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 99.153.141.240 (talk) at 22:19, 13 February 2010 (report). 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

    Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji

    Fatehji (talk · contribs) This page got my attention some days ago as the result of an edit war between Fatehji and another user which resulted in page protection. I've since taken a closer look at the article and discovered that Fatehji has turned the page into a blatant WP:COATRACK for Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement. After I deleted the COATRACK section, Fatehji has been repeatedly restoring it[1][2][3] based on the transparently POV and, I believe, demonstrably false assertion that Kundalini yoga and Yogi Bhajan's teachings are synonymous, when in fact there are countless writers and teachers on the topic (see Google books search results). Fatehji has also been editing the Kundalini syndrome article, trying to minimize the seriousness of the phenomenon[4] (presumably because Yogi Bhajan has said kundalini yoga is perfectly safe), falsely claiming the article relies upon only one reference[5] and even arguing for its deletion.[6][7] (To refute this position, one need only do a search for the term on Google books).

    In normal circumstances, I will try to work with other editors to establish NPOV, but in this case I cannot persuade myself there is a realistic chance of doing so. Unfortunately, spiritual topics tend to attract adherents of one or another spiritual group who attempt to use such articles as promotional vehicles for their own particular group, and in my experience there is little hope of dissuading such editors from their disruptive activities except through bans or blocks. I am therefore proposing that Fatehji be topic banned from all kundalini-related articles, with the possible exception of those pertaining to his particular group (namely Yogi Bhajan, 3HO and Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan). Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I concur with the topic ban, as it appears that there is some considerable bias as regards the promoting and demoting of differing disciplines. As for an allowance on those topics relating solely to their interests, I am assuming Gatoclass has not detected any WP:OWNership issues and agree also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to be unduly harsh. My primary concern is to stop the COATRACKing, which is the immediate problem, and I think likely to be an ongoing one unless something is done to prevent it. My comment was not intended as an endorsement of his editing on the Yogi Bhajan pages, I just think that as he's only been editing for three weeks he is entitled to be given some time to adjust. If he's still causing problems down the track, that can always be looked at later. Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the topic ban also. Since he created his account on 18 January, Fatehji has managed to receive warnings from two different admins, and his contributions include frequent reverts. The single most worrisome thing is his minimization of Kundalini syndrome, which has plenty of references. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur as well, a topic ban would be a good first step, the diffs are quite worrying. If Fatehji is unable to comply, we should proceed immediately to escalating blocks. GlassCobra 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From the start let me say in my defense, despite these claims, I have ALWAYS been open to changing the wording, edits, and I have been open and fair to adjustments and changes as long as there have been valid references from neutral 3rd party opinions. If I have done something wrong, I am always willing to change it. Everything I need to say is in the Talk page for this article if read carefully [[8]], but due to the slant in this claim I have to defend myself here. In fact, my counter-claim is that Gatoclass and user Atmapuri on this page have been advancing far too much of a bias against and new referenced material relating to Yogi Bhajan with complete deletions at every posting with little or no effort to reach consensus [Resolve the Dispute]. As you can see in the Talk pages [[9]], changes have been made, and I am always open and inviting to those who are neutral and who have done homework on the subject. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and references from these users without receiving any: Namely Gatoclass and Atmapuri, who themselves were exhibiting warring tendencies and have leveled threats [Warning]. [Resolve this Dispute].

    Additionally, This entire claim is both pedantic and aggressive. I have shown my positive support of 3rd party views on numerous occasions [[10]]. There's a lot of assumption going on in this Incident claim: Gatoclass is using the language "I believe" and "presumably" pretty liberally in his agenda to service his POV. Gatoclass claims that in "normal cases" he would would try to make concurrent and 3rd party observations your primary avenue of pursuance in resolving disputes yet he did not make any effort in this direction even after I requested such and offered my openness to NPOV resolution. What he claims as "in this case I cannot persuade myself" means simply... you did not want to listen, nor did he want to follow policy (i.e. my quote: "Please ask for a 3rd party resolution ... before you request for a dispute resolution."[[11]]). He has skipped over NPOV in his bias against me and your not observing the policy of Wikipedia to take these steps first.

    So, therefore because you are leveling more claims, I have to defend myself and the information (again). First of all, 3HO is not a "movement" initially as you claim - with the implication that somehow it is an agency with an ulterior agenda (this wording choice is typically indicative of your POV bias). It is a simply the support community for teachers of Kundalini Yoga and the organization that supports the teaching of Kundalini Yoga and yogic events. If anything that it is "moving" or promoting, it is positive change and health forward into the consciousness of people who need it.

    Also, I will refute that your search on Kundalini Yoga books is a red herring because you did not do a search for "Kundalini AND yoga" (quotes needed). Kundalini itself is a ubiquitous and non-scientific source of spiritual energy and of course yoga widely covered, so of course a search of this will return many books..! What you should be referencing - instead of diverting - is the content of the books, not the 'number' of books a search calls up. All this I have covered in the talkback pages [[12]] and [[13]].

    As I have stated over and over, I'm open to referenced additions and changes and would love for this article to be a world class and accurate representation of this beautiful form of yoga. However, certain users have not been helpful, while others have been very insightful and neutral (Bhuto, [Resolve the Dispute], Debsandeep [This article is a mess], TransporterMan [See 3rd Party Opinion], Cactustalk [Refutation of Coatrack Claim]

    Lastly, I again refute your claim and show - as I have numerous times, and as it has been supported by Neutral 3rd party observations - that the Kundalini syndrome page is riddled with inaccuracies, non-scientific and uncited claims [References provided are false], and has nothing to do directly with Kundalini yoga, except by confluence of name. It is a culture-bound syndrome, with no professional validation, and linking it to yoga is like linking 'tennis' with 'tennis elbow', 'bruising' or 'ankle injuries' (as one neutral observer said [[14]]). There's nothing 'disturbing" about correcting false and misleading information. rather, harmful, negative information of non-relevance should be appropriately removed and not disseminated without professional validation.

    Specifically speaking to the Kundalini syndrome page It was Gatoclass actually who removed the "professional validation" request without any so much of a comment except "out of date" [[15]]. Yet, no professional validation has been made at this time... So how is it "out of date"? The article is out of date on getting the validation, not the request for validation out of date for the article... This shows how you are twisting things around to suit your POV.

    My last word is that over and over again I have shown opening to change and update this article(s) in question to make them more neutral and less biased and the goal is ultimately to make them much more like the articles currently on Wikipedia showing other forms of yoga. As it progresses, it will improve, based on verifiable information and in line with the policies of Wikipeida. I have always indicated that being my sole purpose.

    I am new to the site, and that may be to my disadvantage against "multi-starred" uses such as Gatoclass but that that doesn't mean he should bull-dozer me and slant his bias against me by leveling an incident request and blockage requests over my fair requests for neutrality and 3rd party resolution dispute. If I am somehow wrong in this defense I apologize, but my intent is true.--Fatehji (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fatehji is still edit warring on the page in question - indeed, he appears to be expanding his COATRACK section. Gatoclass (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the page to a pre-coattrack version with an edit summary requesting that blanket changes not occur until the Talk page discussion is resolved. I agree that Fatehji has done some heavily POV editing -- with a strong bias towards promoting one particular version of Kundalini Yoga and a religious movement. However, they are a new user -- and I hope that they might restrain their enthusiasm and learn our policies on verifiability, sourcing and NPOV. I know of a few successes with other "religious movement" editors (For example, the L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology crowd -- although that also required a lot of topic bans and protected pages). I would like to see if the current discussion has any positive results before enacting a topic ban. — CactusWriter | needles 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dashbullder

    Dashbullder (talk · contribs) has, among other things, added articles of his own creation to Current Events without discussion [16] [17] and added links to one such article to two unrelated pages apparently as a POINTy attempt at pushing Christian PoV. [18] [19]

    Also seems to have issues with "getting" copyright [20] after adding a decently long script CAP to an article [21] -- Pakaran 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ANI is a bad bad place) 66.172.228.21 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked exactly how long a quote could be and I'm still waiting for an answer, and if adding articles about current events to the current events area with out a vote is a problem I am sorry I did not know this. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no specific answer, but it doesn't matter. The quotation doesn't belong for other reasons that you have already been told about. If you want the quotation to be in the article when others disagree with you, that's what the article talk page is for -- use it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is no specific answer"? if there is no rule then how can I have broken it? --Dashbullder (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He means there's no specific answer regarding acceptable quote length. Quotes are supposed to be used when they serve a specific purpose that paraphrasing wouldn't fulfill. They're not supposed to be "extensive". In this instance, it looks like the significance of the piece could've been adequately summed up using other words. Again, use the article talk page to seek advice on how to handle it. Equazcion (talk) 03:15, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Give how touchy some people are about this film I thought it would be best for me not to put words in the speakers mouths. --Dashbullder (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is everyone in agreement then that quoting the film is better than putting works in others mouths? --Dashbullder (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This question belongs on the article's talk page (for the third or fourth time). This is a content issue and can't be decided here. Discuss the issue with the article's other editors at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Equazcion (talk) 01:13, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    Snek01

    This user has a large issue with a minor point of style, see [22]. He reported the subject of his complaint (and myself) for edit warring (also make a sock accusation) [23], which was declined, and he was told to stop his reverts. He has also made a complaint further up this page [24]. He continues to engage in edit warring, and misuse of edit summaries, despite being asked to stop [25]. Attempts to communicate have resulted in a vandalism notice on my user page. Can stronger action be taken as his actions are clearly disruptive? Thedarxide (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would like to seek for editor assistance because all three participants have broken 3 revert rule already http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway_lobster&action=history . Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting full protection on Norway Lobster at the moment, as it seems like there's a dispute going on around here. If there are any more articles that we have to get concerned about tell me. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I may bow to wisdom of those more experienced than I, doesn't the 3 revert rule not apply to vandalism, which Snek's edits now count as? I've followed the discussions - entertaining as they are - and I'm pretty sure Snek was asked to refrain from any more reversions until discussion and a resolution had been found. But hey - what do I know? a_man_alone (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From my perspective as an outside, un-involved editor, this essentially looks like a content dispute over the interpretation of the MOS when it comes to formatting references. In the past two days,

    • Thedarxide (talk · contribs) - reverted the article five times, including use of TW in the dispute to label his opponent's edits as "vandalism"
    • Snek01 (talk · contribs) - changed the article back to his or her preferred version six (or seven, depending on how you count) times
    • Stemonitis (talk · contribs) - changed the article back three times

    While I see that a request at WP:ANEW was declined yesterday [26], since the two primary parties have only escalated the conflict today, it looks to me like they both need blocked for edit warring. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I dispute the fact that I have "escalated" the conflict - Snek01 has been spoken to nicely, then told by an admin that his actions are to stop. Based on the fact that he has been told this, I have been reverting his changes. I believe the vandalism tag is justified Thedarxide (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snek01 and Thedarxide both have 48 hours to think about the stupidity of a lame edit war. I also locked the article for 24 hours to prevent other proponants in the rever warring from benefiting from the forced absence of the other two participants. Spartaz Humbug! 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That may help calm things temporarily. There's still the question of whether placing nbsp's before all ref tags is appropriate, and they'll still have to deal with that once the blocks expire. I personally don't think that's a content dispute. If an editor is going to try to do this across all articles he edits, he should be plainly told whether or not that's appropriate, otherwise this will end up back here at ANI. My personal thought is that it's not appropriate. I've never seen it in a guideline, policy, or in practice. Refs generally follow text directly with no spaces. Equazcion (talk) 14:55, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    This issue has been handled badly and should have been resolved long before it came to this point. Snek01 is correct. The formatting changes made by Stemonitis go directly against MOS. WP:MOS#Punctuation and inline citations clearly states
    Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space
    Stemonitis should revert his edits, which run across many articles (as an aside, this is not a "minor" point of style). Snek01 is a valuable content editor, prolific and professional, even though English is not his native language. I hope you do not take this too badly Snek01. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble is, our style guidelines are contradictory. What is implicitly forbidden in one place is explicitly allowed elsewhere. WP:FN states that "Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over. This really is a minor point of style, and any consensus over it is far from unanimous. As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about it as to risk getting himself blocked. I am more than happy to discuss the issue in a calm and reasonable arena, and I will of course alter my style if there should be a strong consensus formed over it. (Similarly, if I thought there already was a strong consensus, I wouldn't have been doing it before.) However, the issue has indeed been handled badly, and discussion was made more or less impossible. I will add that I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy. A more pragmatic solution is to (explicitly?) allow various reasonable systems to be used (just as we allow different methods of referencing (footnotes, shortened footnotes, parenthetical references) and different forms of the language (WP:ENGVAR). I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The salient point is that MOS does not support you. I doubt this is the place to discuss this matter further. But WP:FN states something different, partially because, as a review of the edit history shows, you yourself were implicated in enforcing those changes. You must have known that those changes were not supported by MOS, yet you did not risk presenting your viewpoint to MOS in order to resolve the contradiction and confusion you had introduced.
    You are also using a language style which belittles and pre-empts other views, implying, for example, that people with views other than your own are rigid and lacking in pragmatism. To mirror one of your sentences, but with a shift in target: "As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about using his alternative style as to push an unwitting editor to the point where he was blocked."
    You say, in the amended guideline you helped promote, that the style used by Nature was acceptable. But the style used by Nature does not place square brackets around the citation numbers. Nor does it sanction the ungainly spaces you, to use your term, "rigidly" insisted on introducing. So I suggest that if you wish to continue imposing your particular preference on other editors, then, even though you rank this matter as "low on the list of what's important", you put the energy into gaining support on MOS. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am somewhat disturbed by this statement you also made: "During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over." I have just examined those discussions, and my impression was that, pretty much without exception, the other editors clearly disagreed with your method of citations. Also, throughout the discussion, you are th one that keeps reiterating what a "quibble" this is. A quibble that has caused a lot of unnecessary grief. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will, if I may, counter some of the specific points raised here. Firstly, it was my understanding (both then and now) that WP:FN, as a style guideline, formed part of the Manual of Style. I therefore didn't push for the wording to be adopted elsewhere, because as far as I understood, WP:FN was the place for it to be, with other guidelines referencing WP:FN. I may have misunderstood that, and I'm happy to be corrected. Secondly, the implication in your analogy is that I caused Snek01 to be blocked. I did not. I have refrained from excessive reversion in favour of discussion; sadly, Snek01 and Thedarxide did not. It is a shame that either had to be blocked, but it was their own actions which caused it. Finally, I am not the only one who thinks this is a minor point. Here are a few examples, which are not intended to read as either endorsement or criticism of any referencing style, but only concern the scale of the issue (I have excluded comments by myself, Snek01 and Thedarxide): "Admittedly though, it is a bit of a waste of people's time discussing this when we could be adding content instead. Smartse (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "restricting users from using certain styles because others subjectively don't like them is a pointless exercise. Ucucha 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "this continued effort serves little purpose Drmies (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "I prefer no space, but who actually cares? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a minor issue, nothing more. Reach Out to the Truth 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "we take a very WP:ENGVAR-type approach to minimize edit warring over these unimportant (=non-content) changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "This is not a major issue CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)". Either it isn't a major issue, or the view that it isn't a major issue is reasonable and is held by at least a significant minority of editors here, and cannot simply be dismissed. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought up the discrepancy between the two MOS pages, noted above by Stemonitis, at WT:MOS#Contradiction regarding inline citations. Ucucha 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course editors nod at your your constant repetition in the discussion threads that this a trivial issue. It is also the main theme of your response above. You say there "I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy... I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important." Nobody want to be seen as obsessing over tiny things and rigidly promoting needless bureaucracy. Naturally people distance themselves from such a prospect, and agree with you, because of the way you have framed it. But this is a smokescreen to pre-empt debate. If you really thought the issue was so trivial, you would not have spent so many hours elaborately reformatting articles. Recently I formatted the references entered by a new editor on sea louse. You came along shortly after, and needlessly reformated them in your own style. These conversions are time consuming, and that you go out of your way to make them suggests that, far from considering the matter to be trivial, you are actually on something of a crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Making Massive Changes to Various List Guidelines

    174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) appears to be on a crusade to remove most list related pages from the Wikipedia scope and to completely change various guidelines. He has made massive changes to several Wikipedia changes that completely change their meaning without any discussion. I have reverted them, but he comes back and reverts, throws a note on the talk page (usually with a header of "Collectonian reverts") and demands they be discussed while his version stands. I am not the only one who has reverted him in the past, and for now I have restored the community consensus based versions (again), but I feel administration attention should be given to this particular editor due to his seeming campaign of attack with some talk page "discussions" he has also started arguing that all lists should be deleted. This does not seem the sort of attitude that one should have when supposedly trying to "improve" guidelines. The ones he has editted include:

    Here is the discussion he started at the same time he messed up all of those pages, stating that we should get rid of all lists[31] (on-going link) and the second he started at WP:NOT[32]. He randomly made a talk page that no one sees noting he is going to change how WTUT, despite its focus being....when to use tables[33], and his post here seems to make it clear he intended "to make changes" not just propose them[34] which would explain why he doesn't care if he has no consensus for them. He has userfied his preferred versions of the pages above at User_talk:174.3.98.236/a and User_talk:174.3.98.236/b. At this point, other than continuing to edit war, I don't know that he's broken any rules specifically, but it all just smacks of single-minded, and inappropriate, attempts to change styles and guidelines against consensus and for no other reason than his own apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia terminology and editing practices. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: They've got two subpages containing modified copies of MOS sections. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted both; clearly not good use of space. No point in aiding disruption. GlassCobra 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since his unblock, IP is continuing to forum shop, filing 30s against me without bothering to mention the opposition to his various proposalss adn changes on other pages, and without mentioning the ANI, claiming we are in a "disagreement" over his edits that just needs a third opinion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the IP's changes (to Wikipedia:Embedded list, anyway), and while I understand that IP's behavior raises a lot of red flags (a new IP who seems to know a lot about Wikipedia, extensive edits to a guideline, a post to VPP proposing to get rid of all lists), ultimately I think the changes to that guideline were largely structural, and benevolent if not beneficial. Maybe this is a sockpuppet or something, but lacking evidence for that, I think we pulled the trigger too fast on this one. Less bite, more AGF is called for here.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes to the other guidelines look sensible for the most part as well, although there is room for disagreement on some of the points.--Father Goose (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As he made major changes to some of them, I disagree that they were sensible, as the community agreed to those guidelines and this random person who also declared that all lists should be deleted and that tables are not list is in no position to decide to butcher them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of you are assuming bad faith, just saying.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Who are you? Normally people who want to change the MoS have been heavily editing articles for some time, now it's not possible to say who you are when you post under an IP address. I'm not particularly enamoured with lists myself so I have some sympathy for your general position, but really the way you are going about this is totally counter-productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a notice: none of those guidelines are part of MoS. Also, being anon is not exclusionary to constructive participation.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you know what, I'm not going to let you push me around
      • [35]
        • A copy of [36]. Everything else actually fixed up the table of contents, or was just table markup fix up. Maybe I should not have included the bullets, which I did not war on. Reason being that I misunderstood that these were strictly MoS rules and guideline rules cannot include them (if this was the case).
      • changes made
        • Primarily good faith edits. This was just a change in aesthetics,
        • "There are a number of formats" vs. "There are a several list formats"
          • The meaning has primarily not changed.
        • The only sentence I took out was ". Most "timeline of" list articles do not use this specialized type of timeline syntax. "
          • Which to me could have extended to EVERY point and given an explanatory sentence, and then you would need another sentence to explain that sentence, so etc. etc.
    So yes, I believe you are assuming bad faith. And because primarily LOTS of editors take out sentence, AND some others change formatting, ALL WITH OUT CONSENSUS I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE SINGLING ME OUT.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly, I don't even know who you are. You are, after all, anonymous. I don't see where you have tried to achieve consensus in pushing through your ideas on lists. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now filed false reports at WP:3RR and seems to have decided if he can just get rid of me, he can do his own thing. He then reverted again on one[37] and when an uninvolved editor reverted, the IP called him "another bad-faith editor" and begged someone else to revert so he himself wouldn't pass 3RR.[38] and demanded the editor self revert claiming "I didn't vandalize"[39].-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking editor Wiki Greek Basketball

    Resolved
     – Consensus seems clear: closing promptly to avoid pileon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

    Please can he be allowed back in from the cold? He apologises for the past disruption and hopes that as its been a month since he was blocked, he can be allowed back in line with some of the more lenient suggestions at the previous discussion. He is very keen to go back to writing articles. Except for that he didn't want to wait a further 2 months as I advised, he has volunteered for harsher restrictions than was suggested. WGB says if he is allowed back:

    • He will consider himself perma banned from RfA , not only from applying to be an admin but even from voting.
    • He is happy for you to ban him from ANI if you wish.
    • He is happy to be mentored if felt appropriate.

    Hopefully you guys will have clemency here. If things go well we get back a good mainspace contributor, if not there is little downside risk as it seems unlikely many will speak up for him and he can be re-blocked at the first offence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This isnt a vote gentlemen. Per WP:No consensus it only requires one fair and independently minded admin to unblock WGB and then we gain a constructive editor and send a positive signal about our considerate treatment of volunteers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. If any admin unblocks in the face of this much opposition, it's clearly very inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, you asked. We replied. Tan | 39 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FeydHuxtable, admins don't act by fiat. If there is consensus against an unblock then that admin should not go against that consensus. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes at this point there does seem to be a concensus, so WP:No_consensus no longer applies. I guess you could resolve the request. No point fighting the great beast of consensus! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access revoked. Why we're even entertaining unblock ideas is beyond me. Tan | 39 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Time to formally ban User:Wiki Greek Basketball

    See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xenotalk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xenotalk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xenotalk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Otherwise, I think wikipedia will run out of carrots. Consensus was already fairly well established. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have been forwarding his various emails to the unblock list. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seb az86556

    Okay, this has gone too far now. Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) doesn't like that I choose not to get an account. Fine, I'm used to the anti-IP bias around here. But now s/he has been dogging my edits, removing PROD tags without improving the articles just because I've added them,[40][41][42] deleting AFD notices from pages[43][44][45] and deletion logs[46] because s/he doesn't think IPs should be able to nominate for deletion, issuing spurious warnings,[47] creating a essay for me to use,[48][49] telling me to "stay away from where you don't belong,"[50] [51] and finally, removing comments from my talk page with a fuck you edit summary.[52] It's the latter one that I find so disturbing because anybody unfamiliar with their vendetta might mistake it for something I endorse. At the very least, I'd like to see the essay deleted, have this user restricted from my talk page and stop their pursuit of my edits which just wastes time that could be spend actually dealing with articles. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Seb for 24 hours for the comment deletion and the creation of WP:F*CKYOU and its associated article. I've also speedied it as an attack page. As always, I welcome review by other admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it on the MFD and I'll say it here. Why hasn't anyone tried communication. You didn't even leave a block notice, much less try to actually resolve anything.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did post a block notice -- unfortunately, he beat me to it with the unblock request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10 minutes after you blocked him and 5 minutes after you posted here. The user obviuosly had some issues but I'd think there could have been at least an attemt to talk to him before facerolling the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block, clearly disruptive user (particularly the deletions of tags and comments). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't make generalisations a limited amount of information. If you'd encountered Seb before branding you'd realise it's ridiculous it is to casually brand them a "clearly disruptive user"; it's not that simple. That said, in this instance their behaviour is not acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one who nominated the essay mentioned above for deletion, so I'd like to add my two cents. It was an error on my part not to notify the user that I nominated it for deletion, even though the essay was grossly inappropriate. I also think the block was hasty, even though the editor was a negative influence on Wikipedia from the brief time I was involved with them. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (copied from userpage)
    In light of a particular user's (see last point) response to his thread, I would like to post the following:

    1. I acknowledge that the creation of the redirect in question was pointy and that I should not have done it.
    2. I acknowledge that my interaction with the IP in question was partially inappropriate.
    3. I request a mutual indefinite interaction-ban between myself and the IP in question (and any subsequent IPs that seem to be the same person)
    4. There remain my grievances concerning the circumstances of this block, because:
      1. I have seen other people engage in mudslinging that was way worse, yet they were almost always given a chance to respond.
      2. The 4im-warning exist for a reason, and numerous reports I have filed were rejected as "not appropriately warned".
    5. There remain the grievances I voiced in the (now deleted) essay. It is ironic that precisely the practices I was venting my frustration about were repeated in applying this block.
      (Note for crystal-clear clarification: This point is not about the validity or merit of the block, it is about procedure)
    6. I suggest that these grievances will be addressed in the near future.
    7. (And last point) User:Cube lurker: You have a new message at User_talk:Seb az86556.

    Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (end of copy)

    • The other problem with a mutual interaction ban, from both sides, is that an IP isn't identifiable like a registered account. You might find yourself interacting with a wholly different person who has the same or similar IP, or you might end up interacting with this same person under a different IP. Who would know? You can't have a mutual interaction ban with all IPs, that's unfeasible. So I don't think this can work. -- Atama頭 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to thank 76.102.12.35 for their work (I just checked a few of the contribs), and I see no reason why 76.102.12.35 should be asked to not interact with anyone. There were two complaints about 76.102.12.35 in this archive, but in my opinion 76.102.12.35 was vindicated in both cases. While it is important to not WP:BITE newcomers, it is also important to clean up junk and combat spam, and I have not seen any evidence that 76.102.12.35 is unduly bitey, while there is plenty of evidence of useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kodrion

    User Empathictrust refuses to talk and misuses sources , removes references from Kodrion. diff,talk,among the claims are placing of ancient tribes in different locations.Megistias (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Example found in talk as well, uses a tour guide from 1819 for Greece(?!) to describe events of Roman wars against Illyrians...Megistias (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, comments like "the violence of ignorance of certain users here in Wikipedia" isn't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Empathictrust attempted to comment here but was reverted (not by me). His comment was exorbitantly long, misformated, and focused mainly on the content dispute. I've advised him to comment at the article talk page instead, which he's done. Since it appears he is willing to talk, please continue your discussion with him there, Megistias. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    See the attempted comment here: [53] Equazcion (talk) 00:13, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I had explained to him the situtation in the talk page, with secondary sources and citations, but he doenst seem to understand certain things(geographical impossibilities pointed out in the talk page). The comment he placed now is a continuation of this Talk:Kodrion. Megistias (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See this edit. It tends to ramble, but he's talking about "Jimbo Wales losing Wikipedia to Jim Bell", which sounds like he's planning on suing. Jim Bell's socks continue to edit, no matter how often they get blocked. Woogee (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked by Tnxman307. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the editor responsible for much of the content of the Jim Bell article let me say, though I have not reviewed them in detail, that the IPs concerns seem on the face of it legitimate and to be welcomed by any conscientious editors. As with many biographies of figures who have not been comprehensively covered in reliable sources, this article is susceptible to "verifiability not truth" problems as it is reliant on the journalistic professionalism of once-off news stories. Thirdly, whether or not the subject of a BLP has a right to respond, they ought to be heard. If one tenth the zeal was shown towards addressing concerns as with purging the project of unpersons, the encyclopaedia and its subjects would be a lot better off.  Skomorokh  21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The concerns so far by Bell seem more in the line of WP:COI edits to make the article conform to how he sees himself and the world, whats wrong with the govt and their previous prosecution of him, and how he's gonna stop global warning, which seems to not be covered by any news sources so far. He completely misunderstands the meaning of consensus, verifiability, and a few other core principals of Wikipedia, as well as what the definition of sock and meat puppets, civility and WP:AGF. Unfortunately, as he is somewhat of an expert with techno matters, we could have a very determined Ip socker developing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been repeatedly asked to discuss his edits on the article's Talk page, which he explicitly refuses to do. Woogee (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and blocked 97.120.244.0/22 for 3 days for the disruption. –MuZemike 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woogee: I've archived the talk sections with a message to other users about feeding the trolls. This person has the obvious mentality of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and thus, it is a lost cause trying to discuss anything with him.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also blocked User:71.36.114.161 for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's been given at least a couple of routes to bring accuracy issues to the community's attention, of which block evasion is not one. He has absolutely no excuse whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged the appropriate pages to make rangeblock calculations easier, and from what the calculator says, the ranges appear to be 71.36.112.0/20 and 97.120.240.0/20 , both have the potential of blocking 4096 users, for the total of 8192 users. I personally think it's worth it. If there is some damage, it can easily be fixed and determined that any blocked users aren't him. He has a particular style to his writings.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and incivility by User:Chowbok

    Resolved
     – Moved to WQA by OP Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chowbok has launched full-fledged personal attacks, incivility and false accusations against me. He came to the article John Wayne Gacy for the first time on January 14, 2010 and proceeded to change the style of referencing to a lesser known and utilized style without first broaching the change on the article talk page [54] clearly in violation of WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools, which says editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. (Bolding emphasis not added). There was no effort to garner consensus prior to this change and it was reverted and a talk page discussion started, where it was protested. One of Chowbok's responses to the protest was to make accusations of ownership [55]. He later moved over to the Dawn Wells article and returned content that had been taken 3 different times to WP:BLP/N as inappropriate content [56], which I reverted and took immediately to WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again. I posted notice to Rossrs and Pinkadelica about this issue since they had both been involved in discussions about this in the past. Chowbok followed around my edits and posted comments on both user's talk pages [57] [58] and to mine [59]. I replied here that I knew the editors' opinions and knew they had not changed and replied in greater depth here. He was further asked by Rossrs not to leave sarcastic posts on his talk page [60] [61], a sentiment that was echoed by Pinkadelica [62]. He went so far on Talk:Dawn Wells to say "I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion." Editors also posted protests to his actions on his talk page.

    Chowbok returned to the John Wayne Gacy article yesterday and once again implemented wholesale changes to the style of formatting used in violation again of WP:CITE [63] and falsely claimed in an edit summary that "No objections stated on talk page to anchored ref format, starting implementation." Again I reverted it as an undiscussed change without benefit of consensus and posted discussion on the talk page [64]. When I didn't respond fast enough to suit him on the article talk page, Chowbok posted this demand for response to my talk page. After some discussion on the subject, Chowbok withdrew his suggestion and launched a personal attack against me, making false accusations, where he said "Yeah, and basically it'll be impossible to gain consensus because of Wildhartlivie's vast army of meat puppets that she can canvass at a moment's notice. No doubt Pinkedelia and LaVidaLoca will show up should anyone else express even tentative approval for this change, or indeed anything else she doesn't like. Consider the suggestion withdrawn." An editor, Doc9871, clearly stated "I'm no meat-puppet, I can assure you. As for a "vast army of meat puppets"... what, is she Saruman? "You will taste... Man-flesh!!!" ;P". Chowbok responded and ended his comment with the personal comment "Anyway, that's all I'll say about it, I know we're supposed to be commenting on articles, not editors. Wildhartlivie, I'll let you have the last word: commence freak-out and attacks below." At that point, I posted a formal request that Chowbok withdraw his attacks here and also at his talk page here or I would bring his behavior to this board. His response to me was "I don't respond well to threats. I stand behind everything I wrote. Go ahead and report me wherever you like if it'll make you happy. I'm busy editing an encyclopedia." This is absolutely unacceptable commentary and attacks and Chowbok needs to try and understand this is not an acceptable standard for here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to WP:WQA since this has been posted here without response or attention for nearly 10 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Noleander redux

    Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

    His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

    His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[65] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [66] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

    • Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
    • Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
    • Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
    • Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
    • Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
    • Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
    • Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
    • Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
    • Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

    etc.

    Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

    His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[67][68], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [69] and proposing more [70] Also relevant are these recent edits: [71][72]

    It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [73], [74]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion (talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion (talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion (talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion (talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion (talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion (talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion (talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

    Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

    Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

    In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

    One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

    It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

    But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

    So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alansohn is now abusing DR and engaging in textbook wikihounding

    Alansohn (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in uncivil and unseemly conduct, despite being previously sanctioned in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. When 2 administrators, Good Olfactory & Postdlf, properly followed dispute resolution and filed this WQA to resolve their concerns, Alansohn was repeatedly unresponsive. At the time, I also commented as an uninvolved editor, and at the request of the filing party, also left my view on Alansohn's talk page [75]. Alansohn made assurances he would tone his remarks, but continued to make serious accusations without serious evidence.[76] He has repeatedly misrepresented my comments and position to others. [77] [78] [79]

    Alansohn has also been wikihounding me [80] and filing a retaliatory WQA report regarding that issue that he was not a party to. Rather than avoiding filing an alert "to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert" as stated at the top of the page, he's done the opposite. This sort of clear-cut abuse of dispute resolution is really beyond the pale.

    We're having to tolerate conduct that would otherwise be considered ban-worthy at a WQA level. I'd like to think it's because the community is unaware of it, but it's possible that they are fearful of what will happen to them if they try to address Alansohn's conduct. If we cannot come up with a sanction proposal, then it appears that our dispute resolution system has finally crumbled beyond repair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't we be talking about the next stage of DR, rather than "a sanction proposal", which I assume refers to an indefinite block? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As laid out in greater detail (and diffs) in the WQA, this is a continuation of the same conduct for which he was previously sanctioned. He has largely shown improvement since those sanctions were imposed, but still has the same issues with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks, and anyone who tries to point this out to him, however civilly, is in turn themselves made the subject of attacks (as is clearly shown at the WQA and in numerous posts currently on his talk page).
    I for one would be extremely reluctant to push for an indefinitely block, given that his problematic behavior is intermittant, not constant, and that he is otherwise a prolific and valuable contributor. But it is a longstanding pattern (I have personally been trying to address it with him for over a year now; see my recent attempt here) and it can be extremely disruptive. It was suggested that a request could be made for the arb committee to just amend the previous sanction? I don't know how that works.
    I've been wondering whether a ban from CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions would be a good resolution, given that this conduct presently arises from his inability to deal with content disputes there without making it personal (at least that's the only context I'm aware of). It's only just now spilled over and escalated into another forum with the WQA. So maybe that would contain it. But his previous sanctions were for conduct in entirely different forums and contexts, so maybe it's inevitable that it will occur wherever he chooses to focus his time. Every time he has promised to address this, it's come front-loaded with even more hostile accusations of bad faith, harassment, trolling, and "manufacturing knowingly false disputes."[81],[82] Never with any acknowledgment on his part that those complaining have honest and valid concerns, regardless of whether he agrees with their characterization. So I don't know what the solution is, given that there is a clear lack of basic respect underlying all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I have seen, since his editing restrictions ended, Alansohn has engaged in the problematic behavior on his own talkpage, and primarily at CFD and at DRV. But it has also spilled over to other forums, such as here at ANI, and recently at the WQA. Historically, it looks to me like wherever he chooses to engage in discussion, eventually he begins to do so abusively, and CFD and DRV just seem to have been his primary locations of choice over the past months. If he were banned from CFD and DRV, would he just take the abuse elsewhere to other discussion points? I'm not sure, but it might be worth a try. At this stage I agree that it would be preferable to any sort of all-encompassing ban. Would also support an RFC beginning if that is preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor like Alansohn doesn't respond to feedback from an uninvolved user, but tries very hard to create a dispute with that user, I'm not sure what would be left to resolve voluntarily from other uninvolved opinions. This user, we must remember, has already been unreceptive to a previous RfC/U, and was subsequently sanctioned by ArbCom following that RfC/U. I wanted to give the community the opportunity to deal with the problem through the only effective means in the circumstances, rather than rely too heavily on ArbCom. Frankly, if Alansohn's conduct is the type that the community elevates, particularly given his history, or if the community is unable to enforce policy, then why do policy pages exist as if they are the rules governing Wikipedia? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive new page creation

    User "Nameless User" has been creating a lot (at least 200, probably more) articles over the past 24 hours. The vast majority (I don't now of any that aren't) are stubs. They all have some formatting issues (including date linking) and I don't see any indication that this editor is going to expand or elaborate on them. I've tried to communicate with the editor but have receive no response, despite continuing new pages having been created, including right now. I'm unsure how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I took at some of the most recent edits and the ones about the Lebanese Premier League could be nominated for deletion per WP:N, also no references and the information looks copied from another source (so possible WP:COPYVIO). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any ideas? Mass AfD? Wait a while? Or prod each one? I'd like a response from the creator but that appears unlikely (or perhaps it's a bot). Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PROD is probably most productive here. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it humanly possible to create 21 articles in four minutes, as he did between 8:53 12 February and 8:57? It seems to me quite likely we are dealing with an unauthorized bot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all cookie cutter articles. Copy and paste works wonders with multiple tabs. MER-C 12:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's possible. Looking at the edit history, there does seem to be a bit of clumping: 6 articles created at 10:16; 7 articles created at 10:06; etc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a huge concern though? While they aren't exactly what I'd call great stubs, is this against policy in any way? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the bot-spam on his talk page for creating unreferenced BLPs...currently a serious and heated issue around here...yea, I'd say this is a problem. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user created most of the articles linked from Template:The Football League Seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, Template:Eredivisie seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, same for leagues from Armenia, Albania, Italy, Austria, Belbium, Azebaijan... the list goes on. The only difference is that these later ones have less content - both at their current state and at creation - and are not formatted as well.

    This may be because "football-speaking" they are not the most popular countries in the world, but we should be careful of systemic bias before any mass deletion takes place. As for the unreferenced BLPs, User:Rettetast raised that issue on their talk page when they mass produced Japanese international footballer articles back in January and the user fairly promptly added references, so the user least appears responsive to comment.--ClubOranjeT 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It's relatively easy to produce cookie cutter soccer player articles. I've seen a lot of these. It's also easy to transform the data from an external database in Wikipedia infobox format. I would not be surprised if some script-assistance is used. Unless WP:ATHLETE is changed, which entitles all professional soccer players to an article, we're stuck with all these stubs, which usually have only a large infobox that in itself is somewhat informative. Coverage almost always exists for these guys in the sports press. The issue at hand here seems different though. All these are articles like Meistaradeildin 1966, created from the same source; it would have been wiser to create just one article. It's obvious these are copypasta, no script is needed to produce something like this. I don't know if soccer seasons are considered notable in general, but presumably extended coverage exist in the sports press about an entire season. Pcap ping 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Leinad's disruptive edits

    Let's start from here. Polish Wikipedia is currently under a strong attack from bloggers because of Polish Wikipedia Admins' trials to censor it. [83] [84] They remove even some content from talk pages.

    However they started to censor English wikipedia. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] As you can see Leinad ever removed content from article Danuta Hubner, similar to Polish wikiepdia admins.

    I warned Leinad [91], he removed my warning [92] and warned me instead [93]. It's really a good behaviour for a steward.

    I hope you will stop Polish wikipedians from copying their hysteria here. Slijk (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs you cite above (e.g. [94] [95]) seem OK to me. If the text says that the files of organization X show information Y about a person, then the source must be an online or published copy of those X files. In this case it seems to be a third party's claim of what's in those files, so the text is incorrect. In theory, you could say "[Third party T] has written that X shows Y ...", if T is a reliable source. In general, we treat a recently-deceased person almost as carefully as a live one, since grieving family members are involved and this could affect the lives of living people. Crum375 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, do not trust pseudo-bloggers. The information was published only in one of the right-wing newspaper and re-published in website. The Institute of National Remembrance never published the publication which would confirm this information, as well as no scientific study never appeared. On Polish Wikipedia we protected this articel, because this information was a slander (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection and protection). Regards, LeinaD (t) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree that if the INR's records are published and accessible (as a primary source), it would be important to verify that this information is there. In principle, even a right wing paper is WP:RS, albeit with a clear POV, but for a recent death, a "near-BLP", I would want to see more corroborating independent sources, and ideally INR records for confirmation. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Leinad, you must be precise. WP:BLP doesn't apply to one of the articles. Slijk (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Leinad is right. Information about alleged past in the Służba Bezpieczeństwa is very delicate and requires a strong and reliable sources. Such a source can only be good historical treatise, but not an article in a newspaper. Regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Witkoryn, please read [96] again. And remember that your not admin here. Slijk (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Slijk, with all due respect, but your agressive wording in this discussion ("Polish Wikipedia admins try to censor it", "Wiktoryn, remember you are not an admin here", "Polish histeria") seems to imply that your goal here is not to resolve the problem accordingly to Wikipedia rules, but to force the way for something which was prevented from happening at the Polish Wikipedia (of which I am also one of admins, to make things clear). Please note there are many Polish public figures (like Andrzej Olechowski or Michał Boni) who did co-operate with the Communist secret police, there are good sources for that, and it is mentioned in their articles. We're not enforcing any censorship aimed at preventing former SB informants from being revealed. However, as you must know being interested in Polish politics and history, such accusations are very often part of political fight in Poland. Also, it is an extremely serious accusation to make. That's why at the plWiki we require good and strong sources for such claims. By those we mean academic publications, not blogs, newspaper articles or even raw documents. Please note these documents are not scholarly papers - they are files from the archives of a secret service of an authoritarian state. You need to have some background knowledge and experience in such research to be able to analyze those documents properly - that's why we keep asking to quote even just one publication of a serious historian which would confirm these claims about Mr Skubiszewski. Powerek38 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blog quoted - Salon24 - is (for the information of non-Poles) one of the most agressive right-wing spots in Polish internet. First of all, the significance and reliability of blogs, as such, is petty and irrelevant, no matter what political wings they represent. Moreover - this blog, can not, by any means, ne dubbed objective - so the quotation above is just a mere manipulation. Greetings. Kicior99 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tko96

    Tko96 (talk · contribs)

    SPA abusing wikipedia for hosting pseudo gang stuff. No encyclopedic edits whatsoever. Before February 4, they put up a lengthy userpage at their master account User:Tko96 and copied it to two sock accounts, i.e. User:Musculion and User:66truekillerobituaries99, and to the article Muscolion in mainspace. They took a break after the socks were blocked and the article was deleted.

    Today, they are back re-creating Musculion (speedied already) and copied the same stuff to User:Tko96/Tko96, also to the userpage of his blocked sock User:Musculion, and also to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tko96.

    I request that

    • the content be deleted, userpage or not, as wikipedia is not a host for that stuff,
    • the account be blocked indef, as they had their chance and there is no indication whatsoever that the user registered themselves to work on an encyclopedia
    • and "Musculion" and "truekillerobituaries" be added to some filter.

    Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefblocked Tko96 as advertising-only. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic article title

    Andrew Byrne (paedophile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a new page - is it appropriate?? I'm not sure to be perfectly honest! Willdow (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Extraordinarily inappropriate to classify people, especially an article title, by crime. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedied A7. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on the creator's talk page suggesting how to move forward if he wants to repost it. Starting with reading WP:BLP. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the title is the problem then the page can easily be moved. I don't think the speedy deletion used (CSD A7 is appropriate in this case. I've commented on the article talk page. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is this guy. The existing Andrew Byrne is an 19th Century catholic priest. No comment. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Userfied by request, though I'm not convinced there is an encyclopedia article here (as opposed to a ghastly-true-crimes article). I have pointed the author to WP:BLP, WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E and suggested making it about the case rather than the criminal. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy who created that article says on his user page that he's 16 years old. There's a certain ick factor about that considering what Byrne did and who he targeted. Is it just me? I have no idea what, if anything, should be done about that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ick factor" isn't a reason to do anything. --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV Backlog

    Resolved
     – backlog snaked Equazcion (talk) 20:10, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    There is a backlog of over an hour on AIV. Could an admin or two address that backlog, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat

    Hi, I've just blocked Stragewarior (talk · contribs) for some rather threatening behaviour. But should we tip the police off about this? ϢereSpielChequers 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To me it just looks like standard vandalism. Nothing that requires a phone call to London about, but I would watch for further edits. If it happens again, then make a call. Others could disagree me on this one, but I see nothing here but vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That one seems fairly par for the course. I'd say this one[97] was more concerning "We have some demands either fulfill them or ready for a war", but from his other posts, sounds more like a poor command of English language rather than a legitimate threat of a war. Looking some more, though, I see this person, while editing an IP, does appear to be issuing a death threat to the article subject[98], including claiming the future date of death is "true"[99] and I guess that is what is being noted above? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think this was what he was intending to refer to... Tabercil (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. it's the two in combination that made me think we might want to treat this as a bit more than just vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User continued to threaten in an unblock request [100] so I reblocked without talkpage access. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful that this is some 12 year old. This is part of the continuing edit war on these articles. Woogee (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user of this IP address (and many other IP addresses besides this one) continues, despite repeated pleas and prior blocks, to continue to traverse various Wikipedia articles removing the word "Roman" where it appears before Catholic. In some instances, this has been perfectly fine; however, in many instances these removals are contrary to what reliable sources are saying. One particular example is in the article on Rachel Maddow. A Newsweek article explains that Maddow "was brought up as a strict Roman Catholic." This is reflected in the article, and is cited appropriately. Many Catholics use "Roman" to distinguish between their species of Catholicism and others (see 487,000 Google News hits), but in recent times this has been evidently frowned upon by the Vatican. It is for this reason that the anonymous user seems to be "crusading" against the "Roman Catholic" term. Numerous editors have tried to engage this individual to explain how we use reliable sources and verifiability to determine article content, but all such attempts have been fruitless.

    Despite the difficulties of a rangeblock (the range is quite large, according to the previous discussion), I think that it has become appropriate to act in some way beyond the short-term blocks that have been tried in the past (example). I urge administrators to consider more draconian measures to prevent this disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the recent conduct over the Rachel Maddow article, I think further short term blocks could be justified. I'd prefer to find a sympathetic mentor to adopt the user, however if that isn't possible, then I guess longer blocks and/or range blocks could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might find mentoring difficult given the fact that the individual keeps changing IP. A good start would be to encourage them to create an account. An analysis of the IPs in question reveals a single-purpose agenda, so any mentor would have their work cut out for them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A dynamic IP 187.132.XXX.XX had been disruptively editing a section of the Oaxaca article that dealt with protests by the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca. That article was semi-protected on 10-02-03 and the disruptive editing has stopped. However, since it can no longer disruptively edit that article, it has now moved on to the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca article itself, making the same, unexplained, disruptive edits that violate WP:TERRORIST,WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Attempts to talk with "it" have been unsuccessful, as it seems happy to keep reverting. I posted a request for page protection over ten hours ago, but no one there seems interested in dealing with it, meanwhile the IP keeps reverting and inserting disruptive information. nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP does need a bit of a time-out for edit warring, I'd agree. This is the same problem we used to have at Hezbollah and Hamas. If this group is a designated terrorist organization, try to steer the conversation in that direction, to describe neutrally who considers it a terrorist or and why. The "...is a terrorist" kinda stuff is completely unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since its a dynamic IP, it would be easier to just semi protect the article, but its been sitting over at RPP for over 10 hours and no one there seems interested in doing anything. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tnxman307 just semiprotected it; I was on my way to do so, he beat me to it. Hopefully that ends the problem, though watchlisting both articles in case they sockpuppet accounts past the autoconfirmed boundary and start up again seems wise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cladu1u

    Resolved
     – Cladu1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cladu1u (talk · contribs) has a long history of uploading copyrighted images, and of creating tons of unsourced BLP articles. They don't seem to be getting the message, despite huge numbers of warnings on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He's continuing to upload copyrighted images and add them to the articles. He isn't responding to my comments on his Talk page. Could somebody block him till his uploads and edits can all be reverted? He's uploading faster than I can clean up after him. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been indeffed now. Suggest no unblocking without a ban on uploading images, ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the account and deleted all of the images uploaded today. TNXMan 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Scibaby disruption

    The climate change articles are a mess because of scibaby vandalism. Since scibaby is against AGW, I propose that all editors against AGW be blocked until it's proven that they aren't scibaby. Their attacks have resulted in User:William M. Connolley being prevented from stopping the lies being spread. This is too important to let a vandal disrupt. -- 166.135.119.155 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you're proposing proving a negative (that someone has to prove they are not Scibaby). I'm also reminded of something about babies and bathwater. TNXMan 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we weren't talking about baby Hitler. Has any of those characters added anything good to those articles? This is a classic WP:IAR proposal for dealing with a long-term vandal. -- 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) We already have a filter that attempts to track down scibaby's edits. Many users (including myself) monitor that filter and report as appropriate. I don't think anything more is necessary, and most certainly we shouldn't block every user that happens to go against AGW just because they had an opinion. That's more than WP:BITE, that's more like WP:TEARHEADOFF. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the idea on the essay though! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the climate change enforcement page. Nobody cares about the filter, the admins know that scibaby is against AGW so any new editors against AGW is likely scibaby. Who else but a troll like him would doubt the science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same troll who's calling for the presumption of guilt before innocence and advocating shooting users who may dislike AGW but are not Scibaby first, and NOT asking questions later. My guess is that you have an ulterior motive here, and it doesn't involve dealing with Scibaby. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRINGE should be your concern. I said that the editors can be unblocked if they aren't here vandalizing. It's not eliminating the competition. It's just realizing this isn't a suicide pact. -- 32.175.35.20 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my friend, you would in effect be driving off good editors who aren't acting like Scibaby because they make one mistake that is interpreted as a Scibaby hallmark. It *is* eliminating the competition and biting the innocent newcomers to boot. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, I monitor that filter on a regular basis. I'm sure there's others that do as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do wonder though if a checkuser could comment on the possibility of Baby Hitler making edits here.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On a related note, if anyone feels like lending a hand at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or taking a gander at TS's list of recent changes related to articles under climate change probation, it would be greatly appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    are you saying I should post it there? I think you're right, those admins would be much more receptive at stopping the vandalism. -- 32.175.137.149 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have credible evidence that an account is being controlled by Scibaby, please post to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby; skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is one of the hallmarks of that particular sockmaster, but is not in itself reason to bring an accusation. If you have a suggestion for a better way to manage the disruption than the current method of scanning the recent contributions and applying Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore as indicated, that would be very welcome at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please do keep in mind, though, that that is a public page; if you have any ideas that might be twisted by a sockmaster in the service of disruption, please feel free to email me or one of the people active at the sockpuppet investigations page. You might also want to consider the benefits of creating an account. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone considered that this could be an agent provocateur who is trying to make the mainstream editors look bad by making this absurd proposal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GiacomoReturned

    • I don't often mess with things like this, but even I can see that the claimed "attack" is so mild as to be ignorable and further discussion will only cause problems. TNXMan 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In relation to the aritcle Blenheim Palace, GiacomoReturned has been making numerous personal attacks, particularly on the talk page (Examples: [101] [102]). I am not looking to get involved in any further conflict regarding the article and am now limiting myself to a support function to avoid such, but the user's uncivil attacks do not stop. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for crying out loud. "I suggest you see an optician" is not a personal insult. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, isn't "questioning someone's eyesight" listed as a sufficient basis for an indef in the new Civilty Blocks proposal? ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe if people stop baiting him by being idiots. How else should he respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If we are going to complain about a user on the noticeboard there's something else we are supposed to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Labattblueboy. 1- Have the common decency and courtesy to notify Giano (GiacomoReturned) of this thread per the instructions at the top of the page. 2- Use diffs that don't mean we have to scroll down the whole page (like this [103] if it helps. 3-, what admin action are you after? Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified him in the most accurate manner. -- 32.175.156.35 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made."[104] Gee, that's a great way of dealing with a complaint about incivility.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am honestly not trying to cause any further trouble. I am, very humbly, seeking help or suggestions because the current process is none too fun. I am fully prepared to accept and acknowledge some of my actions were poorly thoughtout. I was just looking for some help. I was not seeking or even suggesting a punishment mechanism, I was looking for some aid in conflict resolution. I'm sorry for having disturbed you, please consider the matter closed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be aware that, no matter what Giano does, nobody here will do anything about it. He's protected. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TBSDY's Wikihounding of Giano

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

    Tbsdy, I won't repeat that I was delighted to see you back, since, sadly, it obviously doesn't gratify you in the least. :-( That being so, all I have to say is that where Giano is concerned, you seem ignorant of WP:HOUND and devoid of common sense. You post two ANI threads[105] [106] and an Mfd [107][108]), all in two days, all attacking Giano. You go around the site calling him "a nasty piece of work and a corrosive influence on wikipedia".[109] ("I'm sorry if that's considered a personal attack, but it's just true.") It's like you're trying for drama—perhaps trying to get yourself blocked, so you can claim, grotesquely, that everybody except you is "intimidated" by Giano.. ? And then today you intervene at Blenheim Palace, a page that Giano is currently working on.[110] You claim a surprising new interest in the subject, and seem determined to prevent him from working: "I think this is going to be pretty interesting, as I love learning about new things." Please read WP:HOUND, and then please stop obsessing about Giano. Your assurances that all you want is to "disengage" have taken on a hollow sound. Please stop saying you will, and start doing it. No matter how much you resent an editor, you still aren't supposed to hound and harass them. Is this principle new since your wikibreak, or something... ? Give it a rest. A long one. Please. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    The constant defense of Giano is one thing, but do we really have to take a pound of flesh from anyone who attempts to hold him accountable for his actions? Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [Sigh]. Really, this horse is dead.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm very disappointed in you, Chillum. Tbsdy has been away, and seems to have been doing some forgetting; but you ought to know better than to pile on when people (yes, even people you don't like) are being hounded. As for you, Doc, I expected better than clichés from you. Take a genuine look at tbsdy's horse and you'll see it's immortal. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Please chill out, its not a big deal. Can we just move on? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please. We would have been spared all of this had not Bishonen mistakenthis page for Tbsdy's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need for any concerns here. I have everything under control and running very smoothly. Some things are best dealt with - my way. Just carry on with whatever it was you were all doing.  Giano  00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User creates a new account and tells us its password

    CoolMatt18 writes here that he's creating a new account, Funny110, for the banned user ScienceGolfFanatic to use, and writes the password to that account on that page. Funny110 does exist and has edited today. His edits were to User talk:FuckSeasickness, who has been blocked, but only for his username. I think all four of these accounts should be looked at, perhaps by a checkuser, to see if any of them is ScienceGolfFanatic or some other user who knows him. I haven't attempted to log in to the Funny110 account; I imagine whoever is using it, whether it's SGF or just someone else who saw the page, probably was smart enough to change the password. —Soap— 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All blocked now, along with some more. Thanks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Master133

    I'm having problems with Master133 (talk · contribs), who has been dumping links in the articles Jane Beale and Laurie Brett (both are semi-protected) and then logging out and asking on the talk pages that we "fix the link", but then removing the request once it has been signed by a bot (example). I've asked the user several times to stop doing this and to use the account on talk pages but they seem unable. The two pages were originally semi-protected to stop the user (who I don't think had an account at the time) from adding requests to the articles instead of the talk pages, but it became clear that it was the same user when another request was added to the article ([111]). I'm just not sure how to handle it and it's very frustrating. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon review of Master133's editing history I note both that they are primarily interested in the Laurie Brett (and the character portrayed by her) article, and they have a been a contentious contributor from the start. Since they have not improved their editing manner in the year they have been active I concluded they have no intention to do so - so I have blocked them indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:James dalton bell revisited

    Over the last day or two, a number of edits have been made to Talk:Jim Bell by IP addresses. While they initially presented a claim that certain information in the article was wrong, they never presented a link to verify the claims. Instead, they quickly turned into the kind of talk page posts that lead to James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) getting blocked.

    I hate protecting talk pages; however, I'm wondering if temporarily protecting Talk:Jim Bell isn't one solution that should be used to dissuade this user. Alternatively, is it time to just ban this user, so that further outbreaks can be dealt with along the lines that his conduct has been discussed openly in the community and his conduct—and him, as a result—is not welcome at Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The quickest way would be for a semiprotection of the talkpage, perhaps initially for a couple of weeks. I see the two ip's (I am assuming that the ones starting 71.XXX are the same individual} concerned are the only two this year, so sprotection would not create too much disruption. Another way would be to raise an SPI report, and see if there is a small range of ip's that could be blocked. That might result in the disruption not being transferred to another page, and could be of a longer duration than a sprotect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    71.36.112.0/20 now blocked 2 weeks. 97.120.244.0/22 has now been expanded to 97.120.240.0/20 and blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    HalfShadow

    Resolved
     – Plaxicos all around! HalfShadow 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user and administrator HalfShadow made a personal attack by calling another user "stupid" on my talk page (you can still see it). I don't think it was appropriate or mature. So, I think something needs to be done about that user.

    YourBrain (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh good. My daily dose of humor. Take it away, gentlemen and ladies. HalfShadow 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    YourBrain, would you care to comment upon whether your underlying ip would geolocate to Texas, USA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, I just thought of something...If I'm an admin because someone thinks I am, does that mean I can ban people? HalfShadow 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Bish, I think this deserves a nomination formalize his adminhood. Do you want to do the honors, or should I? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. YourBrain (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking whether you would confirm, or deny, or choose not to comment whether you are located in Texas, USA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your query at my talkpage, I am seeing if you share the same geographical location to the two ip's that chose to comment on the same issues - and draw the remark you have complained of - on your talkpage. In short, I want to know what possibility there is that you and the ip's are the same person and that you are trolling the Admin Boards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked for abusing multiple accounts, along with his sock DepressionHurts (talk · contribs). --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked HalfShadow for twelve hours. Disruptive editing. Pointless valueless edits. Any admin may revert without request to me as I'm going to bed soon, but this crap needs to stop. If you add value to WP then IAR applies. If not then, well, .... Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we're going by the diff you cited someone needs to unblock doubletime. If someone wants to articulate a real block reason then that should be provided promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked per WP:PEDRO-IS-A-SANCTIMONIOUS-TWAT-WHO-NEEDS-T-TAKE-HIS-OWN-ADVICE. My block was , well, wrong. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous disruptive user

    Lately, an anonymous user has been disrupting editing in Moon (film). This user insists in questioning the mention of the translation of a Korean word seen in the film. This information had already been discussed by several editors here and its mention had been agreed on. Now this editor comes up and decides to remove the information (diff here). Following WP:BRD, I revert him and start this discussion. The editor replies, immediately reverting to his own version (diff here), somehow suggesting that the word may not be what it's said to be, first arguing "sarang" might be an acronym. I proceed to expose a screenshot of the word written in Korean alphabet, thus ruling out the acronym theory, but then the editor goes on to fabricate an argument about the film writers probably using the word referring to something else, but failing to explain how a given word in a known language could get another meaning, or what those other meanings could possibly be. The discussion continues, with the editor insisting in keeping his version of the article, reverting two more times (here and here), claiming violation of a consensus of which only him is a part. It should be noted that it's unclear why an editor that apparently has a relatively good knowledge of the rules (as seen in the talk) insists in posting and even edit warring anonymously. It should also be noted that the author has changed his IP, first using 65.41.234.70, and later 71.77.21.198. --uKER (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably be best (or at least easiest) to ask for a semi-protect of the page. HalfShadow 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought of it, but wasn't sure if it would be appropriate. Just did it though. Thanks for the advice. --uKER (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone reads the discussion on the talk page, it is evident that no one is being disruptive. I have merely sought consensus to resolve a content dispute. The content dispute does not concern how "sarang" should be translated from Korean. The issue is whether the screenwriters intended for the use of the word "sarang" in a work of fiction refers to the Korean meaning of "love" or numerous other possibilities that can exist in fiction. I simply offered some other potential explanations, for example "sarang" could be an acronym that has nothing to do with "love"; "sarang" could refer to some future scientific project that has nothing to do with "love"; the possibilities could be endless. To arbitrarily decide that "sarang" could only refer to "love" in a work of science fiction simply because that's the way UKER sees it is utterly POV. If the Korean translation is allowed in the plot summary, then there could dozens or hundreds of other potential meanings of the word placed in the plot summary, none of which could actually relate to the film. I have repeatedly asked UKER to provide evidence that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love". UKER has not once responded to this issue, which in my opinion, is the core issue in the content dispute. I have never disputed the translation from the Korean word despite the implication UKER has tried to present here. My dispute is whether the screenwriters intended that meaning in the film, and UKER has completely ignored that issue. UKER has repeatedly used subterfuge to skirt the real issue. He has claimed that it is my responsibility to provide a reliable source that the screenwriters did not intend the Korean meaning of the word, when in fact WP:BURDEN clearly indicates that UKER, who wants to restore the disputed content, must provide sufficient evidence for doing so. He has argued that translation of a word from Korean to English does not require a source or consensus, when that issue is completely irrelevant to the actual dispute: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", not what the Korean translation of the word is. UKER also does not seem to understand the consensus process. It appears to me that UKER thinks that when no consensus exists (as is the case right now because only UKER and I made comments at Talk:Moon (film)#Meaning of sarang?), the default decision should be in his favor.

    My opinion is that UKER decided to begin this discussion here for three reasons: First, he realized that he could not provide a source for his interpretation of what the screenwriters intended and sought to stir up some trouble for me. Secondly, I had cautioned him that if he continued to edit war and ignore the consensus process, I might refer the matter here, so he decided to pre-empt me to give the impression that I am being disruptive. And third, I believe he hoped the page would be semi-protected so that he could then edit the article and I could not.
    Two more points: First, UKER may be trying to give the impression that I am using multiple IP accounts to engage in some inappropriate behavior. I have never stated or even remotely implied that I am more than one editor, regardless of IP. My IP address changes sometimes beyond my control. Second, UKER's false accusation that I have been disruptive should be pointed out to him. Seeking consensus in a content dispute is not being disruptive; it's the way things are (and should be) done on Wikipedia. Note also that in his request for page protection (and I don't oppose full page protection), UKER gave the reason as "vandalism". Falsely accusing me of disruptive behavior and vandalism is entirely inappropriate. I also would point out that on the article's talk page, UKER has referred to cautions about not edit warring and violating consensus as "childish". That apparently seems to be his opinion of the way Wikipedia works, at least in this case.

    I am simply trying to let the consensus process play itself out as it is supposed to according to Wikipedia's policies and procedures. UKER seems to prefer doing things his way rather than waiting for consensus, and to try to silence me he seems to be making false accusations about me, or at least implying such false conclusions about my edits. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. You're wrong on the burden. A Korean word is seen in the movie and we're providing a translation. I remind you once again that movie writers don't decide what words mean. As I said, even if the movie writers named the base after a club they liked to go to, the word still means what it means and I don't have to provide a source for that. It is you who has to provide a valid reason for having a problem with it.
    2. It was you who disregarded the WP:BRD cycle. You boldly edited the article, I reverted you and started a discussion, but you dedided to have it your way and revert me back again, which was the first violation of the rules to happen in this incident.
    3. There's no consensus backing you. As I showed, everyone editing the article was happy with the mention of the Korean translation (the word is written in Korean and Korean is spoken in the movie), until you show up and somehow claim consensus is on your side. Now would you care to show us who comprises that consensus please? --uKER (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. You're wrong on the burden. If the screenwriters did not intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", then the Korean translation does not belong in the article, just as the hundreds of other possible meanings in a fictional setting don't need to be discussed. And you wish to restore the information. Read WP:BURDEN (which I've asked you to do several times): "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
    2. You also reverted me more than once. Neither of us violated BRD. Do you know what the "D" in BRD means? I have discussed, and discussed, and discussed. Do you think that because you started the discussion that I am automatically guilty of violating BRD? You really seem to have a very unusual interpretation of several policies, including BRD, consensus, and vandalism. I am simply seeking consensus. You're the one refusing to address the fundamental dispute here: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love". This is never indicated in the film, and you have repeatedly refused to even address the question, much less provide evidence for it.
    3. Nor is there a consensus backing your position. You have no idea what "everyone editing the article" thought of what "sarang" should mean. Just because a hundred other editors of the article didn't remove it doesn't mean they support you. They may have had no opinion whatsoever. And please stop making false statements about me. I have NEVER "claimed consensus" on my side. I have repeatedly said there is no consensus. I even said it immediately prior to your comment above. You apparently do not read my comments, or you don't understand them, or you don't want to understand them (I have no idea which it is).

    I also demand an answer from you as to why you think you could accuse me of disruptive behavior and vandalism. How is seeking consensus and discussing on a talk page disruptive behavior and vandalism? And please don't deny it. "Disruptive user" is the heading of this section, and you used "vandalism" in the request for page protection. Please defend these accusations. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone may have finally done UKER's research for him. See Talk:Moon (film)#Huffington Post interview. If the information is cited and worded properly, I will not have any problem with adding the sourced information. But I still insist that someone should address UKER's false accusations of disruptive editing and vandalism. And I say that not just for my benefit; if he treats all contents disputes with false accusations, someone needs to put a stop to it. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a word for this....

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Tedder

    Zengar Zombolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted a 3RR warning from Tim Vickers with the charming edit summary Autistic trolls are the worst trolls. In his previous incarnation as User:Yzak Jule he was also a charming chap. I'm sure there's a shorter word than "anti-people with learning difficulties" for this behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: the remark seems to be directed at Steve Baker who does in fact describe himself as on the autism spectrum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears ZZ's been blocked for two weeks. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tedder blocked him before I could put a notice about this discussion - but I think enough other folks had said stuff to him on his talk page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I extended to indef block, based on their 'retirement' message and edit summary. Fences&Windows 05:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Fences...I just noticed this post and was quite P.O.'d at the autistic comments (and I have a form of Autism)...so tired of people bad-mouthing people with Autism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban if possible

    Unresolved
     – Re-opening for more comment Franamax (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If possible ..we have tried to talk to her..but my guess is young and just wont wait or listen -->User:Caro 08 ..Edit Counter ..contributions ..User talk:Caro 08.... Olympic games starting and i would guess hug hit count for the article Canada history.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you sum up what exactly the problem is? We're not going to go searching through contribs for you. Equazcion (talk) 00:47, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Ok she keeps adding lots of photos to the Canada article --> [112] We have asked her to stop many time but she just wont!! see here -->Talk:Canada#Images and User talk:Caro 08...she will not stop see ->Canada page history three of us are about to revert for the third time in 3 hours let alone the past few days...Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have formed an intention to block on this, repeated reinsertion of a group of images against consensus on a high-profile article. Topic ban will be fine too. (Will inform the user directly just now) Franamax (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching her edits, and can't figure out exactly what she's doing now. She's placing and removing large chunks of code. She needs to come here and explain what she's doing and why she isn't listening to anyone, or else yeah, she should probably be blocked. Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    The long diffs where nothing at all seemed to change were confusing, yes. When are those MediaWiki dudes gonna get the software finished? :) Franamax (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Caro 08 has been blocked for 72 hours by User:Canterbury Tail. Equazcion (talk) 01:46, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    I blocked them for blatant 3RR violation, despite them having been warned and blocked for it before, and reverting on no less than four occasions in the last 24 hours. However saying that, I wonder if this user may just benefit from some talk on discussion pages, in which case feel free to unblock if they seem responsive to talk. Canterbury Tail talk 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a big leap and unblocked the user based on a short comment promising better behaviour. Only time will tell if I was wrong to do so, but usually it doesn't take a whole lot of time to find out... Franamax (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is perfectly fine with me. Lets see how it goes. Canterbury Tail talk 04:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that didn't take long at all! :) They went back to the same behaviour so I've reinstated the three-day block. Oh well, it was worth a try. Franamax (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the user is changing other users comments in an attempt to show that their edits are acceptable. I have a feeling this one may be a lost cause. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be in favor of an indef, based on this. Very much not cool. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I'm thinking indef now too, ballot-box stuffing [113] [114] doesn't go down well with me. I unblocked (in silly 'ol good faith, like everyone who's tried to help this editor) on the condition that they get approval for their proposed edit. I checked in the morning and they didn't have it, then in the space of my two coffees consensus magically appeared! Looking through article history of Canada, their edits also seem to be removing big chunks of text in random places. The choices would be keep the current 3-day tariff, extend to two weeks for the talk-page vandalism, or indef block. I'm wondering if there's a maturity issue here and reviewing their whole history, skill-and-ability is rather questionable too. Mostly I wouldn't necessarily trust their editing on articles just now, and neither talk pages. Thanks to Jeff3000 for the spot of the talk-page vandalism! Franamax (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so concerned about skill/ability. That's a common annoyance that we don't usually block for, except in the most extreme circumstances. Malice of forethought, though, is another deal entirely. As I said on her tak page, this isn't the kind of thing that a block should simply expire for, even after a relatively long period. She should need to explain herself and provide assurances before she can edit again, hence my indef suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 21:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah for sure, fixing other people's stuff is part of editing. But you've looked at the diff's on Canada, how well did you piece together what's going on? If you go down a long way, there are paragraphs missing. Either they have some weird browser setting that injects whitespace at paragraph breaks that confuses the diff parser or they are very skilled indeed. How can you help someone when you can't even review their diffs? Either way, article damage seems to be happening. Franamax (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside View?

    Per a report made here I warned both users, as they have both been involved in an Edit War at Adi_Da. It appears that Tao2911 has tried to "own" the article in an essence. He has since replied on my talk page to maintain his innocence. Can someone please either tell me if I am wrong and he hasn't done anything wrong, or confirm that he is in fact in the wrong and let him know. IMO he is edit warring, and either the article needs to be protected, or both users edit warring need to be blocked. DustiSPEAK!! 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If at all possible, it is certainly okay with me if all comments are made on my talk page, to centralize the discussion and a link, once resolved, can be made here. If this isn't okay, I understand, just a suggestion. DustiSPEAK!! 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One simply has to look in the "History" to see who owns this article. I offered my comments on your talk page, although I am not sure how "outside" my view is, given that I am an editor of this page. But thought I'd say something anyways.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I greatly disagree with this characterization, and find the tone of this statement untoward. I did not say I 'haven't done anything wrong." I explained the situation from my standpoint. I am not 'wrong' in the matter of reverting David dStarr's edits, because that is not what I have done. I changed some of his edits to more suitable versions, left some of his edits alone, and made edits of my own in passages to address his concerns. I did not once hit the 'undo' button - as he did 5 or 6 times just tonight, and not for the first time, without explanation in talk or addressing my stated concerns in talk or edit tabs. Again, the tone of this reviewer is not wholly reasonable, balanced, or fair.Tao2911 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not agree with Tao2911's account above. I apologize for my part in the edit war, I only did it as a last resort. A week ago I tried to do some NPOV edits to the Adi Da page and was reverted by Tao2911 and accused of vandalism [[115]]. So I didn't edit war with him and spent the week on the talk page. During that time I went over in detail my concerns, and I endured many uncivil remarks and a wall of text from Tao2911 with no resolution. Meanwhile, Tao2911 continues to edit the page making over 130 edits [[116]]. So today I tried to add balance with well sourced material to one paragraph and added 2 inline warnings for POV, and included discussion, which the other editors agreed with [[117]], but still I am reverted again. Out of desperation I undid those reversions. I warned Tao 2911 on his talk page and reported to 3rr. After a week of trying, I have yet to be able to edit at this page. Relevant well sourced POV's are being kept out of the article and I am concerned about the bias that this creates. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that you are both at fault here. For instance, take the following edit - the text "public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies and other intensified sexual practices" (which is referenced) has been changed to "experimentation". That's not neutral, that's a whitewash. However, the text "Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged" has been changed to "Drug and alcohol use were often used", now so long as this is backed by the source that seems like a reasonable change, as is the addition to the reasoning behind the acts by Adi Da.
    Certainly Tao2911 is warned not to use an edit summary that reads "reverted changes - edits retaliatory and disputed. Vandalism. See talk." There was absolutely no need for this in the edit summary, and indeed that is a categorical misuse and not conducive to harmonious editing. Don't do that again please, that is not acceptable. I also don't think it's appropriate to remove the {{who}} tag without noting things like who critics are, even if they are in the reference material as this is not neutral. You must note who it was that made the criticism - I'm assuming this is in the sources cited so I would suggest that you mention who they were, or if the source itself is vague then say something like "such and such a source says that there were many critics of Adi Da".
    This is definitely a content issue, however, and so I would suggest hashing it out further on the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. FYI I only removed detail about sexual events because balancing detail about what same source said about spiritual happenings during that time are being removed. [[118]] In my opinion, without the full picture of what the source said, it's a black-wash. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Travisharlem on Mel Gibson

    Resolved
     – Statement has been reworded to address BLP concerns, and revert war is hopefully over. Remaining content dispute belongs on the article talk page, so take it there. Equazcion (talk) 04:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    This editor added content with the edit summary of "drinking problems update" on February 5 that said "On February 2, 2010, Mel Gibson curses at Chicago reporter Dean Richards during an interview. The incident happened after he was questioned about his addiction to alcohol." In fact, the source said "Dean Richards, an entertainment reporter for Chicago's WGN-TV interviewed the actor (promoting his new film Edge of Darkness) via satellite on Wednesday. The exchange turned sour (around the 2:15 mark in the clip) when Richards asked the following: "Do you think the public will perceive you any differently after all that's been in the news about you?" (Gibson, 54, was arrested in 2006 for DUI -- an incident notorious for the actor's anti-semitic tirade.) "That's almost four years ago, dude," Gibson snaps after an uncomfortable silence. "I've done all the necessary mea culpas. Let's move on." Nervous, Richards then wraps up the interview. But before Gibson's satellite feed goes off, the star quips, "bye bye," muttering "a**hole" under his breath." I reverted this for several reasons: 1) He did not "curse" him, he called him an asshole; 2) It was not during an interview, it was afterward and 3) the content addition misrepresents the question asked, which was not about "addiction to alcohol" but a question about public perceptions. All in all, the content addition skewed the report to misrepresent the event entirely and in a way that violates WP:BLP. Travisharlem reverted the removal calling it "Reverting possible vandalism." I again removed it, stating "not vandalism - this is not encyclopedic content - he *curses* at a reporter? So what?" Travisharlem once again returned it, again calling it "Reverting possible vandalism." At that time, I approached the editor here, pointed out that the content was less than notable and encyclopedic and outlined how what he wrote misrepresented the content in the source. He was further warned by another editor that his actions constituted a violation of WP:3RR here. Travisharlem did not reply, although he saw the posts since he removed them from his talk page here. He instead again returned it as "reverting possible vandalism" here. At that time, I again approached this editor here, again explained how his content addition was inappropriate and misrepresented the source and violated WP:BLP and told him that if it was returned, I'd take appropriate steps. Tonight, the editor again returned the content and called it "reverting possible vandalism". It is far beyond time for this reverting to stop and this WP:BLP-violating content to cease being added, since it is not at all what the magazine article says, effectively violates WP:3RR in intent if not time frame (a period of days instead of 24 hours), and it does not appear that Travisharlem is interested in discussing this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've re-added the incident to the article, but I've reworded it to be more accurate. These straight reverts are often not helpful. The incident did occur and is properly sourced, but the wording represented an inaccurate depiction. In such future instances, simply edit the statement to fix the problems you see, rather than reverting entirely. Equazcion (talk) 03:44, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    You may feel that it's worth mentioning, and I disagree. I think the issue is not how it's mentioned, but that it does not need to be mentioned at all. Just because it happened and just because it's sourced, does not make it "encyclopedic" in content. The mere mention of such a minor event places undue emphasis on it, and in the overall context of Gibson's life and career it's about as trivial as the cup of coffee he was drinking during the interview. His other controversies are mentioned because they've triggered wide discussion and condemnation in the media. This is a minor event where he mutters the word "asshole" under his breath at the end of an interview. This incident is a minor event that has not been widely reported by the media and I don't see why it is of interest here. So it's not just a case of rewriting the information to make the presentation of it fit our policies. If the editor believes it should not be included at all, which is also my belief, that's a completely different issue. Having said that, the editor that keeps incorrectly using the word "vandalism" needs to read our policies on that so that at least he/she knows how to tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute. Rossrs (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true. I'm making no statement as to whether or not the incident is worth mentioning in the article. However, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. The incident made its way to ANI due to 3RR and "vandalism" summaries, which grew out of the way the original addition was handled. Now that the OP's rationale for bringing the incident here have been taken care of, the issue of whether the incident belongs in the article can be discussed on the talk page. I have no opinion one way or the other on that as of now, and it's not a discussion for ANI anyway. Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a joke, right? This is a bio about Gibson, not a blog. This is such a minor event. WP:RECENTISM? Would it be remembered in 10 years? I doubt it will be remembered in 10 weeks. Or better yet, WP:UNDUE. Placing any weight on this as a significant or notable event in his life or career is ridiculous. If he'd slugged the guy and been charged with something, that would be notable. This is nothing.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone has sound capabilities on their computer to listen to a video. Rossrs stated that one cannot even hear the word "asshole" on the video. If the written story is accurate, it does not say that the question asked was about anti-semiticism, nor does it say it was about "drinking problems". This incident did not seem to me to be notable enough to include a mention, basically giving a relatively minor incident undue weight, and since it was presented in a way that violates WP:BLP, I am not inclined to return the content properly edited. It is merely a bump in the road that does not in any way add to the article or effect Gibson's notability and given that I cannot hear the clip have to wonder why it is included in the section on Alcohol Abuse, if indeed the words or subject of anti-semiticism was brought up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it to Talk:Mel Gibson#Feb 2 "asshole" incident. As far as ANI goes, this incident is resolved, for now. Content questions go on the article talk page. Equazcion (talk) 04:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but this isn't resolved. Actually, the reason why I brought this here was not to debate the content merits at all, but because the original content poster, Travisharlem, has continued to return this content, calling any removal of it vandalism, and returns the same WP:BLP-violating format, regardless that the problems are not addressed. He was approached about this and blew that off. This isn't the first time someone has addressed content reversion while calling it vandalism with him. See his talk page. That is the reason I brought this here, not to debate the merits of undue weight, which I do feel apply here. Travisharlem doesn't seem to care about that or wants to get it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing in the article history that any effort was made at compromise wording before. The paragraph had only been removed completely. Now that the paragraph has been restored with alternate wording, the reverting seems to have stopped for the time being, and a discussion is taking place on the talk page, I think we should see where it goes and hope that it is indeed resolved. I've warned Travisharlem about his use of the term "vandalism". Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume there will be more trouble. The incident can always be returned here if it does flair up again. Equazcion (talk) 05:05, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • There shouldn't be "compromise wording". This is an extremely minor incident that doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography. AGF isn't a suicide pact. This is a blatant WP:COATRACK and this non-incident is being given undue weight by even being mentioned.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a good argument... to make on the article talk page :) Equazcion (talk) 05:18, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • I already did. But I think this was marked resolved a bit quick. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All the aspects of this incident that relate to ANI have been resolved, at least for now. Your remaining complaint is about content, which doesn't belong here, and is the subject of ongoing discussion already at the article talk page. If there's something other than the content issue that you feel hasn't been adequately addressed yet, please say what it is. Equazcion (talk) 05:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    My remaining complaint is that Travisharlem continues to return the content regardless of explaining to him that removing was not vandalism and was given an explanation of why it was biased. It is about his acknowledgement of both the notice that his contribution did not reflect the source, was worded in a biased manner and he was warned by another editor that his conduct violated 3RR in spirit, if not in time frame. His pattern is not to come back within an hour to revert, so no, he hasn't done this yet. He tends to do this every day or so. This is not about article content, it is about that editor's behavior regarding the content. I didn't bring it here to complain about the addition itself, but about this editor's conduct in regard to it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's wait and see if he does continue. I'll leave a note on his talk page reminding him that there's a discussion on the talk page now that he should contribute to, if he still feels inclined, rather than revert again. Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    Persistent, disruptive, address hopping IP

    For the past several months an anonymous IP from the 117.x.x.x range has been edit-warring at Life After People: The Series. Life After People is a documentary series that makes predictions about what would happen to the world if all of the people disappeared suddenly. These predictions occur over a 100 million year timeframe and the same periods are often addressed in several episode. To "compensate" for this, a prediction timetable has been included in the article. Over time, this timetable expanded until the it reached a rather unwieldy size (68% of the article).[119] Essentially the timetable became an overly detailed, chronologically sorted plot synopsis of every episode combined into one table. Imagine chronically arranging all of the events from Lost from the 1970s until the present time and you have what has happened at Life After People: The Series. This article and Life After People are the subjects of an open merge proposal which has received no opposition. Looking to the merge, with agreement by another editor, I have split the episodes into a separate article and pruned the prediction timetable, leaving only the more globally notable and significant events, as well as some of the lesser events used to establish a timeline. This has reduced the size of the timetable by 65%. The problem that now exists is that the anonymous IP keeps reverting the table to a former version, expanding it as he/she does,[120] so that it contains absolutely every prediction made over the course of the series in considerably more detail than is necessary, for example "In Vatican City, at St. Peter's Basilica a black cats roam freely without fear of being killed as pests." Any corrections or expansions of the table by other editors are lost in the process.[121] The IP also adds a "Featured countries" section that has no encyclopaedic value. It is simply a flagcruft list of every country that has ever been mentioned in the series.[122] Together the timetable and featured countries list represents over 85% of the article. The IP does not discuss any of the changes made on the talk page and does not use edit summaries. It uses a different address for nearly every edit, even when edits are only minutes apart.[123][124] In 99 edits (as of now), 36 discrete IP addresses have been used in the 117.0.x.x and 117.1.x.x ranges.[125] The IP has not responded to any warnings on his or her talk pages. Temporary page protection has not discouraged this IP from vandalising Life After People: The Series once the protection is removed. The IP has also been active at Life After People, although far fewer edits have been made there. When Life After People: The Series is finally merged to Life After People I have no doubt that the disruptive editing will increase there. Surely, given the number of disruptive edits and the limited IP range used, a range block should be considered at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, the page could just be semi-protected to prevent IPs from editing the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely a possibility but it's really only a stopgap measure. It requires constantly going back to WP:RFPP, having to tolerate the vandalism between the time the IP decides to vandalise again and when the protection is applied, and penalising legitimate IP users while the block is in place. The editor in question uses static IP addresses originating from Vietnam.[126] That the addresses are static and yet he/she has managed to use 36 different addresses in the pool is interesting in itself. It implies that the editor must be a staff member of the ISP. The question to ask here is, what would we do if a registered user vandalised 36 times? They'd certainly be blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I would prefer an edit filter over a range block, as that way we could essentially block this (rather large) range from a single article instead of everything. The filter would be trivial to craft. Right now I don't really have an opinion on the topic of edit filter vs. protection. Both are reasonable solutions, though the edit filter is strapped for conditions lately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so I was browsing through random pages, and I noticed a spam link for British Dyslexics in the Nationalism article. Tried removing it but what puzzles me is that the link doesn't show up on the edit page! Was it an exploit by spammers to inject junk on articles unnoticed? For now I intentionally blanked the affected section, trying to root it out until some of us can come up with solutions. Also, it seems as though that the nofollow protection was also broken due to this, as I observed when I did a Google search on the spamsite. Never mind, it was a template I didn't notice; however, the nofollow protection was still broken due to this. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factsstraight

    Would somebody review the contributions of Factsstraight (talk · contribs)? There's something suspicious here, staring with the username itself which is almost the same as FactsStraight (talk · contribs). The former is undoing a lot of the latter's edits. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FactStraight is actually the one being undone, not user:FactsStraight. Equazcion (talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Oops, sorry 'bout that. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    require admin to close AfD

    Resolved
     – AfD closed as delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MondayMEDIA has gone over 7 days. without contacting any specific admin, can an admin please close this. thanks LibStar (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Most AfD's run for at least seven days, however, there are times when the number of participants at the end of the standard week long AfD is not adequate to judge consensus; in this case, the editor User:Tim Song extended the time limit to allow more users to chime in. Right now, there appears to be a general consensus to delete the article as failing to meet WP:CORP. I wouldn't expect the article to last much longer. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A problem with another user

    Resolved

    Thank you again for taking the time to look over a matter i posted here.Buzzzsherman (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Moved from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A problem with another user ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC) NXWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)..has vandalized my user page,[1] edited my words on his talkpage to make me look bad [2] and I don't want to get banned for breaking 3RR on his edits. What should I do? The Improver (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Post-edit: How do I make cite notes work, by the way? It's not appearing at the bottom. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Improver (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved this here because of odd behavior i am seeing -->User contributions i think this guy might have many accounts..he seams to make accounts to spam people!! i am seeing this wrong ??? hes also deleting things he should not be like this ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are. What do you mean by spam? I have had conflicts with The Improver, I'll admit to, but I have not spammed or made multiple accounts.nxWAVE. (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that is why i brought this here..since you deleted it in the last place..i am not sure what your doing thats y i am asking admin for advice! You have had just over 20 edits and i see this as your pattern so far.. [127] [128] [129] [130].......Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted it because it was an attempt to inflame me. I understand it was probably not a good idea, but it was a heat of the moment response. nxWAVE. (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was hoping this would be gone by the time I came back. Darn. Well, anywya, let us not forget that deleting things is not his only wrongdoing. See my comment.The Improver (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to note that

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Editor not here to do anything constructive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New vandalism account-User:Byers 27

    User:Byers 27 created an account earlier and has done nothing but vandalize talk pages with it. [131], [132], [133], [134], [135] and vandalized one user page: [136]. Unless of course Will Smith is a government agent by night, then I owe him an apology. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Personal attack removed by —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!))

    Byers 27 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll look into this, I smell JI Hawkins here... —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, it's Hawkins. Contacting filter manager; user is blocked now. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Filter adapted accordingly. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't even need to look at that diff. I'm not saying what in the other diffs or in his edit history tipped me off, but I'm dead-certain this is him. I'm still waiting for a CU to run the LAST one I reported three days ago. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Benigno Aquino III.

    This page was formerly at Noynoy Aquino. Then Abfall-Reiniger moved it to the very badly named Benigno Aquino III. Yes, with the period at the end, since apparently, this can't be moved to Benigno Aquino III. I reverted the move earlier this week, and there was an ongoing discussion at the talk page of the article. Then Abfall-Reiniger moved it back to the very badly named current article title with the period at the end.

    I'm asking for an admin to move it back either to Noynoy Aquino or Benigno Aquino III without the period at the end to get rid of the nasty period, then let the discussion run its course before it is permanently moved to any article name that will be decided upon. –Howard the Duck 11:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't that already moved back to Noynoy? Or am I dreaming? -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is even more screwed up, it seems. The talk page is at Talk:Benigno Aquino III. with the period at the end. An admin should move it back to Noynoy or Benigno w/o the period at the end, just make it the same with article name. –Howard the Duck 11:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Both the article and the talk page are now back together at Noynoy Aquino and Talk:Noynoy Aquino. The redirects at Benigno Aquino III. and Talk:Benigno Aquino III. have been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was terrified when I saw that period at the end, and even more so when the article and its talk page didn't have the same title. –Howard the Duck 11:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bounty board template and article ownership

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

    Hi, it seems that the bounty board template is being removed for some reason from Talk:Blenheim Palace. Labattblueboy has offered a bounty of $50 to the WMF if the article can become an FA by 11 July 2010. I thought it was standard practice to allow this sort of template? Unitanode keeps removing it, and actually at one point removed the {{ArticleHistory}} template - see this diff. Jeni has reverted the removal, and so have I, but he keeps taking it off.

    Is there something I'm missing here? The edit summary is that the templates clutter up the talk page, but that sounds a bit odd to me. I'm not going to revert again, but it does look like there is some vandalism going on here... especially as the ArticleHistory template was removed at one point also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I messaged Unitanode directly, he now says the first template removal was a mistake. However, it seems a bit disruptive and out of order to remove the bounty notice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh stop. I explained at that talkpage that the "bounty" in this case was POINT-y, cluttered the talkpage, and seemed self-aggrandizing. I also explained that the removal of the FAC template was purely accidental. You should think two, three, or four times before implying that an experienced editor has vandalized, as you clearly did with your "it does look like there's some vandalism going on here" statement. You've been harassing and baiting Giano for days, and now you've turned your sights on me. Why drag this to ANI otherwise? I'm sick of this, and I'd ask someone to please call off Tbdsy. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not seem that way to me. The editor is genuinely interested in fixing the article. I don't believe there is anything in Labattblueboy's edit history that shows he is a disruptive editor or that he has ever been prone to self-aggrandizement, nor do I see what way he is disrupting anything to make a point. Could you explain further? Regardless of what you think about my efforts to edit that article, I fail to see what that has to do with the bounty that Labattblueboy posted.
    For the record, I have not been baiting Giano. Giano noted on another article that their was an edit war on the article in question, when I looked I didn't see a war but an ongoing discussion. When I started reading the article and the talk page, I became interested in the topic - certainly the politics of the building of the palace was fascinating. This could have something to do with the prose that is being used in the article. Anyway, it interested me and I'm always looking for a challenge so I have posted some comments on the talk page as to some of the issues that I see, and I've expressed my interest in doing some research about the topic so I can improve the article. Maybe I can get it to FA status, who knows? I'd like to try. Anyway, I don't believe I'm baiting Giano at all. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You knew damn well that weighing in against Giano in a discussion would at least be perceived by him as hounding him from page to page. Yet you did it anyway. The fact that you leave yourself plausible deniability makes it worse, in my view, and not better. As I said, someone please call of Tbdsy. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano noted the edit war in a conversation on a totally unrelated talk page in a thread I was actively involved in. He asked for admin input, and I am an admin so I reviewed the article and didn't see anything amiss. However, while I was trying to work out what the issue was, I became interested in the article. I don't believe this is hounding at all - I think this was covered previously on ANI and Giano archived the discussion himself, with a note that he doesn't believe that there is any action that needs taking on this matter.
    Anyhow, back to the issue at hand. You have accused another editor - Labattblueboy - of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing. That's a pretty serious charge - could you explain why you believe this? So far the comments have been directed at me, but I never added that bounty. In fact, when that bounty was added I didn't even know about the article! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have informed Labattblueboy that he is being discussed on this thread. Some fairly serious accusations have just been levelled at him, and I find it extraordinary that they have been made as there is nothing in that editors history that shows he would do any of the things he's been accused of, so I think he has the right to know about what is being said about him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be missing something but why is this here? Couldn't it have been discussed on you guys' talk pages? Equazcion (talk) 14:11, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, which was exactly my point. Tbdsy runs to ANI at the slightest notion. He's been harassing and baiting first Giano, and now me, for days. I for one am tired as hell of dealing with it. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also a serious charge - I've not been harassing you. The first time I sent you a talk page message was when you posted a talk page message to me, telling me off about moving a thread on Wikipedia:Incivility blocks, to which I responded. Surely you are not saying that I am harassing you when you messaged me?!? That seems a bit odd; you messaged me, I didn't message you! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh stop with your feigned "that's a serious charge" outrage. I warned you that moving other people's comments on a talkpage was out of line. At which point, you trained your sights on me. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight. You gave me a warning, and you now think that I'm harassing you because I responded? How is that harassment? Anyway, that's really beside the point. I never added that bounty template, indeed I'd never bumped into Labattblueboy before this time. Neither of us knew about each other's existence, so the bounty is not even related to me.
    Your stated reasons for removing the template now are:
    1. It "clutters" the talk page. I don't see how that can be, that's a perfectly acceptable template for talk page headers.
    2. The editor who added it is self-aggrandizing and was trying to disrupt the article to make a point. I also don't see any evidence that this is the case, certainly the editor's reputation and edit history seems fairly spotless to me. It seems unlikely that this is the reason he added the template.
    Given all these things, can you explain further why you believe that either of the reasons you have given are acceptable or reasonable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because removing the template is disruptive, and myself and Jeni readded it however Unitanode is constantly removing it. My understanding is that if someone posts a bounty, then a template noting this can be added to the talk page. Is there something I have missed? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you seem to have missed the existence of talk pages. If someone's being disruptive, the first thing you do is talk to them about it. You don't come to ANI first. Equazcion (talk) 14:22, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't. The reason you can't see the message on his talk page is because he's blanked it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, didn't notice that. That is a different story. Unitanode, you need to discuss disputed edits somewhere. Maybe this can be continued on Talk:Blenheim_Palace now? Equazcion (talk) 14:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I blanked it after he dragged me to ANI again. And there is discussion about it happening at the article talkpage. Tbsdy simply drags things here when he's trying to get people who disagree with him in trouble. It has to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. You are correct, there is a discussion on that talk page that I had already initiated. Your first removal of the template was at 11:46AM, however the thread was already there at this time. Your first comment on that thread was after you removed the template twice (here and here). Indeed, when I reverted you my own edit summary reads "There is a discussion thread here about why this is being removed. Perhaps you could comment there?". It is only after I used that summary that you added a note to the thread, with the edit summary "inane bounty".
    In other words, you removed the template before you saw the discussion. I know about the discussion on the talk page, because I was the one who initiated it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what there is to discuss though. Why do we need to discuss why a bounty template is added to an article talk page? I don't think the excuse that it "clutters" the talk page really cuts the mustard. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, no, it doesn't; but let's not oversimplify. "clutter" wasn't his only stated reason for removing the template. He though the editor who posted it was trying to make a point, too. Without knowing about the history of the situation I can't say if he's right, but it does appear to warrant some discussion. Equazcion (talk) 14:35, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Sure, let's discuss this. The editor who added the template is Labattblueboy, who basically got into a discussion with Giano. Giano told him that he wouldn't have any ability to edit the article, so the editor took this as a challenge and added the bounty. So there are two questions to be answered here:
    1. How is adding that bounty in any way disrupting the editing of that article?
    2. What possible motive could the editor have for giving the WMF money to improve the article. It seems like he was challenged and that challenge was accepted!
    That editor has also been accused of self-aggrandizement, however the one doing the self-aggrandizement was Giano who basically baited him with taunts and a somewhat arrogant attitude, which was that the editor would have no way of editing the article. As it so turns out, he was so belittled and intimidated that he has now withdrawn from the article. If you don't believe me, have a good read of the talk page.
    So I would appreciate it if someone could answer these things, because I don't think its fair that another editor can make slurs against another editor like this, especially when that editor is none of the things they are being accused of. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we take this to the talkpage please? Tbsdy is misusing this forum. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, take it to the article talk page. I'm gonna archive this. Equazcion (talk) 14:47, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • This is not resolved. I'm afraid that there is disruptive editing going on here, I would like to know why this is occuring and I would like some assurance from the editor that they will desist from this. It is not appropriate to archive this thread at this point in time. The talk page of that article is also not an appropriate forum to find out why another editor is slurring another editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only person "disrupting" here is you, Tbsdy, by starting pointless ANI threads when you should be making your case at the talkpage. At some point, you're probably going to get yourself blocked for disruption and harassment. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So let me get this straight. I am allegedly the only person who is being disruptive around this area and article. The bounty was offered by another editor who did not even know of my existence till I started adding comments to the talk page of Blenheim Palace. You have specifically accused them of violating WP:POINT, however you are now saying that I am the only disruptive editor on this article. Which is it please? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of evenings ago,having had my attention drawn to the page by tag teaming insertion fo an info box - against concencus) I announced I was about to commence a re-write of this page, I began it in mainspace: in the space of a few minutes I was constantly reverted by Labattblueboy (the offerer of this bounty) and then the "inuse tag" I had put on to prevent conflicts was repeatedly removed while I was in mid-edit. The resasons for the reversion given were that I was not following the MOS - a manual I know inside out and back to front. I then decided it would be prudent to follow my usual and undisputed practice or writing in user space. Now, it appears that others who have hitherto shown no interest in the subject too wish to re-write it, and I am challenged as a bet (I have declined) to make it a FA by a certain date - hence the "bounty thing" - I will work at my own pace. As the page has had no major alterations in the last 5 years (when I last wrote it) and one of those wishing to re-write is Ta-Bu-Sh-Da-Yu with who I have recently been in dispute, I consider this sudden interest to be nothing more than trolling - as is this bounty thing. Everyone knows that Ta-Bu has no interest in the subject so I will continue the re-write in user space, away from conflict, where most of my edits have always taken place and paste the new version in, when it is finished in my time!  Giano  15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not really assuming good faith. I think that it's unreasonable for you to be the sole editor of that article when others also wish to make contributions. I am genuinely interested in this article, and in fact next weekend (for that is the time it will have to be now) I will be doing some research at the library using a number of sources that are listed on that article. You have already expressed an unwillingness to collaborate with me (see Talk:Blenheim Palace#In reply to your kind offer for us to work together and merge our work), in fact I believe that you categorically informed me that if I did work on the article I would be blocked for vandalism, and that you will have no part in my changes and you will overwrite my edits as you see fit. I see this as unreasonable.
    With regards to the bounty, I don't see it as unreasonable to offer one. The offer, so far as I'm aware, is still open to any who wish to participate in it. The editor who offered it seemed quite enthusiastic to get the article to FA status, or at least make a good attempt at it. That editor has already provided two sources to the talk page, but due to feeling intimidated by various comments, made primarily by yourself, has now withdrawn from the article and the article talk page. You have been taunting them on their user talk page and on that article talk page. The evidence of taunting them on their talk page after they withdrew from the article is here, and the taunts made on the talk page of the article can be found here (edit summary is "Oh, I think you are far too modest - how can you say "limiting myself to a support function" that sounds like some form of surgical undergarment for a man with a strangulated testicle").
    So I don't think it right for you to say that I'm trolling or baiting you, or make the sort of accusations you are making against that other editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ta-Bu you are enough to try the patience of a saint and have done over the last few days. No one on Wikipedia would seriously expect me to entertain an architectural collaboration with you - Wetman, JC, Dr Kienan and one or two others - possibly I have done several very successful architectural collaborations - 3 of then are FAs - but with you? not in a month of Sundays. You know nothing of the subject, your recent comments show that you don't even understand the fundamentals of the period or style. Your persistant trolling is now getting beyond a joke. Perhaps we should ignore you, but others less intune with the situation may find you plausible - you are not.  Giano  15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way Giano. I have specifically not made any insulting remarks against you, nor have I tried to stop you from editing. I'm unsure why I would try the patience of a saint. However, to address your concerns - as I have stated, I am going to do some research on this article, and I will try to contribute what I can. I make no claims to be an expert, however I do understand that you are making such claims and you are prejudging me as being unable to add to the article in any way. You yourself believe yourself to be an expert, and therefore you feel that it is beneath you to allow any edits on the article by myself.
    Unfortunately, this is an argument to authority, with yourself as the authority. It seems to me that you are laying claim to this article as your very own and that you will not allow anyone else to edit it, or at least you will only be allowing a select few to contribute to the article. Certainly you have just now stated that you wish to exclude me from the article. This is against the article ownership policy. I would appreciate it if you would desist from making such claims, and from forbidding myself or anyone else from articles you are involved in. I realise that you edit in your own article space, and in fact I have done this same thing when I wrote about USA PATRIOT Act. However, if someone else edits the main article, then I'm afraid that you will need to work out how to incorporate your changes with their own, whether by discussion or modification of your own article text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you have not insulted me: and I should be happy to work with you. You go around the site calling me "a nasty piece of work and a corrosive influence on wikipedia".[137]. You are making a compete idiot of yourself. Ta-Bu I am writing the page, and when I have finished I shall paste it in. what you do then is up to you, but stupid and silly edits will be removed. Sensible one will be allowed to remain. Sorry, you don't like it, but that's the way it is. I am currently working on a large 3D plan of the place and really don't have timne for your stupidity. If you are so interested in the subject why not try Chateau de Versailles - it also needs re-writing, it's the same era, the same style and has far more reference books written on it. Now run along and play with that page.  Giano  15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, and that was out of line and uncalled for. I categorically and unreservedly apologise for this statement. Are you willing to abide by the article ownership policy? Will you allow me to edit the article without fear that you will revert out any contributions either myself or others make to the article without at least an attempt to discuss the changes being made? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tbsdy

    Would someone please rein Tbsdy in? He's bringing unactionable complaints here, harassing Giano and myself, and looking anywhere he can find for things to add to his "complaint". This has to be stopped. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You have now readded the template, albeit in a hidden box. You have made baseless accusations another editor of violating WP:POINT. You have accused me of baiting and harassing you, when nothing of the sort has occured and in fact you gave me a warning, not the other way around. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Tbsdy, you're an administrator. You should be used to people accusing you of things. You shouldn't be insisting such a thing belongs at ANI. Equazcion (talk) 15:54, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I was not the one who was primarily being accused of disruption. That other editor is not an administrator. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you, please disengage. Tbsdy, I can understand from your post to Jehochman's talk page why Giano would not want to work with you. Giano, I think you are being a bit unreasonable with your removal of the Bounty Board template, but that is really a minor matter and does not affect anything. Technically, Tbsdy, you have a right to work on the article, but I would highly encourage you to pick another article to work on. There's no deadline for working on content, and there is certainly a wide variety of things to work on. NW (Talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely, I apologise for this comment. I hope to work with Giano in the future in a more collegial manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I object to the bounty template, because the person offering the bounty, is the very one who was preventing me from trying to improve the page! Is it fair to advertise for another editor knowing that another editor is already working on the page to raise its standard? It's just trolling - nothing more.  Giano  16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Giano, I don't see any evidence that the editor who offered the bounty was trolling in any way whatsoever. In fact, as you were editing in your own user space on an old revision, I am not sure how they prevented you from working. It would be best to cease making these sort of accusations, as I have noticed that you have made them frequently against those you disagree with. Casting aspersions against their character is not helpful, and is in fact a personal attack, which is also against policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbsdy, it's a huge encyclopaedia, try to find any of the tens of thousands of articles Giano isn't working on and improve them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already stated that I wish to edit this article. I have not caused any disruption, nor have I insulted anyone in the process of editing the article. I have discussed all and any proposed changes before I have made them, and I have made a good faith effort to follow consensus on issues to do with the article. I will be researching the article and will try to improve it. None of these things should be considered a bad thing. Giano has piqued my interest in the article, so that is the article that I would like to try to improve. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbsdy, think about it. There are thousands of other architecture articles on the encyclopedia. You know that there will be drama working with Giano. You two could probably get two FAs working independently, on just as interesting topics, in the time that it would take to get this one article to GA working together. NW (Talk) 16:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to put the point too finely, but so far all of my edits and suggestions have been constructive. Is there any specific evidence that I am preventing Giano from working on the article in an appropriate manner, within the site guidelines and policies? Have I ever made any specific insulting or derogatory comments about Giano on that article talk page, or have I ever implied that I will prevent him from incorporating his changes? Furthermore, as the article in Giano's space is evolving, will I have the ability to make comments on structure and stylistic issues on that user space page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people don't work together well with certain other people. I think this might be true for Giano and yourself. There is no need to work on an article that you know will cause conflict, even if it will cause conflict unreasonably. NW (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better if you found another article to work on. When people work on projects in their user space, it's for a reason. Seraphim♥ 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)First, NEVER change my comments in a talk thread again - even for a simple typo. It is misleading and dishonest. You need to reconsider your approach to changing other's indents too. I made the suggestion because I thought you would be interested in reducing unecessary drama, but clearly you would rather wind Giano up than give him a bit of space. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, though I think you are going a little overboard here. Giano's indents, incidentally, make it look like others are responding to different comments. It also wrecked the bullet form I used, I rather think this a very minor issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    close this

    This thread has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had a long time ago. It's now just a self-fueled drama machine. The template removal that was originally the cause of the report has been dealt with and a compromise reached. If someone wanted to close and archive this, I wouldn't object. Equazcion (talk) 16:21, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    Sure, no problems. Go ahead. I do wish that Giano would stop making personal attacks, but I understand he is allowed to. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As are you, for calling someone absurd when they try to help you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't let this go. You accused me of impropriety when I made a very small fix to a rather obvious spelling error you made (it was a typo), and you then lectured me about changing indents to make threads more clear, which is specifically allowed under WP:TPO. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know full well, what I said to you about indentation is basically what TPO says. Restrict the edit to the format fix. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have accused me of dishonesty, which has also been an allegation Giano has made. This is rude and an unfair disparagement. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As we are already discussing this on your talk page and on my talk page, can we stop with the comments here? DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is much more to discuss, do you? You accused me of dishonest editing because I corrected an obvious typo in "eucyclopedia", and now you are lecturing me about talk page conventions. Please, rearchive this thread. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Libel

    Scarlet Robin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is adding links to a libelous site, which contains my personal information, to Wikipedia, and is a sockpuppet of Luna 9 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per WP:DUCK. I've asked an administrator to start a thread at WP:SPI in hopes that we can get an IP (range)block, and I have requested oversight on the libelous content, but this user needs to be blocked ASAP. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than us wade through all the edits of this contributor, can you provide us with a link to a diff? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Scarlet Robin only made three edits total, the one in question being this one. Most of User:Luna 9's edits outside of his/her unblock requests on the usertalk page involved adding a link to the libelous site. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the sock as an obvious and tedious one. Best way to get everyone looking for libel and personal information? Start a thread about it at ANI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Major(?) mess-up of/in the references in Psychopathy.

    Resolved
     – No admin action necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The problem in the Psychopathy article, has persisted all the time since November 2009.

    • In the revision dated 2009-11-10 21:50 I can not see any of this problem.
    • In the revision dated 2009-11-10 21:54 it seems (on the surface of it) as if a big part of the article body, has been pasted into reference No.77.
    • In the revision dated 2009-11-10 22:00 the problem seems (on the surface of it) to have moved to reference No.14.
    • In the current revision of Psychopathy#References at least until 2010-02-13 17:00 (UTC) it appears to be in reference No.3.

    (It may not have any connection at all, to the problem, but I have also noted that at some time just before the problems started, then someone removed the {{reflist}} and promised to put it back later. The excuse was something like that without the long reflist, for a while, then the editing would be easier.)

    I realize that the Psychopathy article might be a nice "Honeypot (computing)" and therefore should only be semi-protected, but still It would have been nice to, in addition, have a fully protected "authorized" version too.
    --Seren-dipper (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I've fixed the problems, which were caused by bad "cite pmid" templates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard

    on WP:AN Jack Merridew 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was wondering whether the following topic ban proposal for myself should be conducted here? And if not, where should it be announced so that an appropriate cross section of the community gets to comment? Also, who will be the admins who administer this ban? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been suggested that the ban discussion be taken to WP:AN. I have a feeling that Tb has at least one good point: That the ban proposal might not be taken seriously or enacted if it's on an article talk page. Equazcion (talk) 19:35, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Discussions on Wikipedia are not time-limited, they go on until a consensus is reached or they grind to a halt. As for which admins would administer a topic-ban, I believe normal practice is that any admin may enforce such a ban DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So this could go on for quite a long while, huh? So what about my other question. It's normal practice to advertise these sort of things where the wider community can comment. I'm happy to go with a decision, but only if there is some form of due process. You'll have to forgive me if I feel that there is a general feeling of lynching in the air. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't do due process, never has, please don't blame me for that, it was decided long before I started editing here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll be advertised at ANI and AN. Is that good enough? If you have other suggestions for advertising locations, please state them. Equazcion (talk) 19:43, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    Sigh, that was what I was just trying to type out when I got an edit conflict. That's what I'm asking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking you, Tb, where else you want the discussion advertised, since this seems to be a concern for you. Let us know where you'd like the discussion advertised. Equazcion (talk) 19:45, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I rather think that you are hijacking my question. Has an article ban ever been done on a particular article talk page before? What are the norms for such a thing, or are we starting a precedent? Sorry, I know that all sounds very wikilawyerish, but given that you want to ban me from the article and it was decided that ANI was such a drama pit, it rather seems to me that the proposal was done in such an area as to give those who wish to ban me maximum opportunity to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So the question of where it'll be advertised was disingenuous. You didn't want to discuss that, but wanted to say that the discussion should occur somehwere else. Well then, where would you prefer? Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    Without commenting on the merits of the proposal, I think conducting article bans on the article's talk page sets a dangerous precedent which would make it far too easy for a group of editors to get rid of anyone they just don't like working with. Conducting a full interaction ban at the article talk level is clearly unacceptable. What's the argument for doing it there instead of here? If the complaints have merit, surely the ban will be as likely to pass somewhere where it will be more likely to attract the opinion of uninvolved editors? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I aqree. Any kind of ban, even a very narrowly defined one, should take place at a high-volume location such as AN/I or AN. The potential for misuse of a ban conversation on an article talk page is just too high. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally have no qualms about moving the discussion elsewhere, as I've already stated at the article talk page. The inherent drama attached to ANI was a concern expressed by other editors, but I would personally say that's a necessary evil. WP:AN has also been suggested. I'm flexible, personally. Let's just come to a decision and get it started. Equazcion (talk) 19:53, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    So, how does WP:AN sound to everyone? Equazcion (talk) 19:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    AN would normally be a better choice, but considering the existance of this thread, that's moot. It should be moved here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, would you like to do the honours? Only it's on AN, as Unitanode has quietly moved it there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock of banned User:Orijentolog causing major disruption on Greco-Persian Wars

    An IP editor using IPs in the 93.142 range [138] [139] [140] is causing untold disruption on Greco-Persian Wars and the associated talkpage. The article had to be protected because of his edit-warring and now he is being extremely disruptive, aggressive and hostile on the talkpage. Based on behavioral evidence and past sockpuppet investigations [141], this is almost certainly a sock of User:Orijentolog. I would normally be content with filing an SPI, but the SPI backlog is long and the disruption on Talk:Greco-Persian Wars so severe that urgent action is needed. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As background to Orijentolog, this editor is an Iranian/Persian nationalist distinguishable by the fact he lives in Croatia. When not advancing theories about how Xerxes was not really defeated by the Greeks ordefending the Iranian execution of gay teenagers also goes on about "Zionist propaganda" and posts such gems as [142].--Peter cohen (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the IP. I might semiprotect the talkpage if he persists with new IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you then see what happens with the result? We have started an RfC, because of him. Can you change the result and let the RfC stand for some more time in order to see if there are any more challenges from other users? GK1973 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theorists

    Conspiracy theorists waste a lot of our time promoting their unorthodox points of view and are far more insidious than simple vandals. If they limited themselves to articles about their favorite conspiracies, they can be of some use. However, they typically don't, and they're typically a pain. I'm looking for suggestions or for dealing with accounts that appear to exist for no other purpose than pushing their peculiar points of view. Like most (or all) of us, I have experienced numerous examples in the past - all of whom have required the resources of several experienced editors to mitigate. While I do have on in mind at the moment User:Praxidikai , I'm looking for recommendations for dealing with this lot as a whole. Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He isn't writing on the pages of articles, so he isn't much of a concern. Usually the insertation of this material would be considered disruptive, so I would just tell them to stop being disruptive, and escalate it from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Contamblood

    Reporting here, in addition to AIV, at administrator's suggestion. 99.153.141.240 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Improver&action=historysubmit&diff=343674565&oldid=343640570
    2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANXWave&action=historysubmit&diff=343671176&oldid=343670715
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=343833297"