's pretty fashionable to treat little unsourced article stubs as if they're baby birds - "oh, careful, don't step on it, you deletionist meanie". Call me unfashionable; call me a conservative encyclopedist. The shit we publish needs to be sourced. Period. Tan | 39 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a debate already underway as part of the WT:PROD discussion; let's avoid duplication and limit this ANI thread to the proximate issue of the mass deletion and what to do about it. Rd232 talk 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's a rewrite of the deletion policy hiding someplace, then? Or do we need to register on another site to be able to join the discussion? Deleting articles en masse is a terrible way to go about creating change; at the very least there should have been notification someplace (WP:BLP/N perhaps?) of the proposed approach to allow for improvements before the wholesale deletion. Bad decision here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • endorse deletion of any BLP that violates BLP policy. Unsourced material, whether positive, negative, or neutral, is a violation of BLP policy and can be removed on sight. If the entire article is unsourced, the entire article is subject to removal. People reverting that are looking for blocks, I reckon. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Agree with previous, but BLPs which contain no contentious material need not have sources to be incomplience with WP:BLP. Admin should be censured, even if his actions were appropriate, as something which has been waiting for 3 years can usually wait for another month for an RfC to complete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Change WP:PROD to prevent removal of tag on unsourced BLPs, then prod 'em all

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

    This has been moved to WT:PROD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a completely understandable action by Rdm2376, and personally I'm sure I'd be fine with the vast majority of unreferenced BLPs being deleted, whether or not it was possible to add sources. But I'm not sure that this particular effort will actually succeed since there will be the inevitable objections that have gummed up the BLP reform works too often in the past (and there's the potential for lots of drama here, e.g. admins wheel warring over deletion and undeletion). One of the principle objections (which I would somewhat agree with) is that there are undoubtedly articles in the unreferenced BLP category which we would want to keep were they properly referenced, and simply deleting en masse does not give enough time for citations to be added. However the status quo wherein these articles simply hang around unreferenced for months or even years is simply not acceptable.

    The right process to use here should be proposed deletion, but as mentioned above it does not seem to work. However a simple and very quick change to WP:PROD as currently written (which I think could gain consensus) would get around that difficulty—namely making an exception whereby prods of unreferenced BLPs cannot be removed until the article is adequately referenced, meaning that deletion is automatic after one week if improvements are not made. This would allow editors wary of mass deleting 50,000 articles a chance to step in and make improvements, but would also put these unreferenced articles very much under the gun. If a couple of others think this is a possible path to explore I'll boldly make the policy change myself and we'll see if it sticks.

    If it did, I'd recommend moving extremely quickly, prodding perhaps as many as 5,000 unreferenced BLPs per week and logging that on daily or weekly pages akin to how we log DRVs and the like (I would think a smart programmer type could write a bot that would both prod unreferenced BLPs in a run of X number of articles and then log the action on a page somewhere). Editors would have a chance to add citations to anything that was prodded, and after one week admins would come in and delete anything unsourced en masse. Even accounting for creation of new unreferenced BLPs at the rate of about 1,000 per month, we'd be able to clean out the whole category in about 2 1/2 months, at which point keeping in place a similar process would prevent the problem of unreferenced BLPs from getting out of control in the future. Some might say 5,000 per week is too many, but a lot of others would see it as too few, and a log would give editors in the former camp a chance to go back and look for sources for articles that were deleted. The point is it would all be transparent but still proceed fairly quickly.

    Honestly if those who have objected to past proposed changes in practices related to BLP (e.g. allowing no consensus BLP AfDs to "default to delete") cannot agree to something like this then we probably do need to take a more drastic course like Rdm2376's, but I think the above route is a better one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can't see anything wrong with this. NW (Talk) 06:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like a job for MBisanzBot! MBisanz talk 07:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long overdue. Make it so! JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm comfortable with this idea. Killiondude (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be willing to support this. Something must be done about BLPs, but it needs to be reviewable by the community, not just Kevin
    • Can't see any problems with this suggestion. (On another note, I'm really beginning to hate Edit Conflicts...) - Tainted Conformity SCREAM 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but the term "adequately referenced" needs fleshing out. --NeilN talk to me 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mumble. People have been calling things "unreferenced" because they couldn't tell that "references" was spelled "sources" on the article. Mass deletion means mass errors. But Category:All unreferenced BLPs stands at 50.000 or so. Sigh. Guess we'll just have to live with the errors. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took a whack at a few articles that have been BLPunsourced since 2006. It takes me about 3 mins per article to find sources that at least allow me to move them to {{refimprove}} (none remained unsourced). So if that sample's typical, we need about 2500 man-hours - 10 man-years, more or less - to deal with them all by sourcing. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean to say "may not be removed" rather than "cannot be removed." While the idea is interesting, it is not, I think, entirely thought through. Inevitably people will disagree about whether an article is adequately referenced, and without a process to determine this, there will be lots of drama and edit-warring over PROD tags. If we want to do this, we must also provide that in the event of any disagreement about whether an article is adequately referenced, it shall be referred to AfD.  Sandstein  07:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Sure, why not. For one thing, it'll make deleting PRODs easier. For another, irresponsible BLPs are a danger to Wikipedia and the subjects. -- Atama頭 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the appropriate policy. By all means tweak it or move stuff around, this was just a first pass and I'm sure it could be better, but you get the gist (Sandstein your proposed language about disagreement going to AfD seems fine, luckily I think that would happen relatively infrequently). We'll see what happens on the policy page, but so far there seems to be a clear consensus for this change here (and I'm not saying that's a permanent consensus, just enough to boldly make the change for the time being). Now maybe people smarter than me can figure out something with a bot that would allow us to systematize a process of cleaning out unreferenced BLPs. I'd recommend starting with the articles that have been unreferenced the longest and moving steadily forward, and also obviously publicizing that this is all happening. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I object to this policy change--it essentially amounts to pushing of a mass content purge of the encyclopedia, which for many articles may be undeserving. Robert K S (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone is going to create an sourceless BLP article, then completely abandon it, then it shouldn't stay on site, as it may invoke a whole host of problems. If someone thinks that a person deserves a Wiki page, then it's their job to prove it. If the deletion is contested, then it's contested. The pros outweigh the cons here. - Tainted Conformity SCREAM 07:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • While Rober K S is the only one of about a dozen people who have commented here to object overtly to the proposal, that editor has already reverted the changed language. Predictable, but I think this can and will gain consensus in the end, and Robert needs to articulate a better reason for objecting to a change that so far has been largely endorsed, and which clearly is not a "a mass content purge of the encyclopedia" (since sourced articles would not be deleted). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - absolutely, and long overdue. The issue of unsourced, largely NN BLP stubs has been a festering problem for years on here, and has only been getting worse as time goes on. This effort here really needs to happen - Alison ❤ 07:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in theory, but I'm concerned that 5,000 a week is so many that no meaningful review will take place- and could so clog the PROD categories that other things may slip through that usual processes would have caught and de-prodded. This is a great way to clean out this mess- and a mess it is- but 2,000 or so a week would be small enough to allow interested editors to work on repairing a greater number of them before throwing them out. A separate template- and categories- should be made for these "BLP Prod"'s, at any rate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We could havea a bot programmed to do this if it would ease the workload. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal does not only affect administrators and needs to be discussed more widely than in an AN/I thread.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong venue. I was under the impression that AN/I was for incidents requiring imminent administrative action, not proposing changes to our deletion policies. A rudimentary search through WT:CSD's archives would reveal that similar proposals have failed to garner consensus in the past. That's not to say that this proposal will suffer the same fate, but this is not the right venue. decltype (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to play bold and copy this discussion over to the WP:PROD talk page, as I believe that's where the conversation should be at this point. Sorry if everything doesn't get copied over. Not sure if it's the right spot or not. - Tainted Conformity SCREAM 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's good, discussion should probably continue there (I'll copy over a couple more comments), but that also should not stop people from thinking about how a process like this would work (bots, logs, etc.). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Question: In your proposal Bigtimepeace you say, “unreferenced BLPs cannot be removed until the article is adequately referenced.” [Italics added.] Adequately suggests that merely moving an article from a state of {{Unreferenced BLP}} to a state of {{Refimprove BLP}} would not be sufficient since, by definition, an article with {{Refimprove BLP}} is not adequately referenced.

    Elsewhere, you use the word properly, which again suggests that the article must be better than {{Refimprove BLP}}.

    With either wording, that would require all BLPs with either {{Unreferenced BLP}} or {{Refimprove BLP}} to be PRODed and deleted in one week. Is that your intention?

    I think a bulk way of dealing with unsourced BLPs is great, but not if it sweeps up under-sourced BLPS in the net. Thanks for any clarification you can give! — SpikeToronto 08:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Answered here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Add new criteria to CSD

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

    This has now been taken to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Add new criteria to CSD - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does everyone feel about a new CSD# for BLPs that are totally unsourced for more than a year? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd go for 2 months, myself. If someone's making an article, they should (hopefully) have - or know where to acquire - sources already. A year just seems to long to me. - Tainted Conformity SCREAM 07:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A year? That is not precisely speedy...I'd say a week, tops. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion should be at WT:CSD, but yes, I would entirely support a CSD for all BLPs that are tagged as unsourced for a time on the order of months.  Sandstein  07:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this would work after we largely clean up the current mess. We obviously can't just dump tens of thousands of articles into the current CSD queue, so we'd have to proceed slowly in cleaning up the 51,000 unreferenced we have now. I think using the PROD solution above would work better for that and would not put a bunch of extra weight on CSD which is already always backlogged but important for other reasons (copyvios, attack pages, etc.). Once we've cleaned out most of the existing unreferenced BLPs I'd fully support creating a CSD category for BLPs unreferenced for X months. However I could be missing something in my thinking here, and if others prefer this to the above solution I'd certainly be fine with that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this achieves consensus at WT:BLP (as it should) then it will allow us to fast-track removal of these articles, so yes it's a good idea and will help with what Bigtimepeace calls "the current mess". Guy (Help!) 07:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a double-edged sword. It's productive in theory, so I want to support it in that way. We could delete stuff, but it would have the possibility of alienating editors who are newbies or don't edit much. Ah, a tough decision at almost three in the morning. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this isn't the appropriate venue for discussing this proposal.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm in the process of copying over to WT:CSD. Everyone interested, drop by and share your thoughts. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a short note that apart from the 51,000 unsourced BLPs tagged as such, there are some 14,000 articles which are tagged as "unsourced" and as "cat:living people", but which are not in the "unsourced BLP" cat. My bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#Unsourced BLPs did not get any response though. The number of BLPs tagged as unsourced (correct or incorrect) is thus 65,000, not 51,000. Apart from that, I agree that something drastic needs to be done, either a large collaborative effort in sourcing them or a deletion spree, and I fear that only the threat of the latter can achieve the former... Fram (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request for Page Protection assistance urgently needed!

    If any other admins are around, could you give me a hand clearing the HUGE (40+) WP:RPP requests please! Thanks. GedUK  08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a few. Man, there needs to be some sort of automated tool for this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant, thanks for your and the other help that appeared! The follow up question is, how to we get a backlog at RPP to show on the admin backlog page, if it doesn't already. GedUK  10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this take care of that? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that's manual (though I admit I forgot it today!), but i'm wondering if a bot can add it automatically. That's something I can take somewhere else for now though. GedUK  12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We need some sort of bot that marks the pages that have already been protected (perhaps by admins who've seen the vandalism and protected, not looking at RFPP) as being "done". Something similar to the AIV bot who removes blocked users, but in this case it would just add a template to the correct sections. I went through last night and marked at least 4 sections as being already done.
    @Tbsdy, Twinkle makes page protection a little bit quicker, if that's what you're after. :-) Killiondude (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    James dalton bell, aftermath

    I do not have unlimited patience, and I am afraid that I may lose my cool with this user. I am doing my best to remain calm, short, and concise, my newest section on their talk page aside(which isn't short, but I did try to be concise).

    I may have breached WP:CIVIL by asking them to stop throwing tantrums and act their age. If that comment is deemed uncivil(it is in the new section, btw), then I shall refactor it into something more acceptable, or, if I cannot find a suitable answer, I will outright delete it. Either way, I hearby request that an admin stop by and try to explain to this user what I, and two others had failed to do. They seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with them, and agrees with Gogo, is a meatpuppet of Gogo... But yes, please come, offer your 2 cents.. weigh in.. etc... Please.— Dædαlus Contribs 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Regarding the above, I am not going to await approval or disapproval. As such, I have refactored my long reply to the user's talk page. I hope it is better than it once was.— Dædαlus Contribs 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the best thing would be to cease attempts at communicating with him. I know I have - I just don't have the time or inclination to read badly formatted, illogical and irrational screeds that tend to go on for pages all in one paragraph. Trust me on this one, he won't be unblocked therefore if we stop posting to his talk page then we don't have to concern ourselves with him any more. He is free to read Wikipedia, but not edit it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason to continue to communicate with someone who refuses to get the point. Bell has been told the same thing over and over again by multiple editors at multiple venues. He's not a dumb guy - he just wants us to change our guidelines to suit his viewpoint. --NeilN talk to me 12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As was pointed out in the previous thread regarding Bell, further attempts at communication are only likely to rile him up even more. He's got a terminal case of hard headedness, and I doubt that another 1, 2, or 100 additional opinions will dissuade him of his misconceptions. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, likewise, please see my answer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's not asking for unblocks, stop talking to him and just talkblock him. There's no point in trying to open up a dialog with him; that's like selling garlic to Dracula. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note, in this diff, Bell states: "You just admitted (for legal purposes) that your primary purpose is to make me (and other users) 'bow down' before the Almighty Administrators...". I'm not sure if that's an accusation of Wikilawyering, or if Bell is making a legal threat. Regardless, I don't think we need to support his soapboxing, and would suggest removing his talkpage privileges. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Solution: Unwatchlist the talk page, ignore further rants. Guy has left a useful template about his options, no further discussion is needed. If an unblock request is made, an admin will deal with it then. If not, if a tree argues in the forest, and there's no one around to argue with it, is it a real argument? Talk page protection would not be a horrible travesty, but it's just unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, just drop it and find another user to help - one who might actually reward your efforts. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Craigy144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Following a series of entries on today's WP:CP listing, confirmed by previous investigations at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 19#One for you :) and User talk:Moonriddengirl#Dictionary of National Biography and copyright issues, I found that there is a long issue of content copied verbatim from the non-free Oxford Dictionary of National Biography attributed to the (partially PD) DNB from this user, going back at least one year - see for instance User talk:Craigy144#Copyright concerns and the corresponding Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth.

    Considering Craigy144 has not edited since January 3rd, that there is an ongoing pattern, previous warnings that went unheeded, I have issued an indef block until Craigy144 responds to the concerns expressed on his talk page.

    I request a review of the present course of action, I also further point out that User:Craigy144 is an admin, and that the exact same concerns about administrators keeping the bit when they display such troubling issues with our copyright policies were examined here just a few days ago, and would like further community input on this specific aspect as well. MLauba (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There does appear to be quite a few copyright warnings... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in cleaning up these concerns on several occasions, the most recent being when it was brought to my attention on my talk page. I'm surprised and dismayed to discover that User:Craigy144 is an admin. He was notified of copyright problems on one article specifically twice: in November 2008 and in December 2009 and did not take any action about it. The second contributor subsequently brought up the problem at WP:CP, and that article has been deleted. People can inadvertently infringe based on a misunderstanding of copyright policy or law, but I don't believe we should have administrators who repeatedly violate copyright after notification of the problem and especially without responding to concerns about them. I don't believe we should have editors who do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (five or six edit conflicts)I do think that Craigy144 should have his adminship removed. Trouble is, that's almost impossible to do here. Do we really want to go to Arbcom over this?! Or an appeal to our God and Creator? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, but I believe we need to do something. I cannot see how this contributor would not have realized he was violating copyright policy when he created the article Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonderry in February 2009. He had been very clearly notified of copyright concerns previously, especially here. (Please see the talk page for some examples; I am now in possession of the source article. There are more.) We've already received one complaint from a copyright holder about him (see Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth). What does it say about Wikipedia if we leave administrator tools with people who seem to be deliberately ignoring copyright policy? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are reading this, Craigy144, please resign. If not, there's always arbcom - has someone emailed them about this issue? (It's late over where I live). And besides, why is there not a CCI for this guy? MER-C 13:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know that anybody has e-mailed him. I didn't file a CCI because I've been waiting for today when the first batch of CP listings came due for closure to give him an opportunity to respond. Had I recalled that I had dealt with him at Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth, long before we had a CCI, I wouldn't have waited, but the neverending hamster wheel of copyvio cleanup means details sometimes get lost. :/ As a general FYI (because I know you know already), CCI is seriously backlogged. I try to put time into at least one every day, but we could really use more help there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall email Arbcom. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job. :) I guess we'll see what happens. Loathe as I am to do so (another one?), I'll list him at WP:CCI after I make some more headway on today's listings at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The rationale for the block is spot on, as is justification for one generally. However, I feel that an indef block is a little over the top. Personally I've issued blocks for 1 or 2 weeks for similar issues. Unless there's a history of blocks for the behaviour, or unless the account is a clear vandalism only account, I think an indef as the first block for copyvio is excessive. Unless I'm missing something, I would support a request for a reduction of the block should they request one. NJA (t/c) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think it's meant to be permanent. MLauba in notifying at that user space indicated it was "until you do react to the above situation." Looking at the history of his talk page, Craigy144 seems to have a history of ignoring such notices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right. Fair enough. NJA (t/c) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the thing with indef is "is it necessary to protect Wikipedia?". Copyvios have the potential to damage Wikipedia. I would hope that Craigy read what has been said and makes a commitment to avoid future violations. When he does this, I'm sure that an unblock request would be taken seriously. Indef for multiple copy-vio and failure to respond to concerns about them is not unusual, in my opinion. I do think that removal af admin tools would be highly appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the last bit, as it currently stands that will only happen if he resigns the tools voluntarily or arbcom makes the decision to remove them. Whilst he definitely caused disruption and ignored the rules, he didn't really abuse the admin tools. That said, if given a vote, I'd elect for removal. Anyhow, shall we archive this? NJA (t/c) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to address your comments, I did pick "indef" because the editor has not had any activity since January 3rd, rather than some arbitrary timeframe that may very well be expired when he comes back. In practical terms, and for future reference, I have no reservations of the block being overturned the moment the user returns to editing, acknowledges and responds to the concerns, without, for that matter, requiring a specific further input from me. MLauba (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the key point to remember is that this is exactly why we have 'indefinite' and not 'permanent'. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said in the previous thread just last week, violating the copyright policy is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. I have asked Jimbo Wales if he would be willing to desysop Craigy. NW (Talk) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Liechtenstein

    Throughout the history of Liechtenstein article has undergone countless name changes, let me explain one thing: The correct pronunciation is the one that started, [ 'lɪç.tən.ʃtain], not [li: ç.ten.ʃtajn] much less [li: x.ten.ʃtajn]).

    To begin, you must indicate where the accentuation of the word, that is, the hairline to the top ['---]. While in German the pronunciation of the group "ie" is a long and i closed ie [i:], in the case of the pronunciation of "Liechtenstein" is irregular and that group i is pronounced like short and open, that is [ɪ], probably because the country's name comes from the family of Liechtenstein, and as everyone knows, the German spelling of surnames is independent and has "permission" to depart from the German spelling rules (eg always "Goethe" never "Göthe"), so that although the" i "is short and closed is written as" ie ", the "ch" is pronounced [ç] if you are behind [i:] or [ɪ] as here, or after the "e", never as [x], a sound similar to the Spanish jota there when you go behind the vowels "a", "o", "u" (Achtung, Noch, Buch), the second "e" in "Liechtenstein "a" and relaxed, very soft and almost imperceptible (as in the usual language is deleted, indicating phonetically instead the "n" with a vertical stick below) which is indicated by the sign of the IPA [ə], not [e]. Ccrazymann (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While this is interesting, this doesn't sound like something that an admin needs to be involved in. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection for the article, if they follow the name changes would be possible?. Ccrazymann (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is move protected since 2008, and has actually not been moved more than once that I can see. I don't get your concerns, but if we're not understanding you and you're more comfortable in German, leave me a message on my talk page.
    Dieses Artikel ist seit 2008 gegen Umbenennung geschützt, ich verstehe das Problem nicht ganz. Falls dies auf ein Sprachproblem zurückzuführen wäre, können Sie eine deutsche Nachricht auf meiner Diskussionsseite hinterlassen. MLauba (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it User:Ccrazymann refers not to a move of the article itself, but only to the pronunciation of the word "Liechtenstein" into the article's lead, which apparently was changed several times in the last year(s) (for example [25] - I haven't searched for more). If I'm right they want to adjust it as per their explanation above and then would like the article to be protected. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    193.133.92.229 has made the legal threat "If you delete this, I will engage lawyers to discuss this matter further on grounds of discrimination against small businesses." on Talk:Eyetease Media over CSD G11 on Eyetease Media. Looking at the article CSD A7 may be more suitable, but I have left article as is and not going to under take any other actions until an Administrator can sort it out. In order not to inflame any thing further.--blue520 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted as G11. I'm hesitant to block, though, because it's apparently a shared IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to it, I was about to but you were there first. I did check up and found zilch except a cv for the guy running it, and that says it is launching in April. As non-notable as it gets. I'll watch the IP. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My money is on User:Eyetease personally... or one of his close associates. I believe a 24h anonblock for NLT is perfectly in order though. MLauba (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked, but for a week. I believed it really needed to be longer than 24 hours but I am concerned since it is a shared IP. I won't disagree if someone chooses to modify the settings. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob: disruptive behaviour

    Resolved
     – off2WQA Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have had several unexpectedly unpleasant interactions with Off2riorob in recent days. Off2riorob responded to a BLP/N question concerning possible synthesis in a biography I had created. The editor who raised the complaint agreed, after discussion and presentation of additional sources, that the sources supported the original statement, yet Off2riorob not only continued to insist they did not, but also removed from the article a statement summarising an episode reported in about 10% of reliable sources on the subject and thus in accordance with weight and BLP.

    Off2riorob then called the 31-year-old subject of another article I had written a "girl", nominated the article for deletion, and began to delete relevant and well-sourced information, writing "its rubbish". The user, who because of past problems has promised to avoid edit warring, repeatedly reverted (e.g., [26] and [27]) to maintain the deletions, made further deletions, including without edit summaries and attacked me personally ([28] and [29]) when I asked for talk page discussion of these deletions. My explanation of the editing environment at related articles (where several editors with strong personal interests in a particular illness usually dominate the editing) only prompted further attacks, along with a profession of pride for past behaviour resulting in blocks.

    Considering:

    • the user's prominence and potential influence at BLP/N,
    • the user's extensive block history,
    • a past promise not to edit war, contrasting with behaviour yesterday,
    • several unexplained, unprovoked and surprisingly strongly worded personal attacks accusing me of agenda editing (the validity of which accusations I categorically reject)
    • and a profession of pride for the user's block record,

    I would like to request that others review the user's behaviour. I believe this user has done some good work at BLP/N, and has the potential to do more, but episodes such as this one are unpleasant and disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would think that WP:WQA is a much better venue for a request for behavior review. Tan | 39 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=339000864"