Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 69.228.170.24 (talk)

User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [1], [2], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [3], threat, [4], edit summary, [5], [6], [7], edit summary, edit summary, [8], [9], [10], [11].

Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.

As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Wikipedia Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.

This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Wikipedia saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• [ The main source is not a primary source; see subtopic below: #Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case. -Wikid77 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ]

I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Wikipedia Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not: [12] [13] [14]

"So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."

And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent the situation. I never dismissed my reconsideration. I just got tied up with this utter nonsense on here instead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Wikipedia is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.

It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.

Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Wikipedia, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Wikipedia Foundation is not a legal threat? Woogee (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because you can't threaten Wikipedia with Wikipedia's attorneys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of resembles a legal threat towards some of the editors though. Might not violate the letter of the policy, but sure sounds like it's flirting with it in spirit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although if you put it in perspective with this clear legal thread they made here narrows the interpretation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat means to threaten to take legal action, such as suing Wikipedia or suing someone. Saying you are going to file a complaint with a higher-up person at Wikipedia or write a letter so that some of the issues can be addressed is not a legal threat. It is not an intention to sue anyone, but to provide notice of the problem to those who have the knowledge and abilty to solve a problem that is not otherwise being correctly addressed. That is all that was intended. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's against policy as well, I believe. If you don't agree with a decision, you try to shift consensus so that your preferred version will prevail. You most definitely do not go shopping for a sympathetic ear. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

collapse as off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case 29-Apr-2010: The incident above has claimed excessive use of "non-English primary sources". However, this is a reminder that the huge Italian text, used as a reference for the Micheli Judgment, is a secondary source as merely a summary (though huge), at website www.Penale.it, of the Judge Paolo Micheli's court document, for the first trial. Several editors have mistakenly thought it was a primary source, because it is so large and contains many details from the original text. By extensively quoting from that one source, the article text avoids WP:SYNTH issues, because it includes both testimonies and forensic evidence, combined with the judge's conclusions (not WP:OR original research). The reference has been listed, in the article, as: "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English) Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it. Retrieved 2009-12-11. In fact, I think that document provides the only clear explanation of the Kercher murder, concluded at trial: the first suspect, at trial, claimed that he did not stab Kercher, but rather emerged from a bathroom, crossed the house, and scuffled with the knifer. But he claimed that Kercher was near death, so he fled, leaving her bleeding, fully clothed, with the duvet bedspread and pillow on the bed. Forensic evidence (in same report) indicated that his blood palm print and Nike basketball shoe-prints where on that same pillow beneath the undressed body, while his DNA in large amounts was found on the removed bra (Italian: reggiseno) and severed bra strap found near the body. The report noted, in Italian, the suspect's claims versus the evidence: "senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto,..."  ("without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow, when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed"). The crime was considered to be a stabbing, followed some time later (blood spots had dried), by returning and undressing the body, and moving it onto the bed pillow on the floor (with his blood palm print & shoe-prints there). The shoe package was found at the suspect's residence, and he admitted to wearing those shoes ("Nike Outbreak 2, size 11" - Italian: misura 11 ) during the murder. No other source (in English) has provided that level of detail to explain the pillow and shoes in the murder, which occurred, and was tried in Perugia, Italy. Hence, the use of that source written in Italian. In that gigantic summary document, many sections have been abridged by indicating ellipsis by 2-dot marks "(..)" in many portions of the text. Some of the omitted details are forensic measurements that pinpoint items in a room. The copyright (at bottom) is: © 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006 Tutti i diritti riservati (English: All rights reserved) The actual Micheli Judgment "Motivazioni sentenza per Rudy Guede" (the primary source) is not referenced in the article, as one of the many key details not yet included in the text (Note: in Italian titles, typically only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Again, the article uses a secondary source (not a primary source) summarizing, on an Italian website, the much larger Micheli Judgment document. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Random section break 1

Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.

My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [15]. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the article can de found here:

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 have become single-purpose accounts, when Zlykinskyja recently corrected another of the most important crime articles in modern British history, and I have modified templates that have drastically improved over 370,000 articles? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are talking about here. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before ([16]). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it is proper for me to cast a !vote, since I'm not an admin and am an involved editor, but I strongly support Quantpole's proposal to topic ban at least Zlykinskyja... If it is not appropriate of me, please strike out my comment and accept my apology. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, editors with opposing POV on the article do not have a "vote" to ban another editor with opposing views, as is being attempted here. None of this should be going on. This is not fair or legitimate in the least. This is an attempt to utilize the administrative process to get some administrator who does not really know what is going on to do your dirty work for you so that you can silence my minority view on the article. This is an abuse of the process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's actually an attempt to address a major problem for the article, which is that Zlykinskyja is not prepared to engage with other editors in the consensus process. I think if any administrator cares to look at the article talk page or any of the talk page archives, they will see this repeated pattern of behaviour. Instead of seeking consensus, Zlykinskyja prefers to add material to the article (which she probably genuinely believes improves its neutrality). Those who disagree, must either put up with this or enter into an edit war amid a torrent of accusations of censorship, bias and harrassment. Hence the abysmal state of the article. But I don't know what the solution is. If Zlykinskyja disagrees with this, perhaps she would provide a few diffs showing examples of cases where she has tried to engage in consensus-building, and I shall be pleased to admit I'm wrong. Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a gang-up situation by the editors on this article who oppose me and Wikid77 because we hold minority views that differ from theirs. We are vastly outnumbered. Now they propose that we both be banned. It is part of an extremely upsetting pattern of harassment. While I do not agree with the views of these people on the article, I have never engaged in the type of horribly aggressive treatment against them that they have employed against me. These gang-ups have been all one-way, with them coming after me over and over in an attempt to get me banned or blocked to silence my views. This is not "consensus building", this is not "collegial". This is harassment. This is an aggressive attempt to silence minority views on the article. Removing the minority view will result in BLP violations and NPOV violations, since these people who are part of the gang-up all hold the same views on the case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have called this situation to the attention of administrators over and over and no one will help. I posted on the ANI Board about this, and an administrator responded by typing out a string of laughter and then marking the matter as "Resolved". But no, it wasn't resolved. And the attacks against me just continue.

It is very disturbing that Black Kite very misleadingly posted a link to a complaint against me from 2009 which he suggests indicates that I had been reprimanded on this article before, and therefore I should "definitely not be editing this article." Yet he misleadingly did not link to the final version, which showed the OUTCOME of the complaint. The complaint was marked as closed by BigTimePeace as a "content dispute", not my misconduct:

Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is indeed what it is, a "content dispute" but some very aggressive people have tried to make it very personal against me. They just WILL NOT focus on the real issues, the BLP and NPOV issues, and instead make it PERSONAL. It is very, very upsetting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite also misleadingly links to a deleted version of the old account that I used. I deleted that, but he dug it up and did not note that it had been long ago deleted. As for the sock puppet issue, I explain that in detail on my current user page. It is there for anyone to see who wants to know the truth and not just concoct allegations and mislead people. As set forth in detail on my user page, I once attempted to change my name for legitimate privacy reasons but did not do it properly in that I failed to mark the old account as "Retired". So I was blocked since it looked like I was trying to have two accounts, when really I intended to switch to a new name. In any event, I paid my debt to society with a long block issued BEFORE I was even given the chance to explain what I was trying to do--a simple innocent name change. So I don't see how that is even relevant. I use only one account now and that old account has been officially retired for quite a while and has not been used since. So to bring that up is just to try and throw the kitchen sink at me and get me blocked for something that has no current relevancy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: [17] and [18].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There you tried very aggressively to get me banned or blocked after you WikiHounded me, including MAKING UP the false allegation that I had engaged in vandalism. There were no findings against me, and it later was established that your claim that I engaged in vandalism was baseless since it was a SOFTWARE problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• See also: edit warring I and edit warring II. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the edits concerning THE FALSE BREAKING NEWS REPORT OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX, that matter was so serious and so wrongful, that I will need to prepare a more detailed description of what happened there. But I will just say that posting a notice to correct the false report on Wikipedia of her suicide was justified under the circumstances. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!

Zlykinskyja posted one of a series of messages immediately after my post, so I'm taking it that this was at least partly aimed at me. So just to clear up a few misconceptions:

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,[19], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[20], anti-American editing,[21] accusations of POV editing,[22] and cherry picking facts,[23][24]not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits,[25][26][27] "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[28]. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you are engaging in deliberate tactics acting in concert with editors on the same side of the case with you, to try and personally attack me and paint this dispute as personal, when you know the REAL issue is that you and I write/edit in diametricaly opposed views on this case. You write/edit consistently in a pro-guilt manner, while I try to add the other side, to create NPOV balance. THAT is the real reason why you want me sanctioned or banned from the article. You want to eliminate your SOLE REMAINING POV opponent (considering that Wikid has indicated that he is too upset to continue on the article). And I find this all very low, and very dirty pool. This conduct in ganging up against an editor with whom you consistently hold opposing views on the CONTENT, and participating in these long sessions of personal attacks, and taking up hours and hours of my time with these attacks, is just a horrible way to treat another person. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My "tactics" were to point out some factual errors in a post which seemed to be trying to portray me as someone who has engaged in horribly aggressive treatment and Zlykinskyja as the blameless victim. I don't like being portrayed in that way, as I do not believe it is true (where are the diffs?). I also do not appreciate being described as writing in a "pro-guilt manner" (where are the diffs?). And I didn't ask for Z to be banned (and never have, as far as I remember), but actually said "I don't know what the solution is". And I still don't. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, it is plainly obvious what you are trying to do and I find this whole thing unbelievably vicious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for Salvio's claim that he is not POV, I dispute that. He has said he does not want any criticisms of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini or the Italian court that found Amanda Knox guilty. Yet, if the other side of the case, the non-pro-guilt side, is to be included in the article, it has to include information about the problems with the Prosecutor and how he handled the case. So Salvio basically is against including anything that might show how the case against Amanda Knox was defective, if it paints the prosecutor or court in a negative light. He is from Italy and he has made it clear that he is on the article to protect the image of the Italian prosecutor and the Italian court. But that is indeed POV editing on his part.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't even bother to respond to this umpteenth groundless and gratuitous personal attack.

That said, this thread risks becoming disjointed, just like the other one. Can please some uninvolved editors and/or admins step in and discuss how to deal with Zlykinskyja?

At the moment, a proposal was made to topic ban her and I wholeheartedly second it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course Salvio wants me topic banned. According to Salvio, I can't even say anything on my own Talk page that is negative towards the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. He has repeatedly objected to the fact that I said on my Talk page that Mignini's investigation of a break-in was done "stupidly." So this he claims might be "defamation." Meanwhile the US media paints Mignini as a crazy person, and Mignini has been banned from holding public office for wiretapping journalists. But on Wikipedia, NO CRITICISM OF THE CASE/PROSECUTOR ALLOWED, not even on an editor's private Talk page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user's talkpages. That distinguish WP from blogs and forums.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting out of sequence like you have been doing. Plus, it is ridiculous to say that making a slight criticism of a public figure is defamation or a violation of BLP. Meanwhile, people on here paint the accused as guilty of sexual assault and murder, when no one even know yet that that is true. So it sure seems like different standards are being used. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what CBS news has to say about Salvio's collegue, Giuliano Mignini, the one we can't say anything negative about on Wikipedia, according to Salvio: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html#addcomm Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You said somethong else: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. And I objected about it only once (twice, if you count the fact I quoted myself here). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious disruptive SPA, indefinite topic ban. Why are we even allowing this to waste time here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, the positions that you have taken repeatedly have made it clear that you don't want certain information coming out in the article that could be damaging to the Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Yet in the views of the mainstream US media, there are VERY serious problems with the conduct of this prosecutor and his handling of the case, and VERY serious problems with this murder conviction of Amanda Knox. I am being obstructed and intimididated from trying to include what the US media is saying about this case and MOST of the people doing this are from Italy, England and other European countries (excluding Magnificient). Once you get me banned as you have been trying so hard to do, the mainstream US media view and the entire defense side of this article will be eliminated. THAT IS YOUR GOAL. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a waste of my time as well, but I have put a huge amount of time into this article and am being treated very badly. BOTH sides of the story should be looked at, not just tossed off like an old dish rag. No editor deserves treatment like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing how much time I have put into this, and how over and over I have asked administrators for help, and have never received any, I will simply proceed to do what I should have done long ago, and contact the Wikipedia Main Office for help. Good day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Rather than a complete topic ban, I think a one month restriction on editing the article itself could be applied while they're still being allowed to edit the article's talkpage which would give the editor the opportunity to work on and improve her lack of collaborating skills (which are w/o doubt apparent).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but given this editor's history of uncollegial behaviour, I think we would be facing the usual claims of bad faith and censorship, whenever we were to disagree with her on one of her proposals; quite frankly, I think it would actually make thing worse. My proposal is an indefinite topic ban: let her show that she can work and cooperate with other editors on less controversial issues and then, when the Wikipedia community is satisfied that she has learnt to accept opinions different from her own, this restriction will be lifted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban since they're only interest lays in that area and (I think) the result would be that they stop editing at all till the topic ban is lifted [We can assume that it would sooner or later] and thus there would be no learning experience for them and the same editor would probably resume with the same approach as they did in the past (since December last year, to be precise). I don't think that would help neither the article nor the editor. Any measures taken and remedies applied should be preventative, not punishment, and should be applied to prevent disruption of the project. I think my proposal does take those things into account and has potential to work as intended.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and concur with you up to a point. My fear comes from the fact that this user does not appear to wish to change her behaviour (just take a look at what she's just written about me... ^{She has refactored her comment, so that it's no longer a personal attack 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}) and that, so, we risk starting flame after flame on the talk page... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If they don't change their behavior a full topic ban can still be imposed if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's give it a try. I change my !vote to match your proposal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Bluewave (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please step in and decide what should we do with Zlykinskyja? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban from the article that originally caused the problem (indefinitely) would be apt. The user is, as said above, a self righteous, antagonistic proponent of THE TRUTH, with some highly combative manners when it comes to editing - however it seems that the primary cause is the content of the original article concerned. Is it not likely that constructive editing in other areas seen as uncontroversial by the user would take place after being banned from the article? If this fails, it only results in blocking for violating the ban, and that would suite the wants of some of the more hard-nosed proposals anyway. SGGH ^ping! 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that I am a proponent of the "truth", but only that both the prosecution AND defense sides of the story should be included in the Article. The essence of the dispute is NPOV, not "truth." The truth cannot yet be known because there has not been a final determination of innocence or guilt of the murder in any court. So, I certainly cannot claim to know the "truth." I only claim that both the guilty views and the innocence views be included in the article, and that the Article not be worded to show guilt when that has not yet been finally determined, and the accused are still presumed innocent. The main people on the article with me (who have the most at stake and are the main complainers) The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have said right above they do NOT want an indefinite topic ban, but are instead seeking a more moderate remedy. They propose that I stop editing the Article for a month, but continue participating in the discussions on the Article Talk page. While I do not agree that I should be sanctioned at all, I agree with the approach of not editing the Article for a short while, as opposed to a total topic ban. This way, there is not a tossing away of all of my research and knowledge on this case, which is extensive.

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has correctly noted above that: "A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban...." A total permanent ban from the Article would be way too unfair, and would essentially be a total ban from Wikipedia, because I could not continue volunteering here with such a grossly unfair sentence being inflicted on me. I am not a SPA. That is a totally false accusation. I have previously edited extensively on a colonial history article. I have well over 500 edits on this Kercher Murder Article, and previously over 450 edits on a totally unrelated colonial history article. All this means is that I tend to work on one article at a time and can get too obsessed because I am very dedicated about any projects that I work on in real life or on here. But it does not mean that I am a SPA with some sort of conflict of interest in this article or hidden agenda. So for editors who are too dedicated, maybe taking a voluntary break from editing the topic is a good idea. But if I get permanently banned from the murder Article for being a SPA, that would be so unfair and untrue that I would not feel comfortable volunteering here on my other main interest, which is US history topics, and my volunteer efforts here would just be all thrown away. If dedicated editors are just casually tossed away like that on untrue claims of being a SPA, eventually Wikipedia will run out of editors. Being dedicated is not the same thing as being a SPA.

The three main editors editing in opposition to me on the article: The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have all said that they now do not support an indefinite topic ban, and have voted against it. That should resolve the matter. The other two editors who posted on this thread made only one edit each on the Article just prior to the start of this thread, and their efforts to now totally and permanently topic ban an editor who has been so dedicated as to make over 500 edits on the Article should be without standing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring this thread, because it was archived before reaching a decision. Can an admin please assess consensus and decide what type of sanction to issue? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that any sanction should be issued or that this thread needed to be restored. This is unnecessary. I have already agreed, as stated above, to take a voluntary break from editing the Article for a month to cool off. Perhaps my compromise was missed in this rather disjointed thread. My compromise is reasonable and is basically consistent with what others have suggested above. This is a two sided dispute. There have been uncollegial comments on both sides of the dispute. To "punish" one side and not the other is unequal and unfair. This is clearly a content dispute that breaks down into the pro-prosecution view vs. the pro-innocence view. The pro-guilty editors disagree with me due to my efforts to include "the other side of the story". This was clearly stated by a recent post by an editor who also called me a "bitch" and has made other harassing remarks due to my efforts to include the "other side of the story." To punish editors who post one side of the story, but impose no sanctions when editors on the other side say such things as--- "bitch", "cunt", use the "F" word, post a false report that Amanda Knox commited suicide, and claim that I should not be allowed to write due to having a different viewpoint---would be grossly unfair. So I have agreed to compromise by taking a one month break from editing the article, but continue on the Talk page, as the others suggested--with the only difference being whether the break is voluntary or involuntary. But I am not willing to accept a one sided punishment, when the uncollegialty on the other side is not being punished or even addressed in any effective manner. The policies should be applied equally to both sides of the dispute. If not, then this matter should go on to some sort of arbitration, appeal or whatever procedure is appropriate for higher review. To me, a simple compromise would be a more efficient use of everyone's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is particularly distressing when all or most of the people opposing me are men and words like "bitch" and "cunt" are used towards me, and they say nothing about seeking sanctions for the use of such words against a woman editor. The diffs posted with the filing of this complaint show mostly that I complained of being harassed. They show no use of improper language. Yet, such complaints by me were deemed "uncollegial." Then, the vulgar, sexist and demeaning language and personal attacks against me are ignored and not made the subject of any official complaint or sanctions. If "collegialty" is really the issue, then double standards like this should not be employed in imposing sanctions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you voluntarily accept to refrain from editing the article main page for a month, then I'd guess that no admin action is required... That's what we were asking for. If nobody objects, then I'll no longer un-archive this thread. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In one of the postings above, Z seemed to be suggesting that other people should also refrain from editing the article. I don't believe there has been any debate about misconduct of anyone other than Z, except in her own posts, and then without any evidence. Can we be quite clear that there is no agreement by anyone other than Z to refrain from editing the article. Bluewave (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed remedies

(Note: Comment made prior to the last postings above of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Salvio) This is just treating a person like trash who has donated hundreds of hours and spent funds researching and contributing to this article and Wikipedia. I have never encountered such a grossly unfair procedure in my life. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I note that topic bans on here are usually done in an organized and formal manner, with voting. There is a type of formality and fairness to the process, with it usually being expressly stated at the outset that there is a proposal for a topic ban. I was deprived of all of that procedural fairness entirely, since this thread did not start out as a topic ban proposal, but just a complaint. There were only two people who seemed to advocate for a topic ban later on. There was no voting or formality to it. It was just a haphazard discussion which seemed to suddenly end up as a topic ban after Salvio said he wanted that, but now I see he has posted above that he changed his mind, and also that another commenter has suggested a more moderate approach. That would seem fairer, given that lack of proper procedure in this thread compared to other threads involving topic bans. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't respond to your attacks and else but to one point.

There is an overwhelming number of editors that spent not hundreds but thousands of hours on this project and like you, they donated their time and effort and yet, most of them do not complain about their edits being edited or even reversed. Try to think about it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can be as angry as you like. The facts of the matter are that you are a disruptive WP:SPA who will not edit colliegially with other editors, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring disruptively with a sockpuppet account on your pet article. You display a disregard for everyone who disagrees with your POV edits (which is practically everyone editing the article, unsurprisingly) and try to claim that every other editor is biased whereas in reality they are only trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policy (for example, I had edited the article once, and was immediately accused by you). You are a time sink for every other editor here and are degrading Wikipedia with your edits, both under this username, your previous username, and your sockpuppets. All that remains is for an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate and solve this problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite: Your latest attack is just another example of the very mean spirited manner in which you have proceeded. The horrible way you have gone after me speaks volumes. You have misrepresented many things and provided false and misleading links. Then you say I'm uncollegial. Enough. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part is false? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All of it. But there is no point in going over it all again with a person so full of animosity towards me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's the point, really, isn't it? Every point I made is factual - you can't rebut any of it. I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, only against the way in which you are causing problems in this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Z.: What I see (and this is a fact) is that you promised to provide diffs here and in the previous ANI and Wikiquette thread, yet you didn't provide them then and keep making accusation here and still don't back them up (with diffs). Guess there aren't any in your favor and you keep pushing your unfounded accusations with hot air as a backup. Pretty lame arguments, I'd say.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained, I have had a hard time preparing diffs and have only figured out a couple. I suppose I could have practiced, but I never got the hang of it. Plus, it is hard to spend that kind of time when there is a hoard of people on this thread attacking you, all at the same time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just what I expected: Another lame excuse. Several editors gave you links to help pages for diffs and Wikid, your favorite editor even posted a step by step guide on how to make diffs. That was weeks ago so you had plenty of time to learn this very simple task and keep your promises. Any better excuse on hand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like knitting. You need to practice or you don't get the knack for it.Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that's at least a funny excuse. Thanks for making me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite: The explanation for my name change was on my user page for a long time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zlykinskyja Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

...and you were blocked for edit warring for the first time with this sock account (like you didn't care).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been a while, but as I recall the block was for the sock puppet issue, although it was not clarified. The finding in that against me was sock puppet, due to my improper name change without following the requirement of properly marking the original account as "Retired." Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? You might want to check your block log: [29]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the finding I recall was that the editor who removed the well sourced text was in the wrong. But since I was perceived as being a sock when I tried to change my name without marking my original account as Retired, I was perceived to be in the greater wrong. But that debt to society was well paid for I would say. Check the detailed explanation on my User page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZlykinskyjaZlykinskyja (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to Zlykinskyja would be to consider the fact that Knox is not the only person who is wrongfully convicted by a corrupted justice system. Now, I think you feel that you have reached a stalemate when editing this article. This means that expeding more energy here is wasted energy. What you could do is start new articles on other cases where any reasonable person can see that the jailed person is very likely innocent. I can give you a list of hundreds of such cases. If you slowly start writing articles on these other cases, then that would be a far more productive use of your time.

Another important factor here is that the situation the jailed persons are in does not evolve fast; it can takes years for new appeals to be heard. If you only edit the case of a single person then this means that you end up arguing on the basis of the same old facts day after day and that causes persons to get irritated. If you instead edit, say, 30 such articles and if we assume that it takes two years on average before a new development in the legal case occurs per case, then that means a new development on average every 5 weeks.

So, you'll quite frequently have someting really new to write about. If your judgement about the person being innocent is correct, then usually the new development will prove you correct and your opponents wrong. Over time that will lead other editors to take your arguments more seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Count Iblis. You and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Wikid are the very few on here who have treated me with any sort of decency and respect, instead of all this hate being directed at me by editors who hold a different POV of the case. Your kindness is very much appreciated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the vast improvements that Zlykinskyja has already made, and can continue to make, to other crime articles on Wikipedia will be a welcome addition. Also, I think much has been learned to help expand articles such as: Stalking, Persecution and Genocide. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wikid. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That was the very first time you said a nice thing about me. How did I deserve that? I'll need some time to process it in my slowly fading brain :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal for a more moderate remedy. It was your idea, and you got Salvio to go along. That deserves a thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, even so I'm still surprised. Now I can enjoy my very very late night dinner, actually closer to a midnight snack.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Buon appetito (I believe this is Italian for bon appetite.)Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although a simple "enjoy your meal" would have done :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

---

On 27 April, a Fox News article appeared, claiming that Wikimedia Foundation deputy director Erik Möller had made statements supporting paedophilia. The day after, his BLP was locked for a month with the edit summary (Changed protection level of Erik Möller: Excessive vandalism: prevention, due to current coverage in media ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite)), presumably to prevent addition of this material.

Arguably, the Fox News article was quite unfair to Erik, taking his statements out of context. On the other hand, the press being what it is, we know there are many BLP subjects who have received unfair press coverage, and whose BLP articles are not locked for a month when such material appears -- on the contrary, editors generally ensure that such material is represented, following the NPOV rationale.

Now, thinking about this for a moment, double standards (one standard for WMF personnel, one for all other living persons) cannot be an honourable solution here. Either Erik's BLP is unlocked and allowed to feature the unfair -- but "reliably sourced" -- coverage, or we need to seriously rethink our NPOV and BLP policies, and the standing that journalistic sources should have in our BLP writing. I suggest this situation and its various ramifications are worth pondering over. --JN466 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just semi-protected. Perhaps a bit early, but not a bad move under the circumstances.--Chaser (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That mitigates the situation somewhat; I misread the edit summary. Even so, there is still something to think about here. --JN466 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been more and more so-called pre-emptive semiprotection of BLP's, and there was a big discussion of it at WP:PP last month or thereabouts. I'm not crazy about this trend but I think this treatment of Erik's page doesn't seem exceptional in the general context. Some people even want to semi-protect all BLP's. In reality we're probably heading towards flagged revisions. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is supremely important here that WP:BLP should be seen to be applied without distinction or preference. My opinion is that unsupported allegations against any living individual should not be added to any article here. Given the public interest, however limited that might be, or become, I agree with at least semi-protection pending further cogent information. Meanwhile, this thread seems to have served its purpose, and does not require Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Ahmed shahi

Moved from WP:AN

Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) is accusing me of "spreading racism" ([30]), only because I have removed a very doublful source he is using: "Afghanpedia", a project of the website Sabawoon.com, a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan", or that the Western forces that are fighting the Taliban and al-Kaida are "enemies of Afghans" and "insult Pashtuns" (see for example here or here). By no means is that website a reliable source. And because I have removed that source and instead used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam, he is calling me a "racist". At the same time, User:Ahmad shahi is deleting well-referenced information and scholarly sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc. - see here). I had already reported him to an admin (User:Dbachmann; see respective discussion), but nothing happened. He is rejecting scholarly references, he does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, he is extremely offensive and insults others (see above), and he has a clear ethnocentric agenda. As one can see in this comment ("... I don't understand what kind of an Afghan are you to be hating your own nation so much, removing Afghan history templates from articles that are part of Afghanistan's history. You hate anything and everything that is from Afghanistan, prepared by Afghans, or has the name Afghan in it ..."), he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of a platform where everybody has to defend national interests. Tajik (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The only comment I will make here is that I have fully protected Afghanistan while the edit warring is taking place (I've protected it for 1 month). I do not know the subject, so I have protected the article as it stood when I saw the RFPP request. I also suggested that Ahmed shahi (who created the RFPP request) report his problems with Tajik at AN - I have no thoughts on which editor is in the wrong here (if Tajik had made the report at RFPP, I would have referred him here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  Correction: Tajik placed the request at RFPP, but Ahmed shahi placed a comment there, which I responded to. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using well-known scholarly references, most of all Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (EIr). EIr has free access, EI is available at universities and can be checked by others who are also studying oriental studies or Iranistics ate a university. User:Ahmed shahi, on the other hand, neither has access to the encyclopedia (hence I assume he is not at a university and has limited to no qualification in this field), is actively removing scholarly sources, googles irrelevant books from the 19th century to "source" his claims, and uses very doubtful websites (www.sabawoon.com) which - by no means - can be considered reliable sources. He is aggressive, insults others, and has a very specific ethnocentric agenda. Even when confronted with quotes from notable scholars, such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Louis Dupree, Georg Morgenstierne, etc, he either refuses to accept the facts or he falsifies the quotes in the article. That is very disturbing. Besides that, he invents expressions that are unknown to scholars, such as "last Afghan Empire", which is his own WP:OR and only supported by his unrealiable "Afghanpedia". It does not appear in any reliable encyclopedia or scholarly publication. Leaving that aside, the main reason why I reported him was his insult against me. Calling me "racist" only because I have removed his unrealiable and doubtful sources is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this be better at the Reliable sources noticeboard? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik appears to have a long history of getting in trouble.[31] He just talks about race and ethnicity which is what most prejudice people do, and often he criticizes people of other ethnic groups. He proudly claims being from Afghanistan on his user page but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its people and its history. His edits which appear to be all about race indicate that he is an extreme Persian-ethnocentric POV pusher. Over and over he claims that Iranian and Islamic sources are champions while any other sources are garbage and should be removed or tossed out of the articles. I believe he is very disruptive and should be blocked because he is not doing any good to Wikipedia. He secretly invites other Persian-ethnocentric editors (User:Inuit18, User:Ariana310, and User:Alefbe) to help him with edit-war so that he doesn't violate his one revert per page per week.[32].Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And, nothing from the Encyclopaedia of Islam that he cites in articles can be verified.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

a) I reported User:Ahmed shahi, because he called me "racist". That is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia.

b) Everything in the Encyclopaedia of Islam can be checked. Anyone who is registered at a university or is working at a university has access to it. Ahmed shahi can't do it, because he is not working at a university, because he is not registered at a university, because he has no clue of history. To keep it short: he does not even have the slightest qualification or the most basic requirement to write an encyclopedic article about Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not supposed to favor the POV of unqualified people over those of real experts. I am quoting real experts, while Ahmed shahi is deleting academic quotes and instead promoted nonsense based on unrealible websites.

c) The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an "Islamic source", as this user claims, but is an English language encyclopedia especially designed for academic studies in the West. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a major project of the Columbia University. Again, his comments only prove that he neither has any knowledge of scientific historical research, nor does he have any knowledge of what sources to be used.

d) Except for doubtful and unreliable websites, Ahmed shahi is not able to present one single scholarly and academic source to support his views. That's because he is a POV pusher who is acting against the consensus among REAL experts.

Tajik (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a "racist", Tajik (the big trouble maker [33]) keeps removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan, meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro of Afghanistan without explaining why. Maybe he thinks Afghanistan should be land of the Tajiks and not the Afghans. Tajik proudly claims on his user page that he is from Afghanistan but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its history and its people. So I just reverted his vandalism.

Afghanistan is only one territory, and he writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan". That proves that Tajik doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopedia Iranica and all other sources that he praises.[34] He falsely changes "last Afghan Empire" to "first Afghan Empire". I ask him right now to show us any (even one single source) that says the Durrani Empire was the "first Afghan Empire" as being asserted by Tajik in the article. I know for a fact he cannot come up with any because there is no source that would say such a lie. There were Afghan kingdoms in the past, known as Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, and even the Khilji dynasty were treated as an Afghan kingdom. Another was the Afghan Hotaki dynasty just before the Durrani Afghan kingdom.

The information from Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be verified so he uses this as a source to back up his POVs in articles. If anyone tries to question it then too bad there is no way to verify it. -Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'd have to agree with Tajik on this. Judging from the language, ignorance of the emphasis of verifiability, lack of civility, and deliberate avoidance of Wikipedia's RS policy, it only goes to show that Ahmed Shahi's reliability as an editor is seriously in doubt. And to call certain editors names and spreading baseless accusations against them because they are against his unilateral edits also run afoul on NPA. Encyclopaedia of Islam's data 'cannot be verified'? Look who's talking. Seriously, you'll need much better arguments to prove your case, and the way it's looking, you refuse to admit you were wrong. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how my name came up in this issue and why User:Ahmed shahi is accusing me of assisting User:Tajik in pushing - what he calls as - the ethnocentric POVs. I have tried to be neutral in the dispute between User:Tajik and User:Ahmed shahi. If I have reverted User:Ahmed shahi's edits which were un-sourced, or used unreliable sources, or conflicted scholarly sources such as Encylcopaedia Britannica and Encylcopaedia of Islam, I have also reverted some of User:Tajik's edits which seemed not totally accurate. So User:Ahmed shahi's accusation of me "assisting" User:Tajik is baseless. The fact that we (me and User:Tajik) refer to scholarly and reliable sources, and we end up reaching to an agreement without any long disputes, does not prove User:Ahmed shahi's contrary accusation.

In this current dispute, I would have to agree that User:Ahmed shahi uses unreliable and unscholarly sources to put forward his points such as "www.sabawoon.com" or other nonacademic websites. When he is provided with a reliable source, he calls it Original Research and ignores its validity. He seems not to have fully read the Wikipedia:No original research and has a false definition of what an Original Research is. Ariana (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Ahmed shahi is using sources that don't meet our criteria, eg sabawoon.com and even worse its afghanpedia. What's odd is that he claims that there are many other sources - so why not use a reliable one? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Eaglestorm. You support Tajik for saying things like this in the edit summaries that do nothing but provoke ethnic Pashtuns? Not only that, Tajik has called me Pashtun-ethnocentric or Pashtun ultra-nationalist, and etc, many times in the last few of days, and he continues to call me this after I had told him, I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this

Tajik said he "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [35], a source which he claims to have with him. I want him or anyone else to post the quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam here so we can see if he is telling the truth or lying to us. It should say exactly as this '"The political history of Afghanistan begins in the 18th century with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian), when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani created the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan." I assure you these lines (which were written by User:Tajik the other day) are no where found in the Encyclopedia of Islam.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller. I have no idea what you and Ariana310 are arguing about. I never claimed Sabawoon.com to be a reliable source. I said the information found about the "last Afghan Empire" in that site is accurate, it's the same as what you find else where in other source. My argument is that there were a number of Afghan kingdoms or empires in the past, such as the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526), the Suri dynasty (1540–1556), the Hotaki dynasty (1709–1738) and others, so how can you write in the article that the Durrani (1747-1826) was the "first Afghan Empire" (this is User:Tajik's POV) You guys don't have a clue about Afghanistan's history and you leave comments telling others who is right and who is wrong. I find this very funny.Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to post the same quotes until you accept them?!

• "... The year 1160/1747 marks the definitive appearance of an Afghan political entity independent of both the Safavid and Mughal empires. ..." - D. Balland (2010). "AFGHANISTAN x. Political History". Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed., Columbia University.
• "... The country now known as Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghān race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghāns ”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Introduction". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories now known as Afghānistān were occupied by Iranian tribes during the Aryan migrations in the second and first millenia B.C., incorporated in the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus, and after the conquests of Alexander (...) disputed between the Greco-Bactrians and the Parthians (...) In the first century B.C. th ere was a fresh influx of Iranian tribesmen under the leadership of the Kushān tribe of the Yueh-Chi. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Pre-Islamic history". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV

Tajik (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik has failed to show "the first Afghan Empire" being mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Islam. All of the information that Tajik is quoting is available in 100s of books at google books search, or at other online encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as at US government sites, which we can verify ourselves by a few mouse clicks, and, I have no problem with it. Everybody knows that the modern state of Afghanistan was formed in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani.

However, I disagree with where User:Tajik wrote in the Afghanistan introduction that the Durrani was the "first Afghan Empire", that is Tajik's POV only. He wants us to forget about the Afghan Lodi dynasty, Afghan Suri dynasty, Afghan Hotaki dynasty and also Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty. These were powerful Afghan kingdoms that ruled Delhi Sultanate of India and the Persian Empire.

User: Tajik edits the Afghanistan articles with controversy, like someone is trying to alter, forge, and corrupt it, defame the nation, it's people and culture, and so on. He removes the Afghanistan history template from the Ghurid Dynasty and leaves a bizaare comment in the edit summary "a) Afghanistan did not exist at that time and b) the Ghurids are not exclusive property of Afghanistan c) the political and cultural effect on India was much greater", even when he knows perfectly well that the kingdom was centered or based inside today's Afghanistan. This is what I'm complaining about User: Tajik.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that here it doesn't matter if the material at Sabawon.com is accurate or not, Sabawon.com can't be used as a source. If it's accurate, find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. You need to understand how we work -- we require reliable and verifible sources, and we expect sometimes that these will be in conflict and accept that - in other words, 'truth' isn't our goal, and although I know little about Afghanistan I and others know quite a bit about what we look for in sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a little confused, and I know you're unfamiliar with Afghanistan's history. Again, the Sabawoon site is not the issue here. As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan" - I'm afraid that is irrelevant unless you can cite your contributions with footnotes or references to reliable third party sources. That is how Wikipedia works, it isn't about what you know but what you can cite. SGGH ^ping! 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was only directed to Dougweller, not to others.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is a community discussion, so any comments can be replied to by anyone. As SGGH says, whether you are an expert or not is irrelevant. The question isn't whether you have expert knowledge - it is whether you can cite correctly according to WP:CITE. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: the following sentence is totally clear:

• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." (M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV)

The Durrani Empire - also know as the "Afghan Empire" - was the first empire that was defined as "Afghan" (which is just the Persian word for Pashtuns). It was founded by Afghans, it was backed by Afghans, and its identity was Afghan. No other empire before fulfilled these requirements: the dynasty of Sher Shah Suri was not Afghan in identity, was not Afghan in language, and was not backed by Afghans. The same goes to the Lodi dynasty that, like all the previous Sultanates of Delhi, was based on a strong Turkic military and a Persian-Islamic cultural and administrative core. The Durrani Empire was totally different: it was based on a national movement within the Pashtun tribes that had started during the short-lived reign of the Hotaki. The first king of the dynasty, Ahmad Shah, was directly elected by tribal members. And the natioanl identity of the dynasty (and empire) was "Afghan": Afghans ruled, Afghans administered, Afghans from various tribes were sent as governors to conquered regions, Afghans were relocated to Non-Afghan regions (i.e. Balkh, Herat, etc.), and Afghans enjoyed the favor of the king. The Afghan national state (see quote above) begins with the Hotaki and Durranis. The Durrani Empire was the first Afghan Empire. There was no "Afghan Empire" before it, and strictly speaking, there was no "Afghan Empire" after it. Maybe the word "Empire" is a misnomer. Tajik (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you said that you "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [36] so where is the mention of "the first Afghan Empire"? As I said previosuly, this is just your POV and using the unverifiable source to back it up.

You're trying to confuse the situation. The "state" of Afghanistan doesn't have to be ruled or run by ethnic Afghans, in this case Pashtuns, in order to be called "Afghanistan" or the "Afghan Empire". Large parts of Afghanistan were made up of Punjabi people (of Punjab region), Baloch people (of Balochistan), Sindhi people (of Sindh), and Persian people (of north-eastern Iran). The ruling dynasty was Pashtun Sadozais.

The Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Hotaki dynasty, including the Khilji dynasty were all "Afghan kingdoms" or "Afghan empires" in the same way, depending on how one looks at it. They had a territory that was governed by them, it doesn't matter who the inhabitants of their territory were because we're dealing only with kingdoms or empires. In modern times we use "administrations" like the Karzai administration, the Obama administration, and so on.

Therefore, your are wrong by saying that the Durrani dynasty was the "first Afghan Empire", and you failed to provide a source which mentions that. Since you don't trust Sabawoon or Afghanpedia's article on the "last Afghan Empire" how about Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the "last Afghan Empire"? Is Britannica also unreliable source? You can avoid all this nonsense by just saying that the Durrani Empire became today's state of Afghanistan. This is the best way to describe Afghanistan, but you like to make things controversial and that creates edit-wars. And, you should stop removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro because that is very important for readers to know.

TO admininstrators, User:Tajik shouldn't be trusted because he lies and purposly misquotes information. He stated all the way at the top that "Sabawoon.com is a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"." Well, all this is User:Tajik's lies because at least he should've said Sabawoon.com is in both English and Pashto language, and, he wants to make all Pashtun people as Taliban supporters. The site actually states "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto" but Tajik purposly misinterpreted this. There is a big difference between someone who can speak Pashto language and someone who is ethnic Pashtun. Just a reminder that Pashto is one of the official language of Afghanistan and why would that line surprise anyone? Tajik has done this in other discussions and is continuing to trick your minds here with his words. He messeged User:Inuit18, Ariana310, and User:Alefbe lying to them that I was accusing them of POV pushing in here, in this discussion, [37], [38], [39] but if you scroll up no where did I call them that. This is probably why he has so many blocks [40] but he still continues to misbehave and disrupt the project, manupilating the situation, and etc.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming the Lodis, Suris or the Turkish Khaljis as "Afghan Empires" (= Pashtuns) is your own POV and is not supported by ANY - I repeat: ANY - serious source. And why doesn't it surprise me that you are once again misquoting a source in order to present it as "authentic". Your unreliable "Afghanpedia" which you consider superior to standard academic works actually says:

• "... More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto, the language of the Pashtoons, while the rest of the population speaks Dari,{the language of the Tajiks, Hazaras, Chahar Aimaks, and Kizilbash peoples and other Indo-European languages, spoken by smaller groups, include Western Dardic (Nuristani or Kafiri)}, Baluchi, and a number of Indic and Pamiri languages spoken principally in isolated valleys in the northeast, Turkic languages, a subfamily of the Altaic languages, are spoken by the Uzbek and Turkmen peoples, the most recent settlers, who are related to peoples from the steppes of Central Asia. ..."

This unreliable website claims that Pashto is the dominant language of the country, spoken by 65%, and that the rest of the population is devided among Persian, Turkic, and speakers or other languages. That is totally POV and Pashtun nationalism at its worst. And that is exactly why you are so much relying on that laughable website: because it supports your Pashtun nationalistic nonsense. And the Durrani Empire was the FIRST Afghan Empire, not the "last one" (keeping in mind that Afghans did not have any empires at all except for a short period when Ahmad Shah Durrani greatly expanded his kingdom). See:

• Victoria Schofield, Afghan frontier: feuding and fighting in Central Asia, Tauris I B, 1st ed., 2003. ISBN 1860648959, p. 34: "... [Ahmad Shah] Durrani died at the age of fifty in 1773, leaving his favourite son, Timur Shah, to rule the first Afghan empire ..."
• Nancy Hatch Dupree, in AARP (art and archaeology research papers), vol. 7-12, 1975, p. 15: "... With the establishment of the first Afghan Empire by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747 ..."

It should not be forgotten that you have insulted another user only because that user (me) removed your unrealiable sources. Tajik (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

From your arguments I see that you have very limited knowledge about the Afghan history, and, I didn’t consider Afghanpedia as superior so you are falsely accusing me. You are some what attacking Pashtuns on a wider scale. You're placing Persian propaganda in Afghanistan related articles ([41]) and targeting Pashtun editors, often you call me and others a Pashtun-ethnocentric, which literally means a "racist Pashtun". What's strange is that I haven't told anyone my ethnicity or my nationality. I have told you nicely that I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this but you continue to insult or attack me. You stated to your other Tajik friend "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Why do you feel insulted when I inform administrators about you?

The Durrani dynasty was not the first Afghan Empire, it became the last Afghan Empire according to Encyclopædia Britannica (last Afghan Empire) from which the modern state of Afghanistan was born. If you click on the contributors in Britannica you'll see that among all those professors, Nancy Hatch Dupree is also listed there. Some book writers may mistakenly think it was the first because perhaps they're not aware of the Afghan rulers of India during the Delhi Sultanate.

You did a quick name (first Afghan Empire) search in google book site and presented to us a mention of “first Afghan empire” in the long writings of a 2003 book about "Central Asia". The book writer (Victoria Schofield) is only dealing with Central Asian kingdoms, and perhaps she is unaware of the "first Afghan Empire" of South Asia. Most westerners don’t know anything about the powerful Afghan rulers from India. There is even a book named "The first Afghan empire in India", 1451-1526 A. D, by Awadh Bihari Pandey (1956). Click on the articles of Lodi, Suri, Hotaki and Khilji to see that they were Afghans. You brought book references in this discussion but in the Talk:Ghurid Dynasty discussions you have been preaching that references from books are second class.

Your comment about Afghanpedia’s languages information is irrelevant, and no where in Wikipedia did I use that information. I want to remind you anyway that Pashto is the official language of Afghanistan and it makes perfect sense that 65% of the total population speaks it. Not only Pashtuns speak Pashto but also Baloch, Nuristanis, and many Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaks, and others are very fluent in Pashto even that it’s not their mother language.

I joined Wikipedia to learn and share my knowledge. I didn't come to spread ethnocentrism or political propaganda as what you're doing. All your edits are with ethnocentric POVs, in which you are promoting Tajik-Persian history and culture while defaming Pashtun-Afghan culture and history. You proudly claim on your page to be from Afghanistan but your views are very anti-Afghanistan, I find that very strange.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed I think your first sentences of your last post sums up all the problems you have been having. Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to share your knowledge here that is called OR. At Wikipedia we are here to share knowledge that has already been published in other wiki-reliable sources if you can not find it in a wiki-acceptable source you can not use it no matter now correct and truthfull it is. Yes sometimes it put articles on non-english topice at a servere disadvantage but they are the rule we must live by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. annonymous user, what I meant by "I joined Wikipedia to learn and share my knowledge" is that I use Wikipedia to learn about subjects and in return I contribute information to Wikipedia according to its rules and guidlines. If you look at my edit history, I have used the most reliable sources. If someone questions my edits or any of the sources that I cite, I'll explain everything. For example, editor Tajik has questioned my citing of this and then I presented this from the Encyclopædia Britannica as a back-up and support. Sorry no W:OR here and using another Wikipedia article as a source is not allowed.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson tag

There are complainants tagging the Scarlett Johansson article that are not willing to make actionable suggestions to the editor (not me, I reviewed it a for GA Sweeps 9 months ago). Instead they insist on putting the {{peacock}} tag on the article and a WP:SOCK is now throwing around WP:MPOV claims. I have stated on the talk page why this is a very bad time to be defacing the article with pejorative tags. Ms. Johansson's page is highly visible with a regular audience of 8-10K viewers per day and a ramp up in her audience is visible (http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Scarlett_Johansson ) as the publicity for Iron Man 2, which opens on Friday, impacts her viewership. There is now a tag team of editors unwilling to make any actionable suggestions but who insist on tagging the article. I am not sure if reverting a WP:SOCK could get me a WP:3RR violation, so I am here. I have requested either a list of actionable changes so that the willing and able editor can respond either through WP:PR or an individual WP:GAR or a clear statement at a community WP:GAR to gather collective feedback. Instead, the page was just retagged at a time when her viewership is about to bound upwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud Tony's honesty in admitting that high readership of a page is a reason not to have a tag. Some editors are less than honest and dream up of wikilawyering reasons. The more honesty we have in Wikipedia, the better. A barnstar for you, Tony. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to remove the tag, but I see it's gone already. I'll help to keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I see sentences in the article that could stand some rewording, but nothing that can't be addressed through the regular editing process and/or talkpage discussion. I don't think the problems rise to the level of needing the prominent "peacock" tag at the top of the article, and given that this is a prominent BLP page, I am concerned that new readers might incorrectly think the allegation of "peacocking" is directed at the article subject herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that a high ranking Wikipedia user and a lawyer would have such fears. If one has those fears, just make a new version of a tag or an alternate tag! Some people hate tags because they think it looks "ugly". Tags encourage people to improve articles. It gets ordinary readers to edit and improve, otherwise edits are often just made by the "vandal fighters". Wikipedia is not a idol to be worshipped and not edited. Wikipedia should be like a daily driver type car. Use it, edit it, improve it. Not a museum piece that is untouched. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NYBrad, My point exactly. Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a WP:BLP dimension to maintenance tagging? SGGH ^ping! 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are not supposed to just be slapped on in a "drive-by" fashion- if somebody feels it's justified, they should give a clear rationale for it on the talk page with examples of things they think are problematic. Also, the article is a GA and tagging it implies that it doesn't meet the GA criteria so if the issue is that serious, it should be taken to a GAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

current tag

a possible, alternative tag (not a replacement tag) to be added to Wikipedia's repetoire of tags (not necessarily to Scarlet's article)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand the idea that tags shouldn't be added to "good" articles because they might loose their GA or FAC rating - as if the tag draws attention to a flaw that the users who wrote the article want to hide from GAR or FAR (but of course I don't actually think that.) Rather get it fixed when a tag flags it up than let it go unnoticed, and to be honest most GAs or FAs never, ever need them. In terms of BLP, I think that's silly. Tags say things like "the article is..." or "this article has been nominated". To stretch it to the person or topics a bit too tenuous for 99% of readers IMO. In the time it takes to discuss this, the issue has probably gone from the article. I agree, however, that "drive by tagging" as User:HJ Mitchell delightfully put it, is a bit unhelpful (though we've all done it.) SGGH ^ping! 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I never have, and I very likely never will, for several reasons, not least of which is that they're generally unhelpful and disfiguring. The proper course of action is always to raise any issues on the talk page and, if the article is a GA or an FA, to initiate a review at the appropriate place if the concerns are not addressed. Best of all, of course, is just to fix the article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely dependent on one's workflow. Drive-by tagging and then fixing articles on the next pass works fine for me and I would assume that it works fine for others. The amount of abuse that editors who work like this receive is well beyond the minor level of annoyance experienced by Wikipedia's tagophobes. {{peacock}} (which can be very subjective) is a tricky one; most cleanup tags are self-evident and do not require discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

71.163.232.225 using discussion page as a forum for unrelated arguments

The user 71.163.232.225 has been repeatedly using the discussion page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases to discuss sex abuse and complain about the Catholic church. He has also been making disruptive changes to the article itself, much to the anger of other editors. It appears that he has even been removing large chunks from the discussion page and he was abusing the editor joo. He has created multiple sections on the discussion page exclusively for the purpose of arguing about sex abuse rather than discussing the article itself. Various other editors had been asking him to stop on the talk page itself.

I myself went to his talk page, User_talk:71.163.232.225, to repeatedly warn him about using discussion pages for chatting about the topic, but instead of stopping his argumentative and confrontational behaviour on the discussion page, he merely removed the contents of his talk page in an attempt to hide the warnings. He then came to my talk page and, in a confrontational tone, told me to stay away from his. User:Hyperdeath then joined him. In fact, it seems that User:Hyperdeath is quite a supporter of the IP editor.

From comments by User:LAz17 and User:Salvio_giuliano on his talk page, it seems that this IP editor has also been causing trouble in the article House of Crijević.

Here are some of the diffs for the page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359622104&oldid=359599043

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359424236&oldid=359415091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359340080&oldid=359230182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358759122&oldid=358757979

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358551816&oldid=358551353

...and here, he removed a huge chunk of text from the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358520829&oldid=358454735 (Huey45 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Concerning House of Cerva/House of Crijević, the user tends to prefer edit warring, instead of discussing. But, to his defence, lately almost everyone seems to be edit warring on those two articles, as shown by the respective revision histories: House of Crijević and House of Cerva. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

At least 4 editors (including me) on the Catholic sex abuse cases have written on the discussion that this guy ought to be banned from editing. 1) He kept inserting his own PoV instead of referencing reliable sources, 2) He deletes relevant materials, 3) He uses the Discussion page as a soapbox to attack the Catholic Church with irrelevant material, 4) He even deletes an entire section in the discussion page. joo (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ROBERT TAGGART

ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked repeatedly for various bits of disruptive editing and is also a sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ROBERT TAGGART/Archive). He seems to have stopped using his named account, though the latest block has expired, and instead uses a series of IP addresses from Vodaphone to make his almost daily "contributions" to Wikipedia. A typical example are the latest edits made by 212.183.140.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): a) restoring an old modification to Wythenshawe, which has previously been reverted by several editor; b) partial blanking of talk pages for his other IP addresses; c) choice bits of vandalism to some editor's talk page (usually mine), using his favorite expletive, "dweeb". Regarding item b on the list, I know that users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but in this case he blanks those belonging (technically) to other IPs and he removes shared IP templates, which is against WP:BLANKING. For the record, he has been made aware of this rule here, and lost no time replying thusly.

The various IP addresses have been temporarily blocked as they make themselves known, but playing Whac-A-Mole with this guy is a bit tiresome, so I request assistance from the administrators. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked but [42] edited his talkpage, it begs the question, with the rise in dynamic wi fi address and such like it seems wikipedia has no way to deal with disruption from such determined people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What a depressing thought. Springtime is not improving his temper, as shown by this token of gratitude on Mazca's user page, presumably for blocking the earlier IP sock. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to attract his attention as he seems to have forgotten about me. Why not just block his whole region for six months? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you too had the pleasure of his attention for a while. Maybe we should create a new member of Category:Wikipedia fauna, WikiDweeb. All we need is clever little icon to put on top of our user pages ;) Favonian (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Our "friend" has sent this message to us, though for some reason best known to himself edited by the daily sock. Should we at least oblige him by indef blocking the named account? Seems like he has earned it. As for the IPs, I'm all in favor of Off2riorob's suggestion, but I can imagine that there might be some opposition to it. Any alternative suggestions? Favonian (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts, being generally obnoxious, personal attacks, claims of multiple-use of the account... and not indef'd on the main account. Till now. And with talk page locked (see previous sentence). ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lo, did Mr Taggart drop back to 212.183.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and resume the attacks. Lovely. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks he craves attention. Thanks for blocking 212.183.140.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well! Favonian (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has transferred his attention to you. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:HalfShadow requesting unblock

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Tnxman307

• HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link to block discussion: [43]

HalfShadow is requesting to be unblocked. He's been blocked for 2 weeks at this point over the insertion of an inappropriate picture into a BLP, and to comments made regarding that insertion. He has admitted that the picture and the comments were "stupid" and ill-timed. I am putting this at ANI, since the initial block discussion happened here. I am inclined to think that an unblock is in order, given that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. I don't think we need to demand an apology or allocution or anything like that here; all we need to ask ourselves is "is the behavior that led to the block likely to continue if we unblock." Since I feel confident that it will not, I think an unblock is appropriate. What thinks everyone else? --Jayron32 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - they've realized the error of their ways and apologized for their ill-advised comment - the original block for that would've expired by now. –xeno^talk 15:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, why not. Tan | 39 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Lots of reasons why not. If we unblock we don't do it lightly.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Strongly oppose unblock for at least another fortnight three weeks. Anyone who "contributes" this or this (that second one is particularly vile) needs more than two weeks' one week's break in my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, DiaF is really just an internet meme/acronym. I doubt that he was literally wishing that other editors be consumed in a ball of flame. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  Obviously—I also doubt he was literally planning to assault any admin who wasn't "a country's distance apart" from him. However, such comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  People get angry; it's human nature. It wasn't worth an indefinite block the first time, it isn't worth one now. Leaving him blocked is not preventative in any sense of the word. -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  I think that it's preventative of the boring amount of disruption and trouble that will ensue from letting someone capable of saying that sort of crap back into the community. (Note that I never suggested an indef-block, if you read what I wrote, I think a minimum of one month.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin. He was blocked one week ago (not two) for highly inappropriate trolling wrt a BLP. He also got a fairly checkered blocklog too. I blocked him for a week, but that was extended to indef by others, largely due to the fact that he continued to deny serious wrongdoing. No, blocks are not punative and we don't demand apologies, but we do demand that users understand what they've done wrong and are able to reflect on the behaviour to avoid. I can support an unblock here. However, there are two conditions a) the user is banned from editing or commenting on Don Murphy in any shape or form. b) the user understands that they are on general probation - any further problems, and in particular BLP related problems will result in the situation being reviewed. Wikipedia is not a game. Writing about living people demands the utmost maturity.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am cautiously okay with this. HalfShadow, please take the time to check or ask someone if you are not absolutely positive on the copyright status of an image. Linking to a source on the talkpage and living with no image on the article while it is discussed would not be a bad idea. You do good work here, and I would hate to see you in another fiasco like this. Staying away from contentious BLPs for a little while might also not be a bad idea, especially that one. Best of luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think an unblock is perfectly fine. Remember that the original offending action only garnered a one-week block. Frankly, from reading the progress of what happened (without providing input during the last discussion), I thought the blocks were heavy-handed and excessive the first time around. The fact that he apologized at all is surprising; I don't think him doing so was a pre-requisite for an unblock. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock 2/0 and Tariqajotu make good enough points for me. SGGH ^ping! 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Tariqabjotu. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked HalfShadow per the discussion here. Questions, comments, or review is certainly welcome. TNXMan 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - As long as HalfShadow acknowledges that the behavior was wrong, and understands what led to the block, and won't repeat it in the future, then I see no reason to continue the block. -- Atama頭 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I also do not support an unblock for this editor after only a week. Block history does not show any change in behavior. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no particular view on the unblock. However, given the user was blocked indefinitely - and has remained blocked for 8 days - and that there's clearly some discussion required here, I consider Tnxman307's unblock only two hours after this discussion opened to have been highly improper. There was certainly no rush to unblock, and leaving time for people to look at the history, consider the block log, and discuss for at least a few hours, if not 12-24, would have been proper. This is a very poor admin call indeed.--Scott Mac 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say, that was my reaction too. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does seem premature, he has been blocked ten times now, four times this year. So he must be aware that he is on a short leash? and I am sure that editors supporting his unblock at this time will keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was "a poor admin call" will depend on what happens next. Unlike you I don't have the benefit of a crystal ball. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah, no; gonna have to call you out on that one. I've been blocked four times. Ever. And one of them was only for 15 minutes. A nice swing, but you've sliced and gone into the forest. You may have to mulligan HalfShadow 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think coming here with that tone is really counter-productive. Better to try to reassure us that you've learned the lessons.--Scott Mac 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well so is misrepresenting my block log, but hey... HalfShadow 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well excuse me, here is your block log, it is very messy and I only counted the blocks and not the unblocks and it has a continuing theme. Whatever you want to link to, there are clear issues that you are not showing to have learnt anything from. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)::

I'd also call it ironic, seeing as you have seven blocks. Glass houses and all that. HalfShadow 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have been blocked but I have over eight months editing and over twenty thousand edits since my last block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, you have more blocks than me, so until this physically changes, please leave the air of superiority in your other pants; at best it's hypocritical. HalfShadow 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see 5 distinct legitimate blocks on record for HalfShadow including the most recent (February 2009, March 2009, November 2009, February 2010, April 2010), and the February 2010 block was only for 15 minutes. What's relevant is that HalfShadow has caused trouble in the past, which nobody seems to dispute, but there is a consensus at this time that there's no need for a current block unless evidence of new disruption is brought forth. -- Atama頭 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that editors supporting this unblock will keep a close eye on the editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock is ok - the indef block was considered a bit extreme to many when it was made, and there was agreement at the time that it would be reviewed in a week, which it was. I think there was too much drama around the blocks in the first place. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock; I'm not sure it was justified in the first place, and certainly if the user has pledged not to repeat the conduct there is no basis for continuing it. Everyking (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The late Lynn Redgrave and her ex?

The actress Lynn Redgrave died today.

Lynn Redgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anticipating the article might get some attention, I took a look. It contained the image File:LynnRedgrave.jpg, which I viewed as a probable copyright violation as a scan of a move poster released under a cc-own claim. I deleted it as such.

I then went to have words with the uploader: JohnClarknew (talk · contribs). I noticed that he claims to be John Clark (actor/director) the ex-husband of the late actress. If he is, then the image may well be his own work (although not certainly). If he isn't, then there's a problem with the claims on his userpage. I've asked him to contact OTRS wrt his identity.

Posting here for review as the article is likely to get a fair amount of attention today.--Scott Mac 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I wouldn't be surprised if he won't respond for a while, though.--Chaser (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to short-circuit the OTRS, but I can vouch for JohnClarknew being who he says he is. We've corresponded regarding Wikipedia content.   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous accounts (no offence) "vouching" isn't really an equivalent.--Scott Mac 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I've met the man in person, some time ago, and when he started this account I wrote to him. There's no question that he is who he says he is, though you're welcome to pursue the matter as you see fit. I don't know what OTRS can do to further establish his identity.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, since we don't know your identity, you vouching for someone else's doesn't take us anywhere much. Certainly not anywhere enough to legitimise a copyright claim.--Scott Mac 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How would OTRS, a process managed by a bunch of other people behind pseudonymous accounts, make any difference then. At some point, you're going to have to trust somebody. I fail to see how OTRS would provide more trust than would someone that personally knows the person in question. Will Beback is a longtime user in good standing, we have no reason to believe he is lying about his relationship with John Clark, what could happen at OTRS which would somehow be better? --Jayron32 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS works because the individual who is verifying can e-mail from an named account - and that email is then logged on the system. Any of the OTRS ops can check it at any time in the future. That is the proper process for image copyright permissons (see WP:PERMISSIONS). We don't, and never have, worked on the basis of AGF with such things.--Scott Mac 20:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He specifically said he was verifying his identity and not the copyright status of the image. It seems we are not getting at the same thing here. Of course OTRS should be used to keep track of official copyright claims. However, I think we can trust Will Beback for positively identifying the owner of the account. In my mind the copyright issue is completely unrelated to Will's (or my) statement. Sorry about the mixup. --Jayron32 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS accounts are not pseudonymous. They are in the volunteers' real names and I believe that volunteers are all identified to the Foundation (I certainly am). If you want to dispute OTRS as a source of authentication of intellectual property ownership then you're going to have to completely change parts of the image licensing workflow. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the rights to a movie poster are held by the film studio though, not the director. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe we can ask him if he has any personal photos he can share.   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an appropriate time to be bothering the man over what is, after all, a pretty minor concern at best? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This man has a conflict of interest and should stick to editing non-Redgrave articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like he's edited his own biography. No-no! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is discouraged, not forbidden. The edits I saw were minor only. It's also extremely bad form to badger people around the time of a bereavement, I am sure if Will is already in contact then he will be able to discuss the issue of a photograph with the necessary sensitivity. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Moutray2010 - disruptions to the community

Clearly User:Moutray2010 is using Wikipedia as a genealogy site. All of his new page edits have been on pages that are now deleted or are up for AFD (see User:timneu22/moutray). His edits to existing pages have almost all been reverted. This user is certainly a nuisance to the community, and his 72-hour block may not be sufficient. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has currently been [blocked], about 3 hours ago. I and several other experienced editors and admins have left some advice and are trying to work with this user. At this point, there's not much else to do. I declined his recent unblock request, but so far I am not sure there is anything left to do. He's been blocked for 72 hours, and there is some preliminary attempts at mentoring going on. Lets let this one get worked out for now. --Jayron32 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware (and mentioned) his 72-hour ban, but honestly I don't think he's going to come back and start editing other topics. Mentoring, sadly, seems like a lost cause here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As yet, no one seems to have tried to work with him to help him assimilate into Wikipedia culture. Like many others, he just appears to be a noob who doesn't know how things work, and there is little evidence that anyone has tried to set him straight. You may very well be right, but until the block expires, and/or until he has outright rejected attempts at mentoring, what else should we do? --Jayron32 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He's been pretty aggressive with his insults and has shown no desire to learn or any insight into the idea that some of the problems might be his behavior. I think several people would have been willing to work with him if he'd shown the slightest desire to cooperate. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite ban from Wikipedia. I received a user-email from Moutray2010:

you are ridiculous and pathetic .
i will just keep reposting , as your biased attitude is apparent .
your opinion means nothing to me .

This user has now stated that his goal is to disrupt and continue reposting this nonsense. Why would we let someone like that make edits? — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even in light of the recent email, I am still willing to chalk it up to "pissed off after the block and just venting." The current 72 hour block is still active, and before enacting any other blocks or bans, I still think we need to wait for some further, definative on-wiki disruption. A pissed-off email from a blocked user is hardly an unusual development in a case like this. --Jayron32 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I hope it all works out well! — Timneu22 · talk 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll be spotted as soon as he resumes. If you get more email, or anyone else does, let us know here. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg L

Greg L made several comments at the reliable sources noticeboard that I viewed as defamatory statements about John Sugg, a journalist and living person whose article was being discussed as a source. The relevant quotes from Greg L are:

• "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions..."
• "...Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)..."
• "I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot."

I asked the editor to strike or refactor their comments, both on the noticeboard itself, as well as on the user's talk page. The user replied with a lengthy essay about why they felt justified in their comments. Rather than derail that discussion, I thought I'd bring up the issue here. I'm not seeking any sort of punitive action against Greg L, but I believe calling someone "an idiot" is a violation of WP:BLP—even when done at RSN. Greg L suggested I contact an uninvolved administrator if I wanted his comments modified, which is why I'm here. ← George ^talk 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If an administrator does decide to refactor Greg L's comments, please also correct the spelling of Sugg as Slugg. ← George ^talk 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the expression of opinion ventured across the BLP expressable line; the opinion, however, seems reasonable. Expression bad, opinion ok, requested refactor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I pointed out to George the nom, and he acknowledged elsewhere, his post here failed to reflect this P.S. that Greg L had left at the RSN. Greg L's post squarely addressed the nom's issue, 51 minutes prior to this AN/I being opened. This AN/I is needless wikidrama -- as to Greg L (though not as to the remaining three of us).

It also strikes me as odd that such great sensitivity and concern is being directed at of all things this particular alleged crossing of the line. While the nom (and, admittedly, most others at that discussion) have evidenced complete insensitivity to the instances raised much earlier in the very same discussion of BLPs (supported only by a non-RS) stating that individuals have suggested that others be killed, be shot, that they were incited to kill someone by living person X, and that have contained all manner of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. I encouraged the editors in that discussion to delete those references. Yet George, rather than address those far more serious references by removing them from those BLPs, chose to raise this issue -- first at the RSN, and now here.

Perhaps it is as Bertrand Russell says: "Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An offer to correct a post which is never acted upon isn't useful. Ignoring an administrator's request is likewise non-productive. To the best of my knowledge, I never "suggested that others be killed, be shot..." or any of the other things you listed, and I can't really understand what that sentence means, so maybe you could clarify, or leave me out of the group that shows "complete insensitivity" to whatever you're talking about. ← George ^talk 08:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• And, since there are especially restrictive requirements on putting posts in user-talk space, I corrected George’s comments and the thread title on my talk page (here) in order to not mention Sugg by name there. Curiously, George elected to not adhere to this counsel and did so again. I am accordingly deleting that thread in its entirety. Please try to ensure that controversial discussions of Sugg are limited to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such material must be strictly limited. I also corrected my “Slugg” spelling, which was entirely unintentional. Sorry for that. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations: Epeefleche, John Z, and Annoynmous

The underlying problem here is Epeefleche's original post, which manages to seriously defame both Emerson and Sugg. Epeefleche said, and Greg L repeated that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

Neither Sugg nor Emerson said nor did anything so dangerous or crazy. This is not at all what Sugg says in his FAIR article. What Sugg said was that Emerson helped push a phony Pakistani defector's made-up story that "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." Very, very different.John Z (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, then I would say “the proper response to bad speech is better speech.” I just repeated there what Epee wrote. If that point-of-fact is not true—or has been stretched beyond all comprehension so it isn’t a fair characterization of the facts, then please state as much there. What I wrote there was what I believed to be the truth of the matter at that time. If what is clearly my opinion there at Reliable Sources Noticeboard *truly* meets Wikipedia’s criteria for “defamation”, then I should think that in order to protect Sugg’s fine, fine reputation, there would exist a clear imperative to expediently remove the defamatory opinion. Accordingly, I hereby give my permission to any uninvolved Admin who finds my posts to be defamatory (and clearly not a simple matter of opinion that has an unfortunate tone) to delete any and all of my offending statements by deleting the offending post in its entirety. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia can not have “clearly defamatory” information on its pages, even on RSN; I’m just not clearly seeing it yet and so will yield to wiser uninvolved admins. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd note that the offending phrase goes back at least to Annoynmous's first edit here, and earlier, as he says he was restoring material, and that I and other editors pressed save in the Emerson article when it contained this phrase.John Z (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@JohnZ:

1. I am a living person.
2. Next time you disparage me with a contentious and untrue "fact", if it is in a conversation that I am not party to, I would appreciate you letting me know. You failed to do so here.
3. Your above statement as to me is not only contentious, as you well know (if you've read the sentence in full, that you quoted somehow only in part) it is completely untrue.
4. You untruthfully state that my post seriously defames both (your shocked emphasis) Emerson and Sugg.
5. You untruthfully state that I said that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India...."
6. As you know, if you've read the sentence in question in full, what my sentence really says is that (quoting just a few more words from the sentence):

"Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras [those being the 5 paras that Annoynmous had inserted, and which I was seeking to delete, are: 1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

To borrow your characterization: "Very, very different."

7. I'm more than a little miffed at your easy-to-catch error, at your defaming me, and at your doing it without even tendering me the slight courtesy of a note that you were doing it. Is everyone looking for a bona fide BLP violation? Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a winner.

8. Given that you are a NPOV editor, and your comments here were made in good faith, I look forward to you making this same accusation at the AN/I that is open with regard to the disruptive editing of your colleague Annoynmous. Accusing him, as passionately as you accused me, of the same defamation.

9. Of course, if you were a POV editor, I imagine we would not see you making the same passionate charge against your colleague at his AN/I. I assume good faith, however, and look forward to our seeing your post there.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I screwed up badly. There were so many he said, she saids involved that again, I screwed up badly in saying who was saying who had said what.John Z (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at this interminable thread, I note that you did, as far as I can see, accidentally, and in good faith, like everyone else here, indicate that you believed Sugg had definitely said #1. Not just that the 5 paras said Sugg said #1. Later on in the thread: "Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). " Has anyone kept things entirely straight in their head and in their posts here? ;-) John Z (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The context makes absolutely clear that what I was writing was "as presented in the 5 paras". It follows that in the string. One doesn't repeat every caveat, etc in these strings -- just as one doesn't write out the name of FAIR each time.

And, as you know, you were quoting the very sentence where I made it clear that I was referring to those 5 paras. Not some later sentence you're now trying to make a silk purse out of.

It doesn't explain your failure to notify me. It doesn't explain you quoting a misleading, limited portion of the sentence. It doesn't explain you defaming me.

And it doesn't explain why I haven't yet seen your damning post at your colleague's AN/I. Which I hope to see shortly. I'm quite annoyed -- I thought, whatever our different points of view at times, that you were above all this. It's not cricket.

I'm frankly disgusted by the duplicity here -- crying that these people you've not dealt with are being defamed --- while actually you are defaming me, with whom you are dealing -- you fail to notify me == and you still haven't stepped up to level the same charge, with the same passion, against your colleague, at the AN/I where his similar misconduct is being considered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I have apologized above. It is quite clear that in the later post you referred to the "5 paras" but you then quite explicitly made the same mistake many others did: You said Sugg said: #1 Emerson was involved in a plot... No, one does absolutely always repeat necessary caveats, because if one doesn't one makes improper accusations. In this matter of 'He said she said X said Y said', if one omits one of the saids one gets an entirely different meaning. Before you responded, I accused Annoynmous (see below) and myself of making the same error in article space. What else should I criticize Annoynmous for? I explained my own actions above and on your talk page: I screwed up badly. I'll say it again: I screwed up badly.John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense I've been brought into this discussion, I would like know when I ever defamed anyone. I think I once called Emerson an Idiot, which I acknowledge was wrong. I used that phrase because I was frankly very upset at Greg L's insulting tone and in the heat of the moment I used language I shouldn't have. I will say for my part that depsite my profound disagreement with epeefleche on many things, I don't remeber him ever using POV language of the kind Greg L is accused of. However, I think he's overeacting here somewhat. John Z said he was sorry, except it and let's move on. annoynmous 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Annoynmous: Oops again: I cited your edit here, which is a bit ambiguous, but the problem phrase really was in the next edit by yet another editor here, and that phrasing remained in many subsequent edits. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, just a broken telephone resulted in article edits desired by no one, that defamed both Emerson and Sugg, which people then took on faith and used as the basis of unfortunate statements. What a mess!John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annon: The defamation that you engaged in (by inserting the language into the BLP Emerson article; repeatedly) was the precise defamation that John Z mistakenly accused me of above.

I imagine that the following statements that you made constitute BLP violations as well -- your saying at the RSN that it seems a fellow editor “has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing", and “apparently operates under the rationale of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned" (when nobody mentioned a ban, or that they dislike you), that a fellow editor thinks he owns Wikipedia, that a fellow editor hasn’t “contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion", and that a fellow editor has “whined”. I note that you followed all that with the statement: “I believe in civility”.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I never inserted POV language into the article. All I did was add Suggs criticism of Emerson and his opinion of him. The quotes about TWA and the first WTC attack are not denied by Emerson. He merely says that many others made the same mistake. I agree that the pakistani thing shouldn't be in until a more reliable source is found, but I don't see what's wrong with the rest of it.

Greg L never threatened to ban me? So I supposed I was just dreaming comments like this:

If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner

Your telling me that's not a threat of a ban?

My language above was born out of frustration with Greg L's attitude. I'm sorry if I speak the truth, but the fact is he didn't contribute anything to the article and spent most of his time on the page insulting me. There's no rule that says I have to sit back take abuse. annoynmous 08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Epee et al: Epeefleche, we all did end up making these defamatory statements, you and Greg L were probably the last in the broken telephone. I again apologize for saying that your RSN post started it, which is quite untrue. Annoynmous wrote something confusing, another editor was confused and reworded it badly to say something quite unintended, you tried to eliminate it and many other things, and other people, including Annoynmous and me, not seeing that precise problem, reverted to the clearly BLP violating, original to Wikipedia, wording. This wording was eventually taken as fact, as what Sugg said Emerson said, by everyone at RSN, and this thread got started when Greg noticed how crazy the statement attributed to Sugg was but took it as factual, and derided Sugg. Again, a mess. I hope this might explain a little, to each other, Annoynmous, Greg's, mine, etc less than perfectly thoughtful statements. Good night to all.John Z (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice, thoughtful summary. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am once again reminded of the extreme importance of going to the source to see about what is and is not “factual.” So I read Sugg’s “Steven Emerson's Crusade” article in FAIR. Clever guy. He hides his accusations behind the apron strings of questions: Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war? Indeed, inquiring minds want to know. The FAIR article in question is an op-ed piece by an author whose, uhm… *suggestions* are, uhm… *novel* and have dubious uhm… *truthiness* in my opinion. Whereas Sugg might be an exceedingly fine author, and might have some exceedingly good works out there, in my oh-so exceedingly humble opinion, “Steven Emerson's Crusade” isn’t one of his better works. It was arguably a defamatory, POV-pushing piece, his writings on Emerson were the subject of a defamation lawsuit, and the article has absolutely no business being used in citations in Wikipedia’s BLPs—IMOSEHO.

  I could not possibly agree more with Jimbo when he wrote (∆ here): "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. The first five words in Jimbo’s post—the quoted part—was in reference to a post from Annoynmous (∆ here). Yeah, I’d say Jimbo’s common-sense assessment of the matter is something I entirely agree with; we need to go with other reliable sources and not mention Sugg’s piece at all. This is all a big do-da about reliable sources. Sugg’s op-ed piece, while having a message point some find welcome and refreshing, has no business being used as a citation on Wikipedia—IMOSEHO. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian mentorship

Is anything productive being accomplished here any longer? No. ArbCom will likely have their own motions out soon enough, if a case is not filed first. So get a cup of tea, relax, and let tensions dissipate. The world isn't going to end because of what you may or may not perceive to be bad blocks. If you still have issues with any of the parties after a day or two, there are appropriate areas to resolve that. NW (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hrs for a rather nasty blowup on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. He's had 4 blocks now in 3 weeks and seems to be escalating further into disruptive behavior after 9 months and 5,500 edits of largely good editing. If a calm uninvolved admin could talk to Turian about mentorship, it might help avoid further ongoing problems... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't seem like any of the editors there were being particularly civil (plenty of "fuck off" etc. almost immediately) but I'm sure there is a prior history to explain their reactions to each other. SGGH ping! 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I think the civility of the discussion was unfortunate on all sides; but it was Malleus' page and the others involved (besides Turian) were defending Malleus; Turian went there and kept pushing comments after being asked not to, told not to, told by Malleus to stop posting there, etc. Turian's previous 3 blocks in the last 3 weeks were the history I was aware of; multiple admins had talked to him about civility and NPA, and that he was not a good candidate to be warning other people about stuff. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I'd like to say after I looked at the situation I'd say Turian should be un-blocked.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC) He appears to have been given as much crap in the recent talk page thread as he gave out, but I would rather hear from those other parties before considering unblocking, and given the sudden downhill spiral of behaviour I would not advocate unblocking until the user has had time to a) calm down and b) entered into a discussion on his talk page (prior to unblocked) to see if any headway can be made regarding his behaviour. A quick check of his previous shows two quick blocks a month or so ago where he immediately resumed from one, causing another. We have all the time in the world (relatively speaking) to give the user some time to breath and remember that Wikipedia is not all that important. SGGH ping! 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I just spotted all this and had a read through, it seems like Turian will never actually learn, I doubt mentorship will help, I'm thinking his block should be extended! Jeni (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) At least block User:Malleus Fatuorum for this to. He is equally responsible.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I've asked the other two users to pop down and explain what history has prompted them to behave in such a way in that thread. Want to hear their sides too. SGGH ping! 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I will be popping in on this to.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent. While you're at it, think about a) changing your signature to something shorter, and b) figuring out the ":" formatting process. Tan | 39 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Don't insult me.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Completely uninvolved person here. I just read through everything and it seems to me that things just escalated out of control, though I can certainly understand Turian getting angry because of Malleus' comments over at John's talk page. If I was friends with someone, I would also start a discussion with the person. It seems to me that Turian was actually being rather civil in the beginning and then Malleus' increasing uncivil comments, along with other users coming along and being patently uncivil as well, escalated the matter into what it is now. I think all users, Turian, Malleus, and all others involved, need to cool down and perhaps even go have a cup of tea. Everyone should just back off, stop commenting on each other's talk pages, and leave it alone. SilverserenC 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Silver seren. I don't know that any of the editors involved here were more guilty than the others. It seems there was plenty of incivility to go around. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah so a block to Mellaneus or Turian un-blocked is the solution.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) What's up with all of this "This for that" stuf? Let him ask for an unblock and leave it at that.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Further comment After closer inspection of the section on Malleus' talk page, it seems to me that multiple users have formed a faction that seem to be about supporting Malleus regardless of what he says or does. Some of those users that I consider to be a part of that faction have already commented in this ANI discussion. SilverserenC 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) And my formal reply is "Why do you care?" That was directed at me. There is no cabal out to get him nor is there any hard feelings toward him on my part.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid Turian's incivility now more than warrants a substantial block. He seems to think everybody except he has as responsibility to be civil and respectful. He, on the other hand, posts inflammatory and insulting comments whenever he gets the chance. This isn't the only wiki on which he has this behavior. 89.168.73.243 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Everyone and he has a responsibility to be civil. We are discussing whether there was a breakdown in civility involving other editors, and whether they should be dealt with as well. Thank you, and please consider opening an account.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I thought this was a discusion about Turian's mentorship. Strange how the goalposts keep moving. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I intend to block Tanthalas39 for his edits - [44] [45] [46] [47] - as well. Raise any objections now. Prodego talk 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I see, and the edits on Malleus' talk page in between those edits do not warrant a block? Please explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Turian is already blocked, and I am reluctant to block someone for comments they make when they are harassed on their own talk page. Prodego talk 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This ANI is about Turian. Might I suggest that discussions regarding other editors be moved to a different section? There is no reason to unblock Turian at this time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) The section header does not limit the discussion, Rpeh. Otherwise a guilty party could come here, start a discussion about a less culpable editor and derail the discussion (at least for a time) when attention turned to his acts.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC) No, but it would be sensible to restrict discussion to one particular subject until the conflict is resolved rather than spinning off several other related discussions - which is what has now happened. This discussion should be about Georgewilliamherbert's original question: does anybody want to mentor Turian? --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (←) I think that Turian should be unblocked and all users involved that were uncivil, including Turian, should be warned about their behavior. Multiple users were inflammatory here. SilverserenC 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Who are they then?--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [edit conflict] I've blocked Tanthalas39. Prodego talk 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) And I just unblocked myself because you just violated [[WP::POINT]]. Start the wheel warring. Tan | 39 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC) For transparency, I just blocked Prodego while violating WP:POINT myself. We wouldn't want me to be the only one with a sullied block log now, would we? I'm heading to the gym, and look forward to the war zone when I return. Tan | 39 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Um...wow. Off to Arbcom we go then? SilverserenC 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) That might be one of the more hypocritical blocks I've seen in a while. Resolute 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It seems that a lot of people say that Turian should be un-blocked and this be dropped.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well, we can't drop the wheel warring ... but I would agree on Turian, esp if he's willing to tone it down.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, it seems like one person wants that, you. Now we have 4 admins that He wants to be desyoped, two wheel waring admins, one indef one, and about 10 other editors who may be blocked or warned as well. This is just begining.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Coren of ArbCom indicated on Tan's talk page that he is aware of the wheel warring, so we don't need to make a referral. WS, you write about war. Now you're in one!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused about what you just said. But, as i've stated before, I do believe that Turian should be unblocked. He was not the only uncivil participant here and certainly not the worst. He should not be the only one that is blocked (though I think no one should be at all). The other alternative would be to have both participants in this blocked (Turian and Malleus). SilverserenC 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'd say un-block Turian with a warning and warn every other editor that was involved in the argument directly it just seems as the best idea. Also it seems that some admins in particular are blocking him.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC) For the last flipping time, that's not going to happen. No one other than yourself wants that to happen. And enough of the "warnings" too.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Uh...*raises hand* I do? SilverserenC 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't. And neither does Wehwalt, Malleus or Tan.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Malleus is involved, so he clearly doesn't count. Tan appears to not be in a neutral POV at the moment, so he's out as well. Wehwalt said "Well, we can't drop the wheel warring ... but I would agree on Turian, esp if he's willing to tone it down.", so he agrees with me. SilverserenC 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) but he;s not toneing it down. Look at his last edit for crying out lound. WE're all involved in some degree or another. So you'r last comment is baseless.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Just a little side note, I'm not big on the acceptance of the whole talk page harassment complaint in general. Telling someone to shut up, even if you word it nicer than that, is basically asking them to continue. In my mind, telling someone to get off your talk page is just a way of attaining a "the other guy is the one who's wrong" verdict, when the other party inevitably responds, even though both parties are probably trout-worthy in perpetuating the dispute. "Harassment" can usually be stopped by ceasing to respond yourself, or by archiving the discussion. See WP:JDI which illustrates this nicely. Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying I think that's the best solution. But what do you think should happen, huh?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) We waltz on over to Arbcom and do a formal case in which Malleus is indef, Tan is de-sysoped and banned for 6 months, Yours truely gets blocked, Ceranthor is de-sysoped and the guy who stated it gets away scot free. Either that or we continue this here.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well, ArbCom is aware of Tan's matter, Coren, an arb, blocked Tan and asked him to submit a statement to the ArbCom mailing list. Don't know if they will consider anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If Arbcom would rule then that way, then that means that all of you guys are in the wrong. You're making it seem as if Arbcom would make the wrong decision in this matter and I sincerely doubt that. SilverserenC 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) They may if you all campaign like politicians. Something's not right. This should have not gone as far as it did. Prodego whould have been blocked/de-sysoped for abuse of his tools as well. I'm feeling like we were given the short end of the stick.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes Curtis23 Curtis23 Curtis23, we get what your opinion is. Repeating the same thing over and over borders on being disruptive. Resolute 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) We've had at least 20 people comment on this thread alone. (Not to mention talk pages) If this does'nt deserve an Arbcom case then nothing does.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If 20 people commenting on an ANI thread means an ArbCom case is deserved, we'd need a lot more ArbCom members. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It has more to do with the fact that multiple users and admins are involved. I do believe that an Arbcom case may be necessary. SilverserenC 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Emergency desysop → Try to discuss/flame over there, please (though that's like begging 25K barrels of oil not to hit the U.S. Gulf Coast). –MuZemike 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Further all this - timeline and context. Malleus said "Never post here again" on his talk page, to Turian I warned Turian on his talk page I noted the warning to Turian on Malleus' talk page and left a mild warning / request for everyone else to tone it down too Turian reverted my warning on his talk page Turian left me a not-nice note on my talk page Turian went to Malleus' talk page and immediately after the "Never post here again" posted further material, the content of which was unacceptable beyond posting on another users' talk page after being told not to, which explicitly violates WP:HARASS I blocked Any of Turian's posting on Malleus' talk page immediately after being told by Malleus never to do that, Turians's posting there after I told him not to, Turian's last comments' contents after the prior warnings, or Turian's overall actions to bait another user on their user talk page, constitute block justification by themselves when combined with the prior block series and prior warnings over incidents with other users. The three together mandated action. Turian's state of mind is further indicated by the comments, unblock requests, and edit comments immediately after the block - he was not feeling very reasonable, and he showed it. I would like to emphasize that I think Turian would benefit from having a mentor, as he thought the sequence of events and his behavior was perfectly OK, and it clearly was not, regardless of what others did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Reiterating my WP:JDI comment above, "never post here again" is an invitation to "please post here again so that i can show everyone how you posted here after i told you not to". This happens alot and I'm saddened to see respected admins taken in by it. Someone who wants comments to cease on their talk page have the means to make it happen effectively, and commanding the offending party is almost never effective, at all; and the more heated the conflict, the less effective it becomes. Malleus knew this. Please try not to delude yourselves into thinking otherwise. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Understatement on my part. Compare this with the thread above and below. You'll see what I mean.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Civil resolution - now there's a novel idea! Is this not been blown out of proportion completely? I've seen several good suggestions which have been overlooked. I have no administrator authority nor am i involved but it seems to me that so many people are involved that a resolution to the situation seems impossible now without length Arbcom. So here's a novel idea how about all involved parties in the original dispute be placed under mentorship and the following restrictions: 0RR. No reverting of another editor's changes, even if it appears to be vandalism. This applies to any change that restores older material, even if the "undo" button isn't used without approval of mentor(s). No editing of the articles which the user was involved in previously i.e. the article(s) under dispute. No removal or modification of content from any page outside of mainspace (stripped of jargon, that means you can delete material from articles, but not from talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, policy pages, or templates). Would this not be a sensible move? Anyone disobeying the restrictions placed upon them for 90 days could be banned without warning for an extended period e.g. 60 days Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Depends, am I a member of the dispute? Is Tan? Is Prodego? is Silver? This will not work there is a fine line of involved and later involved now. I fear a case looming....--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose Hmm, this seems very restricted doesn't seem like a good idea.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose While this was blown out of proportion, the fact is, it now too big of an issue for ER's to really work. No one would agree to them.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well do we have a better idea? if you take it to Arbcome i fear that good admins will be blocked too. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, we drag it out here. And Arbcom is not full of idiots. They'll make the right desision if we leave it to them and not try to lobby like politicians. I want to go there becasue Prodego abused his tools to block Tan for litteraly no reason. Belive it or not but there is a right and wrong in this issue. Several wrongs have taken place and they will not be fixed thorugh this. And who would these ER be placed on exactly? Please name the people.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Arbcom seems to be a good solution to this ongoing war.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose This discussion isn't even about an actual article, but various users actions. Since this has expanded beyond just the initial incident and involves a variety of people, I really do think an Arbcom case is warranted. SilverserenC 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yah a lot of people are involved Me, Silver, Shadows, Turian, Tan, Malleus, and more. Arbcom is the best idea.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I would have suggested restrictions for User:Turian, User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Tanthalas39 although maybe my suggested restrictions were too harsh but with mentorship it could have worked. I would have recommended that all involved admins be warned about their conduct and told if such incidents happen in the future they would be demoted from admin to ordinary editors and/or blocked for a while. but then maybe as you've suggested arbcom is might be required to address: Several ordinary users had an issue which was not resolved here. Admins became involved and got wrapped up in sanctioning each other. Admins have misused admin tools.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) New solution - Begin an Arbcom case Speaks for itself. Would involve Tan, Prodego, Malleus, Turian, GWH, and any other person who's commented on this whole thread.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Have you started it on Arbcom yet?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) No, I'ts much too late for me to begin that. Just support it if you want and an admin will being it.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Agree, but i really shouldnt be involved in this. I was merely trying to help resolve the situation. If you wish to go to Arbcom that's fine but it isn't really anything to do with me. My actions here are not under question. I tried mediating but it failed. don't shoot the messenger ... Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) You are correct, you came in here at the very end and aren't really involved at all. You may still make a comment at the case though when it has opened, if you feel like it. But you aren't required to. SilverserenC 02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry it couldnt be resolved otherwise. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Support It's rather necessary at this point with the number of disagreements that have been created in this discussion. SilverserenC 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Support Definitely needed. The disagreements and number of people in this warrant and ARBCOM case.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Prodego's abusive tool use Prodego's block needs to be undone. There was absolutely no consensus for it and it is awfully pointy and disruptive. Of the four edits he cited only one was even borderline uncivil, and it came in response to a series of aggressive and abusive posts on an editor's talkpage after being told to cease and desist. Are there any sensible admins who can exercise soem restraint and cease adding to the problem like John and Prodego are doing? I'm not sure GeorgeWilliamHerbert's block was particularly useful either, but at least it can be justified. Electroshoxcure (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I want him de-sysoped. We need an Arbcom case.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Tan reverted the block himself, which caused him to then be blocked by Coren, an Arbitration Committee member. It will not be undone now until after the, likely, ensuing Arbcom case, pending their decision at its conclusion. SilverserenC 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Ok I don't think a de-sysop is a good idea yet but something must be done definitely--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC). Lie. Tan was blocked for no reason at all. He then blocked Prodego in response to his abuse of the tools. It may have not been in the best of faith but Prodego did indeed abuse the tools.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Obviously unblocking himself wasn't appropriate, but abusive blocks like this one that sully block logs are very problematic. So at least now there's parity. Perhaps Prodego and other admins will use more care in the future. We can only hope. They're here to help resolve disputes not to add fuel to the fire and push buttons willy nilly. Electroshoxcure (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Sticking this in here for the record: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Log of blocks, bans. and restrictions. Risker (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 unblock

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – In case it gets lost down at the bottom, I've unblocked Tan. I'm unlikely to revisit this unproductive thread on my own, so if you say something to me here, please ping my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) As the thread up above is closed, I figured I'd start a new one. I'd like to get a consensus to unblock Tanthlas39 with immediate effect to time served. I didn't like the way the thread was heading, certainly not the attitude that Tanthalas39 was expressing, but I don't see how this block is helpful at this point in time. He's desysopped now, I think it's in everyone's interests to unblock Tan and allow him to contribute to any discussions regarding his desysopping. I don't really have an opinion of the original block - but I think an unblock now would be the best thing to do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) That sounds entirely reasonable to me. IMO abuse of admin privileges should not normally lead to anything worse than loss of admin privileges, and this doesn't look like the kind of egregious case that asks for more than that. Hans Adler 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC) May as well unblock. Originally a warning would have been adequate, and the desysop has taken care of the use of admin tools by Tan, so at this point I think there is no reason to stop Tan from editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) A completely ridiculous and altogether avoidable situation. While Tanthalas39 did not respond to the provocation wisely, his was not the first error in the sequence (nor, unfortunately, was it the last). Can everyone be properly smacked and can we move on as painlessly as possible from this unnecessary drama? Support unblock (and support rebitting). jæs (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock and do something about Prodego who is now running free and smelling of roses. Jeni (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock. To keep Tan blocked is entirely punative and not preventative of anything. Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Keep blocked for the time being, Tan has a history of provocative behaviour (to say the least), and he said th Coren that he was fully aware of the consequences of his behaviour, so it looks like a "suicide by Arbcom" to me. He can email Arbcom, and post on his talk page, just like any other blocked editor. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock but I'm not sure who's going to have the gonads to do it. The most recent block was enacted by a member ArbComm - unfortunately wrongly and out of process, and I still like my 'nads enough that I don't want to see them in today's soup. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock Tan and Turian. Tan's comments were the worst of the bunch, so if he gets unblocked so should Turian, IMO. All the arguments above for unblocking Tan apply to all parties involved. Equazcion (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm expressing no opinion on the various blocks (I try to stay blissfully ignorant of blocking policy for sanity's sake, although I notice that ANI continues to be dominated by childish discussion), but all of this started with User:John, who has a history of provoking other editors with uncivil statements.[48] A discussion of what unfolded here is incomplete without looking at its origins, and addressing the problems of admin behavior at their source. When uncivil admins provoke other editors, the outcome is inevitable, and good editors are drug into the ensuing mess. As to the closed thread regarding mentorship of User:Turian, mentorship of editors with a disruptive history rarely produces the desired outcome, and those editors should be shown the door quickly, to avoid dragging down productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I very much agree with the first part of what you say; I have no opinion on whether mentoring would be effective in this case or not. The whole unhappy incident was started by User:John's habitual rudeness in a discussion over tagging Scarlett JohnsonScarlett Johansson. Turian became involved in a misguided and overly aggressive defence of John's behaviour over several pages, and began to lash out and all and sundry; the rest is history. It's absurd to focus on just one episode in that saga and ignore the factors that precipitated its unfolding. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I have never edited Scarlett Johnson in my life. --John (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This may be what they mean by provoking others, with an edit summary of "missed the bus", as I think you are sharp enough to figure out that Malleus was mixing up his tartlets and meant to say Scarlett Johansson. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I did realise that. Is it provoking others to ask for a correction? Some diffs and a notification that my conduct was being discussed would have been nice too. The "missed the bus" summary refers to Malleus's comment here. What exactly was MF's locus in commenting aggressively on my talk page like this? If you are looking for a "root cause" of this matter, this editor's conduct may bear more inspection than mine. All I did was improve an article. --John (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Given that Coren asked Tan to contact the ArbCom mailing list, I'm presuming that the block has been done under ArbCom authority, and I really think that it's a bad idea to go around unblocking or otherwise poking admin tools at the whole sorry mess. With that said, a block seems a bit over-dramatic, although a case could be made for desysopping. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC). I don't think we exceed our authority by becoming involved in this. Usually arbcom handle wheelwar-type issues, but there's no reason to say that the community can't. I'm not fond of the perception that an emergency arbcom motion trumps a reasoned consensus of the community. AGK 12:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Recommend unblocking Tan. A single token block for disruption is less important than a discussion relating to a user's administrator tools. Also noting that Prodego has been blocked for disruption, so there are no need for the calls for his head on a stick. AGK 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, User:Prodego is not blocked. While I think his actions here were quite poorly considered, I do think we have already issued too many silly blocks for one escapade. Yet another coud well lead to a very unhappy cabal, err, camel. jæs (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Prodego was blocked... by Thantalas, right after unblocking himself from Prodego's block. Another admin unblocked Prodego 3 minutes later. Prodego's block log --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Comment Agree with unblock. Coren, as an individual member of ArbCom has no particular special powers in this area, and so we can review a block as usual. Seems no point in keeping him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I can't see how Tan's comments can be seen as anything less than clear personal attacks and harassment. Tan, completely unprovoked went to another user's talk page and left the comment (to a third party) "are you fucking kidding me? You're going to be all high and mighty, threatening to "visit ANI", while chastising the user about... being civil? Get the fuck over yourself." He made several other comments to the same effect - [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. These aren't instances of snapping when harassed, Tan deliberately went out of his way to harass and attack another user. Prodego talk 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) However much I believe vulgar language ought to be (and can easily be) avoided, the word fuck does not inherently make any old statement a personal attack. Calling someone a fool may be a (very mild) personal attack; saying they are acting foolishly almost certainly is not. Expressing incredulity is not a personal attack. Falling back to sarcasm is not a personal attack. Even expressing outrage is not a personal attack. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? jæs (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, this isn't about the use of profanity, although this helps make things a bit more obvious. (The bolding of 'fuck' wasn't my own - it was in the original message). Tan attacked another user completely unprovoked, and made several disparaging remarks towards another user in a discussion he was not involved with. This is part of a larger pattern of such behavior by Tan. I don't have a problem with Tan being unblocked in order to comment on his desysop - but I strongly stand by the interpretation of those comments as blatant personal attacks. I asked for objections before blocking both on and off wiki before making the block, and there were none. As for the goatse image, it seems I was right that it should be deleted. Prodego talk 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Are you open to recall? Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) By RfAR. Prodego talk 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) and you inflamed the situation by blocking an admin with no consensus. I would say the most disruptive one in the bunch was you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) There is nothing different about administrators, its just a set of tools for maintaining the site. There should be no special treatment. Prodego talk 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Coren specifically reduced the indef block back to the "original block" after the desysop, so I no longer consider it an Arbcom block. Since consensus above seems relatively clear, I'm going to unblock now, not as a judgment on whether the block was good or not, but because the real damage has already been done, and we might as well try to save the bits and pieces we can. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) IMO, Prodego is developing a bit of a cavalier shoot first and ask questions later attitude towards carrying out administrative actions, be it summarily deleting images without discussion or blocking other administrators for cussing. Things that simply offend one's sensibilities are not grounds for using admin tools. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I think Tan was developing an approach that was not compatible with his position, and instead of being receptive to the feedback he was given (on more than one occasion) to address his approach, he chose to continue along the same path and took it too far. He knew what the consequences would be, but took the gamble anyway. Given that Tan had repeatedly dismissed the feedback and had no intention of changing his approach, the inevitable could only be put off for so long. I hardly see the usefulness in dragging this out further with excuses or justifications or attempts to reassign blame or anything else that would be punitive (including keeping him blocked). Accordingly, I endorse Floquenbeam's action of unblocking him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Endorse already-enacted unblock, with no further comment on wrongdoings by any other editor, admin or not, in this whole mess. There's plenty of blame to go around, and as far as I am concerned, no one involved in the initial series of incidents, up to and including the various blocks, didn't get splattered with the shit that hit this fan. No one is blameless here, and as such, we should all just walk away, and do nothing further with this. Everyone should let it drop, and get back to finding a pointless bit of drama to get involved with editing articles. --Jayron32 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Comment Administrator food-fights may be entertaining, but they demean the position and wikipedia itself. You guys really need to take these kinds of issues offline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Another concern that maybe should be addressed is what could be called "admin burnout". The two guys in this thread, I have considered both to be good admins. Does wikipedia have or need some process for dealing with this "burnout" syndrome? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unless bringing on more admins is the solution, which I don't think the community at large is for. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not therapy. –MuZemike 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Responding to the more admins solution) Even if there were more admins, there'd still need to be a willingness AND ability on the part of the burnt out admins to "let go", "drop the stick", "move away and take a deep breath", or whatever expression fits the particular circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) An editor can respond to burnout by walking away for a while. There were a lot of poor decisions made here, but Tan was no martyr. The tit-for-tat block he made himself was enough to justify losing the bit, imo, regardless of the actions of anyone else. Resolute 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Furthermore, "good editors burn out sometimes" is still used far too frequently around here to excuse any bad behaviour by established / well-liked editors for periods way in excess of that permitted for the hoi polloi. This goes doubly when said editors have the mop when it really should be the inverse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Burnout? Don’t make me laugh. Nobody forces anyone to edit here and as for at least one of the individuals involved, the liberal use of spiteful insults in an attempt to humiliate editors who dare to reproach him about his attitude is a long-standing trait, not one suddenly brought on by wiki-stress. Just because you consider someone to “be a good admin.” (i.e. you like them and you follow them about) doesn’t mean that they are suffering from burnout because once again they have allowed their arrogance to get the better of them. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Turian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Talk page access was removed so he can return when he's unblocked. Show's over. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

He has requested un-block multiple times and they were all rejected despite that multiple users INCLUDING the person that he supposedly insulted that caused this block. I myself did not make the decision to bring this to ANI although Turian wanted it to (but he couldn't himself because he is blocked). He wanted the communtity to help him get the administartaors to see he is unfairly blocked which even (as I said before) the "insulted" says so. There also is a conversation on his talk page here where if you want to see his defence you must go there. Thank you.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least it seems illogical to unblock Tanthalas39 and not Turian. Tan was much more over the line, I think, so I'd say either unblock both or none. Although, Tan is de-opped for the moment and Turian's block isn't exactly for very long (only 48 hours), so maybe it all balances out :\ Equazcion ^(talk) 00:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved admin, taking his behavior into account, I don't find the block unjustified. I don't subscribe to the notion that "Well they didn't get blocked" a valid justification or excuse for their behavior that initiated the block. Q ^{T C} 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OverlordQ on that account. However, the block on Tan was very disputed; Tan must have been pissed and unblocked himself, resulting in desysoping. We don't unblock one person because another person is unblocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Two notes -

One, a largely different set of admins are dealing with the incidents with Tan and so forth. I'm not going to touch that side of the incident with a 10-foot pole at the moment. Nor are the incidents really symmetrical. Inconsistency in response due to different responders is perhaps regretful but is reality here on Wikipedia.

Two, I would like to (again) suggest that we find Turian a mentor, with or without unblocking before the 48 hrs are up.

With that, I leave the situation for uninvolved admin review, unless someone has a question of me.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While a short block was definitely in order, I think 48 hours was going too far. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that Turian might benefit from mentoring but I would agree that he should be unblocked at this time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A good point is that the "accuser" doesn't agree with the block so why block? Also, Turian says he'll take a mentor if he gets justice if you look at the 2nd of his 5 unblock requests.--Curtis23's Usalions 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should unblock now. The purpose has been served. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think Turian should be unblocked. The block has gone far beyond it's purpose now. Also (though I usually tend to agree with Coren's actions on things), I think desysopping Tan in this case was very pointy and uncalled for, especially given how overwhelmingly pointy Prodego's block of him was. A stern warning would have been sufficient. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't notice that Tan had turned around and blocked Prodego after unblocking himself. Due to this one extra bit of information, I agree with the desysopping as that was stepping beyond acceptable actions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not to take this thread off track, but what point was I trying to make? My block was a NPA block, based on diffs I've provided both before and after making it. Prodego ^talk 01:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• If it was an NPA block, then everyone involved in that whole mess should have been blocked. There was more than enough incivility on the part of many people there, yet only one person was blocked, apparently only because he was incensed by the inequality of the block applied to Turian (when the others participating in that "discussion" were all flinging epithets back and forth, but only Turian was blocked). Blocking Tan served no purpose. He should have just been warned. All your block (and Coren's desysop) has done is to push him away from the site. He's an excellent contributor with an excellent track record (even if he does wax passionate on occasion). This was not handled at all well, from the very beginning. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your block was also baseless and not in line with any sort of consensus. You made that block without any prior attmept to settle the matter in less...um destructive means. You made a grad total of two, count them 2 edits to that thread prior to blocking Tan on the grounds of NPA. Furthermore, you likely spent a total of 5-10 minutes researching the situation before makeing the block. And when Wehwalt, an amdin like yourself objectied, you blew it off and blocked him anyway. Even though you said that you'd listen to people's objections.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss why that is not at all true on my talk page if you would like, but here is not a particularly good place. Prodego ^talk 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well. That seems just. However perhaps you'd like to reply at the Arcbom noticeboard. I still belive that you abused the tools.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What did or did not happen to Tan is irrelevant to the conversation, as is what the "insulted" party has to say. Blocks are to prevent behavior that is outside of guidelines. It's true, alas, that different people interpret these guidelines differently, but to say "it's OK, I don't feel insulted" excuses the behavior is really not the point. We establish community standards, not individual standards. It's an online medium; if people are engaging in behaviors that don't translate well to an online medium...perhaps the consequences serve to reinforce that point. As an offline analogy, there are certainly things we would discuss with co-workers but not family, friends but not acquaintances; siblings but not parents...the examples could continue. So, again - what the consequence was for any other involved party, and the it's OK with me opinion of a theoretically aggrieved party really aren't important. If the block was correct at the time it was issued...it's probably OK until it's expired in its natural course of events. Having said all that: I didn't follow the drama (I am - at least in my own mind - famously anti-drama) and have no comment whatsoever on whether the original block was warranted. I just think that the decision on whether or not it was warranted has nothing to do with Tan.  Frank  |  talk  01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Total agreement - this topic is about an unblocking of User:Turian and anything else should be discussed somewhere else. I have already stated that I believe he should be unblocked, although a requirement should be that he be assigned/accept a mentor. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Based off of his current unblock request, I'd oppose unblocking him. He clearly has not learned anything.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The key word in AGF is assume. Assumption becomes unnecessary in the face of the user's actions. Resolute 01:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think I normally agree with Prodego (I know his name is familar... hopefully for the good!) I must disagree that this block was justified in light of the comments that the person "insulted" even disagrees with the block. Blocks for uncivil remarks towards another user should be put into context and not into a bubble as many admins have the habit of doing and saying "you NEVER make that comment no matter the circumstance". Example- someone called me a "dirty Jew" in high school, I punched him and bloodied his nose, I did not even so much as get detention. Sometimes circumstances push good people to do "bad" things. If an editor who is insulted wants to make a case for a block on the insulter then that should be on their responsibility, not a passing admin taking it upon themselves to do something. Admins arent policemen walking around looking for purse snatchers and jay walkers to arrest. This is a case of a "civil crime" (pun intended on uncivil/civil) and perhaps we need to treat it like that, this isnt a crime against the state where the victim has no discretion in the process.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian definitely needs to learn when to calm down, and needs to understand why he has been blocked, which is why I support the Mentoring suggestion. I also think the block was too harsh. Too many opinions in this discussion are black and white and, as usual, the answer lies somewhere in the gray. An unblock with mentoring seems appropriate. Of course, as the clock ticks forward and the auto-unblocking grows ever closer, the whole point of this discussion becomes diluted. --rpeh •T•C•E• 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The community thinks otherwise. Please read WP:CIVIL. Civility is not situation-dependent. It is, as I said above, subject to interpretation by "passing admins", but that's unavoidable in a volunteer-project. That isn't the same as "situation-dependent", however. If the high-school slur you refer to above were issued around here, it would almost universally be an immediately-blockable offense. If your response where brought into question, that would be a separate issue. And that's the point here.  Frank  |  talk  02:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Frank, you and I have different and opposing philosophies on the role of policies in Wikipedia and the role of janitors. That I would be happy to discuss with you any place you want in a debating format, I believe it would be fun. I personally dont agree with you, but I can acknowledge you have an equally valid interpretation as I do. I would however have to say the Community has always taken the same position as I have on policy talk pages regarding "rules" and "policemen". Civility is situation dependent unless you are someone who believes policies are "laws" and must be enforced by the letter. The assumption is faulty because Wikipedia has IAR and specifically in many many many places (including Jimbo himself) says they are not laws and common sense applies.Camelbinky (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IAR, I invite you to read WP:IAR and understand what it's really about...and then, as a side trip, check out Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. Regarding common sense, I invite you to read User:FisherQueen's response to Turian's unblock request here and describe how unblocking at this point, in the face of those diffs, would constitute common sense.  Frank  |  talk  02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave plenty of his edits here that indicated his general attitude. And yes, I declined his sixth unblock request. I refuse to engage with him any further so if someone out there thinks unblocking him will actually produce something over not letting him edit will gain, it should be interesting. If he wants a mentor, I see no serious indication of it from his talk page (short of "If I get to choose my mentor, I'll consider it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If somebody else would have posted so many unblock requests as turian did, and responded to the message left at his talk page with the edit summaries as he did, that user would have been blocked for much longer period, and honestly I do not believe it will be such a great lost for the project, if turian's block is extended. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits, I would note that Turian's block was for 48 hours and is approximately 19 hours away from expiring on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

User: Melonbarmonster2 refuses WP:BURDEN

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

This is a content dispute/edit war between the two of you. This discussion does not belong here. If you want to open up comment about his conduct, start an RFC. Do not unclose this discussion again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Miura Gorō

Melonbarmonster2 continuously add an hoax refusing to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes.

• The development of this incident can be found at Talk:Miura Gorō#Inline citation issues.
  1. Melonbarmonster2 added a description without providing an inline citation.[56] (A reference was provided.)
  2. I reverted it with an edit summary requesting to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes per WP:BURDEN.[57]
  3. Melonbarmonster2 reverted it.[58] The discussion began.
  4. Melonbarmonster2 persistently refuses to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes despite the user edited saying "More material from Chung's book".[59]
  5. I reverted Melonbarmonster2's edit because I realized the user has no intension to provide the requested materials.[60] Then Melonbarmonster2 reverted again.[61]

• In this case I didn't revert repeatedly, 3RR doesn't apply fortunately. If I had reverted immediately, this would have become edit warring judging from the user's block histories described below.

• Melonbarmonster2 began harassing me by stalking my past edits provoking edit warring.Tanabata, Kisaeng.

• Melonbarmonster2 repeatedly add back the un-sourced content to Tanabata.

  1st, 2nd, 3rd. This content was newly added[62] by Zookitty8 (talk · contribs) at 2:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC) and I removed[63] immediatly after the edit.

  (In this case Melonbarmonster2 managed to find the source later.)

• Requested punishment action to Melonbarmonster2.
  • Blocked from editing for an indefinite appropriate period.
  • Reversion of Melonbarmonster2's edits including the harrassment edits.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.
  • Prohibition of stalking and harrassment to my edit.

• References
  • Melonbarmonster2 and former account Melonbarmonster's numerous block histories prove the user's editing habit.
    • Melonbarmonster (block log) 6 times.
    • Melonbarmonster2 (block log) 2 times.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Have notified user. I seriously doubt an indefinite block will be considered but we will look and see what we have. SGGH ^ping! 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that blocks are not used as punishment. —DoRD (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster's Response

I have had to repost my response here because Phoenix7777 has vandalized my original response with his own interjections and tried to continue his arguing with me here instead of addressing the admins. He altered my signed comment[64] When I attempted to separate my signed comment from Phoenix7777's writing, Phoenix7777 engaged in reverting even in on this notice board.[65]. Please find my revised response below. I have taken off my signature from my original response which has been since altered by Phoenix.

• Please take a look at my edit which Phoenix has been reverting. The validity of my edit and citation speaks for itself and I do not understand how anyone can claim my edit is a "hoax" without violating WP:GF. [66].
• The issue here is not WP:BURDEN. The reason why Phoenix is insisting on deleting my edit is because it is not an inline citation[67]. ALL the citations of the article were not inline citations[68]. By Phoenix's logic ALL the citations of the article should be blanked upon challenge because they are not inline citations. It is my understanding that general citations are allowed when the source supports a significant amount of material in the article. It is also my understanding that even imperfect citations do not warrant blanking and outright deletions. Phoenix did not even attempt to discuss his objections as required by WP:STATUSQUO but started blanking my edits outright.[69] I had to open up the discussion in the talk page which is when he brought up his WP:BURDEN complaint for the first time.[70]
• In spite of Phoenix's bad faith reversions, far from refusing or ignoring Phoenix7777 I tried to address his concerns
  • I tried to divert Phoenix's revert warring by agreeing with him and making a constructive suggestion that the ALL citations of the article should be transitioned to inline citations and asked that he help me in that task. [71] Phoenix ignored my request and continued his inexplicable reverting.
• Either Phoenix has a basic misunderstanding of citations rules or I have a misunderstanding of the rules. It is my understanding that editors should assume good faith and that even imperfect citations and edits should not be unilaterally deleted and blanked. Rather than reverting other editors' good faith edits, we should engage in discussion in the talk page and/or assist in repairing the citations. There are also request for citation tags and issue banners we can add to the article to point out citations issues of articles. Phoenix has forgone all attempts at such constructive editing and has engaged in disruptive blanking. He has also done this in other articles:
  • [72]
  • [73]
  • [74]
  • [75]
  • Phoenix has even engaged in altering my signed edits and then reverting even in this noticeboard.[76]
• Requested action to Phoenix7777:
  • Blocked from editing for an appropriate period for disruptive blanking of other editors' good faith work and disruptive behavior in this noticeboard.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.

Thank you. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please take a look at my edit which Phoenix has been reverting. I have no idea how anyone can claim my edit is a "hoax" in WP:GF. [77]

  If you don't like to be accused of a hoax, why are you refusing to provide page numbers and direct quotes? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

• The issue here is not WP:BURDEN. As you can see in the talk page, the reason why Phoenix is insisting on deleting my edit is because it is not an inline citation. ALL the citations of the article were not and are not inline citations. By Phoenix's logic ALL the citations of the article should be blanked upon challenge because they are not inline citations. It is my understanding that even imperfect citations do not warrant blanking and outright deleting. Phoenix did not even open a discussion in the talk page but started blanking my edits outright.[78] I had to open up the discussion in talk page which is when he brought up his WP:BURDEN complaint for the first time.[79]

  I first reverted your edit with an edit summary "Please provide an inline citation with "page numbers" and "direct quotes" per WP:BURDEN".[80] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• In spite of Phoenix's bad faith reversions, far from refusing or ignoring Phoenix7777 I tried to address his concerns
  • I tried to divert Phoenix's revert warring by agreeing with him and making a constructive suggestion that the ALL citations of the article should be transitioned to inline citations and asked that he help me in that task. [81] Phoenix ignored my request and continued his inexplicable reverting.

    I cannot accept your excuse only for an evasion of WP:BURDEN. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Either Phoenix has a basic misunderstanding of citations rules or I have a misunderstanding of the rules. It is my understanding that editors should assume good faith and that even imperfect citations and edits should not be unilaterally deleted and blanked. Rather than reverting other editors' good faith edits, we should engage in discussion in the talk page and/or assist in repairing the citations. There are also request for citation tags and issue banners we can add to the article to point out citations issues of articles. Phoenix has foregone any attempt at such constructive editing and has engaged in disruptive blanking. He has also done this in other articles:
  • [82]

    Already reverted Melonbarmonster2's edit by other editor.[83] And Melonbarmonster2 began edit warring there too.[84] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [85]

    This is an edit by a user banned for sockpuppet immediately after this edit.[86] See my edit summary "Removed a file added by a blocked user. Per WP:BAN". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [87]

    This is already resolved by the editor acknowledging the removal.Talk:Kōdō#kōdō or kodo ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [88]

    This is also resolved at talk page.Talk:Tofu#Info about rice tofu...... ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Requested action to Phoenix7777:
  • Blocked from editing for an appropriate period for disruptive blanking of other editors' good faith work.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.

Please stop disrupting my edit.[89] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be alerted to Phoenix7777's talk page[90], [91] for numerous complaints about Phoenix's reverts and blanking of text from articles.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the closing comment. This is not a content dispute, but the user's conduct issue. Melonbarmonster2 added a book as reference and refused to provide a relevant page numbers and direct quotes and repeatedly add back without providing the requested materials. Moreover Melonbarmonster2 began to repeatedly add back the un-sourced content. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Persistent anon IP hopper

I am experiencing problems with a persistent anon IP hopper, already blocked at least twice for personal attacks and disruptive edits (86.40.105.226 (talk), 86.40.210.11 (talk)). I'm not the only editor who has been the target.

Recent edits on my talk page from this editor are: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] This editor's latest incarnation is 86.40.202.253 (talk). Hohenloh ⁺ 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently same one that started this discussion. I semi-protected your talk page for a week. You can request re-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Chaser (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May I offer my opinion? I believe I have been nothing but courteous to this gentleman, indeed, I have proferred my arm in friendship to him, only for it to be struck away, much like a barbarian would kick a dog. But nevertheless, I digress. I refuse to give up. I will persue my ambition to embrace my brother into the fellowship of man, to compel him by the power of human decency to submit to kindness. Indeed, all I have done has been to express my due hope that together we may strike a cord of friendship and togetherness not seen in the annals of human history. If my time on wikipedia is to be a success, I believe I will have to embrace such socially challenged individuals, and must insist on maintaining a good working relationship, in spite of their defects.

Have I really behaved so appallingly? All I ask of this gentleman is to embrace me as a fellow human being, to converse with me, to discuss our differences over article content, but at every turn I have been resorted to accusations of bad faith, something which is I believe contrary to the commandments as established by this august institution.

So again, I beg, please forgive a wayward sinner and try to help him achieve the right track, of kindness, dignity, humanity and reason for all. Thank you. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am the victim of a terrible conspiracy

As yet, there has been no attempts to find my innonence, only to prove my guilt. I find this to be intolerable and would prefer if all wikipedians, all of those people who may hold contemptible opinions about my motives and actions, would reach inside themselves and find their better angels, and in the interests of humanist compassion, recognise that I only wish good things for this project and hope that together we can move forward, despite this confederacy of dunces arrayed against me. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I to wait in limbo indefinately? 86.40.207.29 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This would tell any reader everything we need to know. Personal attacks--both against the owner of the talk page and the individual who rightfully reverted your attacking edit against the owner (with the last one being one of the most egregious violations of WP: EVERYPOSSIBLERULEORGUIDELINE I have ever seen in an edit summary) would result in an immediate and likely indefinite block, were you a named account. As you are an IP, however, we can take other measures against you.

Would an admin more knowledgeable in rangeblocks please examine the possibility of rangeblocking this IP user? Seriously, the above diff just amazes me. GJC 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest ip blocked, and yea, it's probably time for an admin with rangeblock-fu skills to step in. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I was driven to the edge of dispair by the EXTREME lack of courtesy of that user. I've tried and tried and tried to apologise but only get spat on. Won't you give me a second chance? 86.40.99.232 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin on animal rights

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

Seems to be a consensus here that there's nothing actionable here from an admin's point of view. If you disagree on sourcing/wording/etc, take it to WP:DRR and sort it out rather than sniping at each other on ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

SlimVirgin is at it again, with her reverting changes wholesale on the article, condescendingly ignoring argument to the contrary on talk, and baiting her opponent (me in this case) into violating protocol. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some diffs here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This one appears to be the only one. I had thought there were more. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) It seems to me, Stevertigo, that you are the one ignoring the arguments being made. She reverted your changes only once, with a very explanatory edit summary. She has then made responses on the talk page to the section you made. Her argument makes complete sense and this shouldn't have been brought to ANI. Silverseren^C 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links that she gave (here and here) show that you have had this type of disruptive editing going on for a while. Silverseren^C 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has dealt with SV before knows her modality is revert and run. I filed this perhaps prematurely, but that's due in part to my prior experience in dealing with her. In fact my three point-by-point arguments remain substantive, while the writing she defends is in fact just weasel terminology, not as she suggests, belonging to the domain of animal rights as a legal concept. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been frustrated before with Slim for this reason. However in this case it looks like she's right. See my comments at the article talk -- and if the OP agrees this was premature, this can be marked as resolved for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you somehow missed the big orange box about notifying the subject of any discussion here...? —DoRD (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He did notify her, just not on her talk page -- on the article talk page instead, where they were talking. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it might have been easier to notice if they would use an edit summary on a more regular basis. :\ —DoRD (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, DoRD. Stevertigo has a history going back several years of adding his own opinions to articles, and in particular to leads. Anyone wanting examples can read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. I will give just one example, but it's very typical: here at Perfect crime. He's been asked many times to use reliable sources, but acts as though being asked for a source is some kind of personal attack. Given that AR can be contentious, and that it's a concept that's been developed by academics, we need high-quality sources when describing what it means, preferably academic sources. That's all that's being asked of him.

And running to AN/I with a complaint because he was reverted once with an explanation on talk is the kind of thing he's often been asked to stop doing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo and Talk:Perfect crime. At the latter I dealt away with a nagging current of inconsequentalism. The ANI ran on for weeks, with editors digging back as far as 2003 for dirt, and it still went nowhere. I got the last word in there as well.

But enough about me. All we ask SlimVirgin is that you discuss things first, honestly, before making reverts to articles. Thanks, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you make unsourced additions to articles, particularly well-developed articles about a contentious issue, you must expect to be reverted. Then it can go to talk for discussion, but you still need to provide a source. What you can't do is revert again, still provide no source, then complain on AN/I that you're being treated unfairly. All that does is waste time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, aka. "expect to be reverted," is now reverting sourced edits to the lede (diff). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, a link to a blog column by Dave Munger supporting a word usage and a link to an activist org don't belong in a lead section. You're an intelligent person, Steve, but for some reason, you're still editing like its June 2002. You must admit, things have changed a bit. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing something if an argument is made for it. We do however see concepts such as personhood mentioned in the lede, and that's the term I was focused on. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you "got the last word in there as well" ? Apart from the sheer, smug arrogance of such a statement, that is a rather interesting interpretation of an AN/I that resulted in you being blocked for 2 weeks. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterise that block as an outcome. The point of the ANI was to investigate my overall edit patterns, and went on for most of a week before I was blocked improperly by a partisan. Arbcom gives admins such leeway apparently. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the block was an outcome of your continued disruptive editing habits; just because you did not accept it does not mean it didn't happen. Anyways, is there anything more to do here requiring admin intervention? Seems more like a straight-up editing dispute that should be discussed over there. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. The block wasn't an outcome of the ANI, nor was it related to any so-called "disruption." It was just an administrative patch that assuaged several partisans and fell below the radar of Arbcom review. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem requiring administrator action. I'm sure any content issues can be discussed on the talk page, as both of the users involved are long-term editors and I'm sure they are capable of working out a solution. Everyking (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A wider pattern might establish more reason for admin review / action, but nothing presented so far does. We know histories; this is not sufficient reason (so far) to intervene. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Gabi Hernandez

I am asking the community again, to review the edits of User:Gabi Hernandez. After being warned numerous times, she promises never to edit again here [97], then applies for administrator status here [98], after which she returns to not following image and sourcing guidelines, uploading a character image to identify an actor here [99], when warned here [100] about doing so, and reverting an unsourced edit revert here [101]. This is the third time I have had to ask the community to intervene, and it is becoming quite tiresome to see someone violate policy over and over and over again. It is clear that she wants to treat this as a fan site, and has absolutely no intention of following our rules. We have tried over and over to give her advice here [102] and here [103], but she refuses to heed it. A believe a short time block is order, or an indefinite one to get her to a wikia project. Thanks again for your time. Rm994 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, something needs doing here. She was about to get sorted out a few weeks ago:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#User Gabi Hernandez

and dodged that by going to ground for a bit. User is simply not listening to anyone and is intent on a lot of inappropriate editing.

• [[Wikipedia:Editors for Wikia]] needs writing.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If using character images is against the rules, then why is it used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Reid that is clearly an image of Alice, not Frances. --Gabriela Hernandez 01:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)

Just because no one caught it, does not mean it is correct. I took care of it. I see you still do not sign your name correctly, when advised twice on how to do it. Rm994 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. I only followed that article, and thought that it was the correct format, since Frances passed away in February. I thought the same would apply to Helen Wagner, because she also passed away. And I thought I was signing correctly, I hit the sign button. Gabi Hernandez (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Character image also used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jason-cook.jpg in the article for actor Jason Cook.Gabi Hernandez talk--Gabriela Hernandez 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, how do you add actor/actress images. Do you just not add them at all, because they are all non-free? I need to know these things. Gabi Hernandez talk--Gabriela Hernandez 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Read image use guidelines. TAnthony has linked them to your page on several occasions. Perhaps you could contact him with any questions. You should comment to individual users now, as this is a forum for the community to review your recent edits. As friendly advice, might I suggest wikia to you? It seems to be more inline with what you like to do. No one there will warn you of violations, and you don't have to source. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the adminship request some kind of joke? If not, there is a WP:COMPETENCE problem going on. Gabi, you don't have to be an admin to edit soap opera articles, and normally users have to be pretty experienced before they can become admins. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Days of our Lives has its own wiki: http://days6510.wikia.com/wiki/DAYS_OF_OUR_LIVES_Wiki 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked GH's account for a week. The most egregious problem to me is fair use images of characters to illustrate articles about actors. After so many explanations, the assumption of good faith has worn thin. I'm not sure what to do here and will await other input before shortening or lengthening the block.--Chaser (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a point at which it's simply no longer possible to AGF, and I think we've reached it here. Either the user simply can't understand our rules (despite having it patiently explained to them on a number of occasions), or they're just taking us for a spin. Either way, it's a net positive for the project to not have them around anymore, at least until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies on fair use images. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

I don't think she is actually "trying" to cause trouble. I just think the policies may be a little overwhelming. I've been editing for 3 years, and I still don't know anywhere near enough! I do agree that the assumption of good faith is wearing thin, and if she doesn't learn from her mistakes, we should point her to a place with less rules. Thank you all. Rm994 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper deleting relevant materials despite other editors' objections

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of Catholic sex abuse cases:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

See article discussion here and here.

Here are some of the diffs:
1. Removing section on Context (quote by Applewhite) and Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

2. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

3. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removing quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

5. Removing i) comment by Christian Science Monitor on their survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a simple content dispute. Did you think of trying Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism to get outside views? Fences&Windows 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I don't see this as a simple content dispute because the problem is very one-sided. One party just kept deleting material and refusing to discuss. joo (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he removed all the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement page/ corporate PR editing

If you take a look at the Internet Brands article it looks like it's been subject to some pretty heavy "PR management" by the company, it's a blatant advertisement (it's the company that bought out the vBulletin forum software). I don't know how to best go about checking the IPs editing, and being an internet company they have probably been smart enough to make usernames anyway for editing (maybe even editing other articles first to make it look legit?) which only admins could check. Really think this should be investigated so thought I should report it, it's not a hugely major company like some of the companies I've read that have been caught editing their own Wikipedia pages, but I still don't think they should just get away with it even if they have made accounts to hide who is making the changes. --94.193.135.203 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (random lurker)

You're on to something here. I'd be interested to know what the relationship is between LuvWikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) and CellarDoor2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam), who appear to be tag-teaming to keep a POV tag off the page, and what the relationship is between those two and Internet Brands, given the dozens of articles about Internet Brands' websites the two have created. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also LoveWikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). These are pretty damning (notice that little sidebar on the right). I'll trawl through their website to compile a list of sites and otherwise investigate this spam tomorrow. I smell blacklist fodder. Let me know if you delete anything between now and then. MER-C 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment seems to imply there is a policy against a company linking to wikipedia page(s) about themselves? LuvWikis (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the following as A7:

3FatChicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Dave's Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

There are lots of others, but they have assertions of notability in one way or another. That's not to say that they wouldn't better be dealt with as a paragraph in the Internet Brands article or even a List of Internet Brands websites. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of the pages above had notability explanations. Can we have due process here? LuvWikis (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a DB-SPAM -blatant advertising on the rest, as the template says they need a complete rewrite from neutral parties (if they deserve to be here at all) since this has been going back all the way back to 2006(!!!) undetected by anyone, looking at the contributions... You admins really need to create some kind of centralised astroturfing alert system, like with vandal stuff... Just wow... :/ Seriously if this one is this bad I can only imagine how many other stuff like this is getting past the radar because they are in niche areas... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Have any of the above-mentioned accounts been notified of this discussion? It is mandatory to do so. 69.211.10.208 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I think we can assume the news will get around the others :) EyeSerene^talk 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if they are either a) the same person b) all based in the same office or c) some outsourced "guerilla marketing" black hat SEO outfit --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't think of a single good reason not to banninate the lot of them as spammers. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither can I; linking to their self-written articles from their website is the very definition of astroturfing. However, given the numbers and the likelihood that more will appear, I think blacklisting and/or filtering might be a useful additional step. EyeSerene^talk 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Before i saw this, I had declined a speedy deletion on the main article, as I do not thinks it meets the criterion, and is rewritable by normal editing, and even after seeing this, I think a speedy unjustified. Whether the particular users should be banned from editing it is another matter, and I'd support doing that, and semi-protecting the article to deal with probable continuation. Deletion is a very blunt tool to deal with NPOV. I have also declined a speedy on Professional Pilots Rumor Network for the same reason--whether it is notable enough for a separate article is,again, another matter. Others may judge differently, but AfD is available. I'm going back now to the main article to do some rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigating (results posted on WT:WPSPAM to avoid clogging up this noticeboard). MER-C 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Luvwikis, you need to answer ALL of the following questions.

1. Why are ALL of your edits related to Internet Brands?
2. Explain these entries in your move log.
3. Do you work for Internet Brands or are a contractor thereof?
4. Do you know CellarDoor2001?
5. Why have the links to Wikipedia from internetbrands.com disappeared between yesterday and today?
6. Is an online encyclopedia a vehicle to be used for the promotion of Internet Brands?

Until then, I believe you are abusing Wikipedia for the promotion of Internet Brands, therefore these sites need to be permanently blacklisted and that you be banned with extreme prejudice. (Hey, look, I have a ifreelance.com link on my userpage! Yay!) MER-C 06:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to do anything, it would need to be done soon... the company has now started the whitewash operation, mass-removing the {{db-spam}} templates from articles using two of their accounts (probably two SEO/PR people assigned to it since there seems no reason to use more than 1 account at this point), and thanking User:DGG for their support in doing the same, and deleting discussion of the company's behavior from talk pages: [104] [105] --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added them back, the company's rampaging around removing the templates actually worked and disrupted the deletion of many of them, some were taken care f but not the ones they got to first:

Autodata Solutions

CarsDirect

CorvetteForum

Internet Brands

EPodunk

WAHM (magazine)

Apartment Ratings

Wikitravel

Professional Pilots Rumour Network

FlyerTalk‎

DoItYourself.com

FitDay

DVD Talk (I missed this too, the using multiple accounts is actually quite a smart move it's harder to keep track)

As per {{db-spam}}, advertising content that would need a complete rewrite to be NPOV, the edits done by this outfit should be gone and start from unbiased if they are worth having it all they would need a fresh start without the taint of this manipulation (going back as far as 2006 for some articles, they seem to have succeeded at keeping this off the radar for over 4 years... I really think what I said before needs to be done that you need to set up some kind of centralised anti-astroturfing warning system like with vandals, if these have escaped how many other companies are getting away with this?) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, we have a problem here. The list of sites owned by this spamhaus includes:

• wikitravel.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

... of which there are thousands of links to this site (plus, I believe, an interwiki thing). There are also articles on various websites which were created by good faith editors, often before said sites were acquired by Internet Brands, whose links need whitelisting when we blacklist. MER-C 07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User subpages nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Internet Brands. MER-C 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:CellarDoor2001/ExpertHub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/HuntingNet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/ePodunk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/Tjoos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/Model Mayhem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/WAHM (magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/CruiseMates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/CorvetteForum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/BensBargains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/3FatChicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/GrooveJob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/The Bargainist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/CarsDirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/KidsCamps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/Dave's Garden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:CellarDoor2001/Splitcoaststampers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:LoveWikis/DoItYourself.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:LoveWikis/Apartment Ratings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:LoveWikis/Autodata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kittins, much as I admire your zeal, you are added back speedy tags that I removed. I do not tolerate spam, far from it, but when I see spam on a article about something notable I rewrite it. When iI see a spammy link, I remove it. I have been doing this for years, for dozens of spammers just like this. I leave it to others to judge if the articles are still too spammy to stand after I have worked on them, but your replacement of tags is interfering with my attempts at cleaning up this mess. It is not permitted to replace speedy tags that have been removed in good faith by an editor not the author of the article. Please take them individually to afd if you disagree with me, but do not continue undoing my work If the subjects are notable, a descriptive article is not spam. MER-C, I'm going to oppose the Mfds, beca=use I know I can rewrite the articles. If you like, anyone is free to block the spammer (I might do it myself except I consider myself involved at this point), I have not the slightest objection, but usable content is usable content. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK sorry, I just really don't think they should get away with this, I've used PROD that would be better right? I think they need to be redone from afresh without any of the taint they have put in, I can't believe you've let them get away with this for over 4 years and I really really think if Wikipedia is going to start defending themselves against this kind of astroturfing that you need to show that this kind of behaviour will actually make things worse - what you are saying is making them happy look at your talk page, if they win this will only go on, and other companies will take heart knowing that Wikipedia is a safe place to manipulate. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The one great thing about Wikipedia is that it at least tries to be a last bastion on the internet free from advertisements and PR people... this is a serious threat and should be taken seriously, you are up against multi-million dollar businesses who can afford to employ people to do nothing but edit sites like Wikipedia to enforce their party line. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a safe place to manipulate if people are watching. What we need to do is watch better. I have despammed articles from all sorts of major businesses and organizations, and explained it clearly enough that they have not returned--or I have blocked them when they did try to return. No, Prod would not work, because anyone can remove the tag if they wish to challenge the deletion, and I am doing just that; your recourse if you still think they should be deleted is afd, but I will certainly defend my work there. If others judge it is not good work, the articles will be deleted, though I cannot remember the last time it has happened to an article I rewrote in a case like this, except when the spammer insisted on re-adding the bad content. I have not let them get away with it for 4 years. Had my attention been called to it, as you have now done, i would have dealt with them,but I do not take responsibility for checking personally every article in Wikipedia, though I do take responsibility for fixing problems I notice. The project as a whole failed to deal with them , because the articles did not attract attention because the subjects of them are, after all, easily recognized as notable and the spammer was competent enough to write them in a way that appeared to follow our conventions. Because they did that, and because they added good references from reliable independent sources, iI do not consider it necessary to delete and rewrite them, nor do our policies require it. That is one way of handling if nobody is prepared to rewrite them, of course, but I am. I am not concerned with punishing people, I am concerned with preventing spam from staying in Wikipedia. If further spam needs to be prevented, the users can be blocked and if necessary the articles all semi-protected. We will sometimes optionally delete versions to remove BLP violations and copyvio and libel and other vandalism, but not merely spammy edits. I help the deserving and the undeserving alike, if the net result will improve the content of Wikipedia. It's 4 AM here. I should be doing other things than this, I had already done enough spam removal for one day, but I am going to keep going till I remove at least the spam you inadvertently reinserted. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems that LuvWikis and CellarDoor2001 should be banned from editing Internet Brands articles, for the obvious COI and astroturfing. Whether the articles can stand on their own is an entirely separate question. Thanks for the good de-spamming work DGG, and thanks also to Kittins for bringing this to everyone's attention. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to do something about these 3 (only 3?) editors. SPI perhaps, although if they are different editors that doesn't mean they aren't doing paid PR work. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested removal of Wikitravel from the interwiki map here. MER-C 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CarsDirect --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

helperbot7 helperbot5 editing logged out?

The toolserver IP edited WP:UAA: looks like HBC AIV helperbot7 may be editing logged-out. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has done this several times, though I believe the original creator retired - there should be an operator somewhere to talk-message. SGGH ^ping! 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Department of Redundancy Department has notified Wimt. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, bot 7 is operated by Wimt (talk · contribs) so I have asked about it on their talkpage. I'm hesitant to block the IP as there seems to be only one other helperbot running at the moment. —DoRD (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

7 actually appears to have been editing the whole time . I may have got the bot number wrong. I'll go sort through the contribs. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should block it. It isn't causing a problem. People at UAA know who it is cause it's happened before. SGGH ^ping! 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot 5 last edited at 02:07, 4 May 2010. Bot 7 appears to have been editing uninterrupted, as has bot 3, including during the time of the logged-out edits (which haven't occurred since 10:54, 4 May 2010). The others appear to have been inactive for some time. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, now I'm really confused because the IP is editing simultaneously with 7, so maybe it is 5. —DoRD (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried contacting the botop for 5. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The logged-out edits have resumed. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request Meatpuppet block.

A few days ago I opened a sock puppetry cae on three editors. User:Rogueslade, User:Mandoman89 User:Biohazard388. In the end they weren't proved to be socks and myself and a few other editors expressed concern that these were meatpuppets and got dragged through a bullshit ani. Well I still think they are meatpuppets and I take comments olike this to be proof [[106]]. That message was posted on all the mentioned accounts. Can we please block the perpatrators? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tempting. However, the comment from the sockpuppet User:Teenage Martyr just shows that Dalejenkins likes deleting Star Wars and Lady GaGa articles, not that those three accounts are connected to each other or to Dalejenkins. Being an SPA at a single AfD is not in itself a blockable action, is it? If they proceed to vote stack on other AfDs or discussions or tag-team on edit articles I will happily wield the banhammer. Fences&Windows 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I just mentioned on my talk page, User:Teenage Martyr is GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), who has been jerking us around again especially over at SPI the last week or so. Let's keep it over there so as not to feed the trolls. –MuZemike 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

{ec}And you find it merely coincidental that this happened this way? I don't, not even close, you have a known sosck tauinting the community with his new additions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My concerns about the above three editors were not resolved, but I guess that's not shocking since at least one invited us to "check my IP" almost immediately. All three brand new editors knew exactly how things work on wikipedia, and Boba Phat was a marginal and weak article to mount a deletion vendetta against. I've leave it to others to determine whether any block is appropriate.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This report is nothing but a lot of bad faith with no evidence to support that assumption. Just because a sock of Dalejenkins congratulated them doesn't mean that the the accounts are socks or that they are meatpuppets. There is no evidence what's so ever to connect the four together. The SPI turned up negative and I believe we owe it to Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388 that they are who they say they are. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not buying it either. Just because a CheckUser result showed different IP addresses to be in use does not mean that the accounts aren't sockpuppets or even meatpuppets. Without going into the specifics for reasons of WP:BEANS, it is absolutely trivial for someone to defeat CU if they understand how it works. It would also make sense that he could swap IPs at will (and swap back) due to how many broadband ISPs today implement sticky dynamic IP addresses. Let's also not forget the power of the almighty cantenna... Moreover, given the third comment in this edit [107] "Check IP Addresses if proof is needed." it is obvious that this individual set out from the beginning to beat CU. This isn't the type of behaviour exhibited by a new editor or someone who just registered an account.
Usually accounts such as these would have already been blocked per WP:DUCK as being sockpuppets based solely on behavioural characteristics. [108] [109] [110] The behaviour of all 3 accounts is identical and matches the behaviour of Dalejenkins.
The account creation dates are also quite telling. Biohazard388 was created on 9 June 2006 [111] and never used until 26 April 2010 [112] when it initiated the AfD in question. This date closely matches the account creation dates for Dalejenkins (11 May 2006) [113] and Bravedog (4 August 2006). [114] Rogueslade was created on 22:53, 26 April 2010 [115] followed by Mandoman89 on 21:34, 27 April 2010 [116] during the AfD which follows similar patterns of confirmed Dalejenkins sockpuppets. The wording in the first comment in this edit "I fail to see how this being my first action as a member can be used to call the move's validity into question." [117] appears to have also been carefully chosen instead of saying something along the lines of "I'm a brand new editor and just signed up". --Tothwolf (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, this is becoming ridiculous. This is extreme bad-faith towards myself and the other users being accused. As I Have Stated Before in this previous ANI report, I have been involved in other Wikimedia projects in the past, and am currently an administrator on a privately operated wiki platform. Also, the policies, guidelines, and templates are FREELY available to any Wikipedia user. Is it hard to believe that I, a person fluent in Wiki coding, can sit down for an hour and read through Wikipedia's rules and policies, and review the templates for an action and then implement them? That is, after all, what they are there for: to help users understand and use the tools that are built into Wikipedia's framework, both as a software tool, and as a community through it's policies? Is it also hard to believe that I know that the Wiki software logs IP addresses, and that I can simply say "review my IP address" to have myself vindicated? I can understand a preliminary case based on my account being inactive for a good long time, but to go so far as to nearly derail an AfD and create two ANI postings on the topic... it is starting to seem like a few select users are being overly suspicious of a newbie to the community who happens to know what they're doing, and how to read, and it's starting to disappointment greatly that these select users in this open community cannot just hang up the towel when the proof they were looking for doesn't exist. I am not a sockpuppet, and I'm not a meatpuppet. I've never heard of DaleJenkins before this, and these users that are accusing me of this are only giving Wikipedia a bad name in my book. I saw an article I didn't agree with. I signed into an account which I've had created for a while and have never used. I read the "how to" articles and start an AfD, and these few select users attack me relentlessly, along with other users who I can only presume are innocent, too. Today I started to contribute more to the community, as I'm trying to move up in the Wikipedia community a bit, but this newest accusation is really making me feel as if this community is just a bunch of paranoid biggots that have nothing better to do than bash a newbie. I call bad-faith. Actually, let me make that "Extremely Bad-Faith". I suggest these users review the WP:AGF article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohazard388 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, Biohazard388 is likely telling the truth, so stop assuming bad faith. Biohazard388, please list your usernames on other Wikis or consider a unified login to help put this drama to rest, as there is no way to be completely sure that what you are saying is fact. In the end people, stop attacking others just because they just happen to pop up at an AFD. Coincidence is always a possibility on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be guilty of the same things as Biohazard; having basic intelligence. Of course my response to such an accusation would be to say go ahead and check my IP address. I assume that your checkuser software gives a general physical location of the IP address, state at least, perhaps city as well? If this is the case, I'm content to let the administrators in charge of those checks to indicate what state I'm in, based on my IP, and I'm willing to bet that the other accused individuals would allow the same thing. After all, given the widespread use of Wikipedia, I assume that the odds of the other accused parties being in the same state are low. Furthermore, after seeing the provided 'evidence' I chose to run through the history of my talk page. This Teenage Martyr and VaginicaWestwood strike me as deliberate attempts to frame me, and I would assume the other users as well. Knowing that the entire site is monitored by the admins, not to mention assuming that my detractors would be likely to 'watch' my talkpage, both comments were clearly an attempt to throw further suspicion onto me. These ongoing accusations are insulting, to say the least. Hopefully, as time wears on and both myself and the other editors make disparate additions, this ridiculous defamation will stop. That's assuming I even bother to make further contributions, as these assaults are starting to make me rethink whether it's even worth the effort. Rogueslade (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any blockable actions here. That you were able to find evidence of them discussing matters right on Wikipedia actually weakens the case for meatpuppetry. If they were conspiring in the "real world" it would likely be invisible on-wiki to hide this fact. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 188.225.180.251 vandalizing after several warnings

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks by User:Vianello. –xeno^talk 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP 188.225.180.251 has been continuously vandalizing the Rawabi article with extreme POV edits (ie: blanking any references to Israel, delinking Israeli towns so as not to "advertise" them, etc.). He has received multiple warnings on his talk page. He recently moved to a new article, State of Palestine, to continue his battle. When I left him a message on his talk page, he called me "biased zionist trash" in his edit summary. His contributions can be seen here. Can someone please do something about this? It doesn't appear that he is willing to collaborate or take any regard for Wikipedia's guidelines, which he has been made aware of. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope. HalfShadow 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

main article protection?

I attempted to edit the main article but it appears it has been locked since April. Is this truly the encycloaedia "anyone" can edit? 69.211.10.208 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It should not have been - I've fixed that for you. Sorry! Prodego ^talk 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be protecteD -> WP:NOPRO "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The operative word here is 'generally' as in 'most of the time'; it's not a rule. HalfShadow 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Following which the IP improved the article, for which we thank him/her. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Sorted. –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty nice backlog on WP:AIV. I know y'all are having fun making drama and yelling at people, but if a couple admins could stop blocking one another and maybe work on some vandals, that would be great. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block

Resolved

 – by Paul Erik. Jarkeld (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Hi. The same user has vandalized Bird on the main page today. He's already received a "last warning" from Cluebot (and might already be blocked). Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul Erik took care of this. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for future information, WP:AIV might get a faster response. NW (Talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Faster than 2 minutes? :P --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another fan in my club

Resolved

Over the years, I've managed to attract the ire of individuals who don't like my cleaning up thier vandalism on military-related articles, especially those editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. For the most part, they get blocked and move on, and I've had yet another one step forward to harass me. Today, the SPA Pops1775 (talk · contribs) started with some name calling on my talk page, and reverted me when I reverted it. I know exactly how this will play out (warnings, more insults, and a block), and I was hoping to draw some administrator attention to it so that it might be resolved more quickly than normal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, though I don't know what makes you think they're editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. –xeno^talk 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "1775" is part of Culture of the United States Marine Corps. Conjecture on my part, but I offer you thanks regardless. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... I see now. Cheers, –xeno^talk 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh... did you see his unblock request? LOL bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea...doesn't he know the difference between a salmon and a trout? Kids today, I tell you. –xeno^talk 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Salmons are bigger. They hurt more. Duh. HalfShadow 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of 24.109.207.40

The IP User:24.109.207.40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked last November for a year, the fifth in an escalating series of blocks relating to repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry from that account.

Earlier today, I reviewed and declined an unblock request. The requestor said the location from which she edits was, at the time of the previous block, a UPS store that had a public computer, hence the abuse, but that folded and it is now her business, with the computer inaccessible to members of the public. I said that I could not unblock since we had no way to verify that. My comment was solicited after a second unblock request, in which I said that I was open to another admin deciding to unblock on AGF grounds. So, per her request I am posting here for another admin to take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandals are a dime a dozen, reblocks are cheap. This person says they want to contribute; and if s/he's telling the truth, that is golden. Unblocked. –xeno^talk 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth unblocking if there's a chance of a getting a good contributor. However note that the IP was previously used by a banned puppet master, so we should keep an eye on it to make sure this isn't a repeat effort. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. Any problematic behaviour should result in a swift reblock. –xeno^talk 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So right after recidivist sockmaster User:Swamilive was denied an unblocking of their main account because of recent vandalism, this IP asks to be unblocked? And they are familiar with the unblock templates and AN/I? Odd... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking the IP, given that the IP was involved with Swamilive. AGF is one thing, but this is blatantly obvious.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be similarly blatantly obvious if they resume under Swamilive's m.o. –xeno^talk 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. He was denied an unblock as Swamilive, comes back as an anon and requests the unblock, gets it granted despite the previous denial, and the solution is that we should watch for future disruption? How about you just say "oops, I didn't realise that Swamilive had just been denied an unblock a few weeks ago", and reinstate the block?—Kww(talk) 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Petitioned them for further proof of their identity. –xeno^talk 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure if I should be writing on AN/I or if this is normally reserved for admins only, but I figure most of the discussion regarding this issue is going to be occurring here. Anyway, this is Jean Currie (the lady requesting the unblock of this IP). I'm writing from home now and the first thing I did was check here for the discussion. I'm a bit shocked that Swamilive was the one to get the static IP at my office blocked. For what it's worth, at home I use TBayTel as my Internet provider but at work I'm on Shaw Communications. I'm running a simple set-up at home and have no need for a static IP here, so my IP changes a lot between 216.211.x.x and 216.26.x.x. As such, I can't really point to any particular edit I've made that's constructive. My style of editing is to hit the Random Article button and if the article is large enough I run a spellcheck on it and correct any spelling errors. I rarely even pay attantion to the title of the article I'm on. However, as I actually took over this building from Swamilive and this is a static IP we're talking about, I can guarantee that unblocking it will NOT result in anymore vandalism. Again, I know this man personally and there's no way he can use this IP again.
-Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some professional email address that you could email me from to verify your identity (to xenowiki at gmail dot com)? As you may have noticed, I was willing to unblock on faith, but others are a little more cautious. And since you're on the same range as Swamilive I'm sure they'll be even more suspect. –xeno^talk 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say we should unblock- it's not difficult to reblock if disruption resumes and if there's a chance of getting a good editor out of it, at best, it's a net positive, at worst, it takes, what, thirty seconds to block and stick a template on the talk page. I'd be a lot more inclined to unblock if this lady can verify her identity though as Xeno suggests. You can use [hjmitchell at ymail dot com] if you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I noticed that part of what I wrote was deleted by you. If it constituted an attack, I apologize. I was simply trying to state my case and inform that I know who Swamilive is. As for a professional e-mail address, I don't have one set up yet. For personal e-mails I use gmail, but my business is BRAND new. I've been open for only 3 days now and haven't set up e-mail yet. I can send you an e-mail from my personal account if that would help verify who I am. -Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was too much information, but we got rid of it. Kww makes a good suggestion below; there are many benefits to contributing whilst logged in. –xeno^talk 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)I'm still cautious, but won't have a hissy fit if everyone else feels unblocking is justified. I'd feel much more comfortable if a checkuser would agree to watch over this range, but I'm not sure if the previous reports would be sufficient justification under our privacy policies. Why wouldn't granting one account with IP block exemptions suffice? That way we could at least be certain that a sock-farm isn't being created.—Kww(talk) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipéire

Resolved

Can someone please take note of the following IP: User:83.41.0.86. He is currently engaged in an edit war with me on Andy Murray, and is clearly the same user who has been contributing the same edit for the past two weeks. No other user is making this edit and the key giveaway is his summary citing a so-called "concensus" that I contend does not exist. There was a discussion on the talk page but no concensus, big difference. One of the IPs was blocked by User:SirFozzie, and dismissed as another sockpuppet of the ever ban-evading User:Wikipéire. Now right or wrong about the named editor, there is no question that the IP is the same user as the one forever removing the constituent nations and replacing them with United Kingdom. I highly recommend a protection level be introduced to the article so as to lock out IPs and non-established users. The user in question clearly knows no other form of communication. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been followed through by User:SirFozzie; please remove the label at the top and follow up if I'm mistaken. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseless personal attacks by an editor on an article talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am ending this. There is just rediculous bickering between two editors, no admin is going to do anything here. If they have, they would have by now. It's an endless stream of "No I'm not" followed by "Yes you are", which I am ending now. The proper venue for this complaint is WP:WQA, please start a thread there. --Jayron32 03:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Huldra posted this, insinuating that I have previously been banned and created a new account to circumvent this supposed ban. If she wants to submit a SPI against me, she can go ahead. Attacks like this (especially on an article talk page) are completely inappropriate. I requested that she strike out or remove the comment, and warned her that if she doesn't, I would be seeking action here. She refused, and responded on my talk page with a biting comment here. She notes that a SPI was filed against me in the past. It found that I had no relation to any of the accounts in question. She herself tried to get me implicated in that SPI, and I suspect she holds a grudge that she was proven wrong. In any case, her comments on this article talk page are inappropriate and I would like to know what can be done to correct the issue. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Huldra's comments. Sarcastic, yes. Personal attacks, not even close. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I kindly suggest that you review the policy at WP:NPA. What is considered a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Breein1007 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My evidence of sarcasm is from this edit where he says "I assume you want to delete those pictures from that category, too, then? Just for consistency?"...that is biting sarcasm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, definitely biting sarcasm... but that comment has nothing to do with the issue so I don't really see the point. The issue is her accusations of my being a banned user circumventing the ban with a new account. I need to know what can be done to fix that issue. Breein1007 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are (and I am NOT saying you are) a blocked user, that will be found out in the SPI requested. If you aren't, that will also be found out. It ain't fun, but these things have a process. I have had to go through them before (found out I wasn't a sock) and you move on. Just do some work on Wiki and forget about it for now. No use beating a horse over something you have no current control over. The SPI is under the control of admins and checkusers (also admins) and they will hash that out and get back to your on their findings. You literally will be the first to know. So, relax, ignore the sarcasm and move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. There is no SPI requested. There are only baseless accusations which I want removed. Breein1007 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, closed in November 2009. As I said above, I was found to be unrelated to the accounts in question. Therefore, Huldra has no right to be accusing me of sockpuppetry on talk pages today. Breein1007 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

...and Huldra just mentioned this report as well. For someone who is brand new, you are certainly getting ALOT of SPIs against you. Also, to answer a related question, No, an admin will not delete this SPIs, they are archived and permanent. Ya gotta live with 'em. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not going to respond to your comments anymore. I'm waiting for an admin to help me, and you aren't an admin. All you are doing here is confusing the issue over and over again. I did not ask for the SPI to be deleted. I asked for Huldra's personal attack to be deleted. That is why I am here. Good luck to you. Breein1007 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To get a comment deleted you need to contact an oversight at WP:RFO. Also, as I see no need to admin assistance in this (you have been given instructions above) I am closing this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not archive this again. I am waiting for input from an uninvolved admin. The issue has not been resolved. Breein1007 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

...and you have been given specific instructions on where to go to get that uninvolved admin. I will say one more time, you need to contact an oversight at WP:RFO. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for oversight is not used for personal attacks. I am not requesting for the history to be cleared. I just want the comment deleted. Really, I stated above that I'm not going to respond to you anymore but you are making it difficult. Can you please just give up on this and move on to something else? You really aren't helping the situation at all. You're making comments that either confuse the issue or don't relate to it at all. I just want input from an uninvolved admin, and that means you can't help me. Breein1007 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you are the one confused. Dude, if you want something removed and it is on your talk page, you can remove it. If it is on someone else's talk page, you are just SOL. Show me the comment and I will remove it. Also, I may not be an admin, but I have experience in handling things like this. Non-admins help out on the admin boards 24 hours a day, everyday. So, if you have a problem and come to ANI or AN, you will probably see some non-admins floating about and probably be helped by one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to the comment on the article talk page was provided in my very first comment in this report. I will ask you one final time: please detach yourself from this case. You are not helping at all. Breein1007 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Stand by... - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have kindly asked Huldra to strike the snarky parts of her comment as you find them unnecessary and rude. If this was not the comment in question, please let me know and I will change the link in the statement to her. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Huldra was out of line, but it's not as if she said your edits "reek of nationalistic POV". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly; I would like to state that I have personally never thought that Breein1007 was a sock of the "old" editor mentioned in this SPI. (I did not file that SPI: just noted that at a very heated discussion in the I/P area, a couple of brand new accounts appeared, who seemed to be abundantly familiar with wikipedia-policies.) Secondly, Breein1007 himself (herself?) has not always been forthright about possible previous accounts: see User_talk:Breein1007#Previous_accounts. Breein stated on 20 Nov. that "I'm not a new editor", (The Breein1007 account was registred 8 days earlier), then said that Breein1007 was his first account, as "you don't need an account to edit"([118]). Hmm, right then. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

..and by this link it seems Breein1007 was cleared of the charges (as least in this case) of sockpuppetry. So I have to ask you Breein1007, what exactly is it you want the admins here to do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have said multiple times, I want an uninvolved admin to look at this case and determine what should be done. I won't want those personal attacks to remain in place to taint my reputation. Breein1007 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, don't you think that it's a bit, well, hypocritical of you to bring this case against Huldra? After all, your behaviour towards her hasn't always been very appropriate. And are you sure that it was you she was referring to when she mentioned the creation of new accounts?     ←   ZScarpia   00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. Her comments on my talk page and here make that pretty clear. Breein1007 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: [119]. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: "As far as I can see, Breein1007 is not operating any sockpuppets. If he was, I would tell you. --Deskana (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)" Breein1007 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that Breein1007 has removed the resolved template from the page after being told where to go to have something removed from his/her page (and possibly history of that page). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• What exactly did you mean by this comment, made back in your SPI case? Tarc (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment. And that SPI has nothing to do with the issue at hand, so I'd appreciate if you'd stay on topic. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think you should explain that as it could be taken that you are those users. I am slowly leaning toward DUCK in this situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you're leaning toward. I opened this AN/I about a personal attack. If you want to open an SPI about me, go for it. Now please, for the 4th time, stop interfering with this issue. You aren't bringing it any closer to a resolution. Can an admin please just deal with the personal attack and end this ridiculousness? Breein1007 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should read this comment from above. Just relax Dude, hyper ain't gonna help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I read it. You asked her to strike her comment. Three hours after I already asked her to strike it and she refused. Why should I relax? She made a personal attack against me accusing me of being a banned user and now you are joining her and suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet. You aren't helping. I need an admin. How can I make this more clear for you? Breein1007 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Smoke Signals. No really, Dude, it is obvious there isn't an admin available right now. They do have lives ya know. So you get me. I am asking you to relax. Rome wasn't built in a day and even if I was to find another page to work on, you would still be sitting around until an admin showed up. Sometimes admins don't come by to sections and they get buried, had that happen a couple times myself. Relax, let Huldra get back online and see the message and go from there. I won't (and I don't think any admin will) remove a statement from a person's talk page unless it is blantantly attacking someone (like cuss words and threats), this isn't one of those. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is as blatant of a personal attack as anything. I quoted the related policy from WP:NPA. So far, only one admin has commented on this matter and he stated that Huldra was out of line. Why he didn't do anything to solve the problem, I can't tell you. He is welcome to comment if he would like, as I suspect he will be reading this comment quite shortly. In any case, we are talking about a personal attack on an article talk page, not on a user talk page. And I am not asking you to delete it. I am asking an admin to delete it. Breein1007 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the admin found no problem with it enough to address it. It isn't a personal attack, it is snarky sarcasm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this point the sock suggestions do not appear to be too off the mark, especially considering your flippant "no comment" response above. Politicians with something to hide say "no comment". We should expect better from editors here. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this point your comments have nothing to do with this issue. As I said, if you want to file a SPI about me, knock yourself out. This is not the correct place to be making your accusations. This is a thread about another user making a personal attack against me on an article talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me make something clear, anything valid can be brought up in an ANI discussion. You don't get to decide which way it goes. You open yourself and your actions up to scrutiny when you start an ANI thread. You, me, Tarc, anyone. Your edits, actions and everything gets looked at. So, yeah, sockpuppetry would put eyes on you immediately and saying "No Comment" really puts eyes on you and makes you a DUCK real quick, especially in this case. Just answer the question, if you got nothing to hide, problem goes away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done being baited by you. It's not worth it. All this is doing is giving Huldra what she wants. Until an admin or other user comments here, I'm going to hold back my comments. It's clear that you aren't bringing this matter anywhere closer to a resolution. As a matter of fact, so far you have just escalated the issue. Breein1007 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you have no idea, what I have done in the background. See here. Asked an admin for comment on this. Waiting for a reply. So, don't say someone isn't not "bringing this matter anywhere closer to a resolution" unless you know the facts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• edit conflict 2ce* This has been a most amazing case to read. Someone comes in here with a complaint, and a handful of editors come in here and bait and harass him. Time for an uninvolved editor to take a look at the complaint and help out here. Stellarkid (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to make a comment as an unrelated editor about this matter. Looking on the initial incident, it seems both users are responsible for inappropriate conduct on the talk page. Breein1007 should not be complaining about sarcasm and accusations directed at him/her, because both parties did this. Although these are not cases of personal attack, the issues should be resolved directly. Yes, the related issue of the SPIs should be discussed, but there seems to be a lot of unnecessary deviation from the original matter. A good course for action is to put this matter behind both parties, and reconcile as soon as possible. Deagle_AP (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to recognize that personal attacks are "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." This is exactly what Huldra has done by accusing me of being a banned user on a new account. Breein1007 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts, part two

Original post here

He makes pro-Korean edits but often revert objective edits unfavorable to his views, leads to many edit wars. For example, the edits I added according to the Ruijū Kokushi is more valid and neutral than that Korean source. I am certain that he will revert if the source is a Chinese source a Korean scholar agrees the Chinese view. He often reverts without any talk and communicates only to WikiProject Korea in edit wars. He appears do not listen to warning, breaks the 3RR again and again, and performs multiple reversions in content disputes require attention, see User talk:Kuebie. His edit war counterparts Sentinel R, Je suis tres fatigue are reported also. Neutral editing are not deceptive. On wikipedia the edits Goguryeo and Balhae are Korean are POV, since the Chinese do not agree with them. I've notified that before Kuebie's edits the articles were more neutral, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&oldid=147775561 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&oldid=148425853. The pages becomes very pro-Korean. KoreanSentry often appear in same edit wars, share same views. There may be some coordination to bypass the 3RR. Also, I don't think other editors are multiple accounts, there have been different instances in those edit wars.Sammyy85 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why did you move this from where it was originally located just to get people looking at it again? You should just reply and see what people say when it pops up on their watchlist. I'm going to revert that move soon as there is no reason that this can't remain in its original location. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the stuff that was already archived because it doesn't need to be in two places at once. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OttomanJackson and pointy AfD nominations

Resolved

 – Both AFDs are closed, and user has been admonished on talk page.  Frank  |  talk  03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• OttomanJackson (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution 9

I happened across the Lucy... AfD yesterday, and puzzled by why such an obviously well-known song was up for deletion. Seems that the nominator is quite a Michael Jackson fan, but has seen some of his attempts at articles for MJ's non-single songs redirected to the respective album article, per WP:NSONG, i.e. Heaven Can Wait (Michael Jackson song), Don't Walk Away (Michael Jackson song) have seen a bit of edit-warring. So it appears now that this user is doing a bit of tit-for-tat and finding non-single Beatles songs to nominate for deletion.

Maybe the MJ songs should be articles, maybe not, but this really isn't the way to go about affecting change IMO. I took the liberty per WP:SK of closing the Lucy... AfD, but now he's got another one going. If this is viewed as disruptive behavior, it may need an admin hand to step in. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)