Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrJenkinsPhd (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 13 May 2010 (→User:ScottPAnderson). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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.

    MiszaBot keeps archiving this section despite the fact that the discussion is ongoing. Is there a standard way of dealing with this difficulty? A.Prock A.Prock (talk)

    I've suppressed the timestamps so that the bot doesn't archive the section. [1] –MuZemike
    See also User:DoNotArchiveUntil. –xenotalk 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric144

    Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

    He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

    I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

    1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [2]
    2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [3] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
    3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [4] Again in a subsequent month [5] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [6]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

    He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [7] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[8]

    Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

    It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

    I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [9], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

    --Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

    --Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
    After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.
    The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

    "the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

    including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably no one's reading because this thread has pretty much ended, but my question is serious -- what reasons can people have not to make an account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread and probably the board generally isn't the venue for your meta/philosophical question. If you wish to discuss such things you may like to discuss it on each other's talkpages, on meta, or the village pumps. But please don't hijack this thread.
    The thread is about a user's violations of the living persons content policy, personal attacks and disruptive editing. It is unresolved / unactioned, and there is a 'blp victim'. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you for the advice, IP editor who has only edited under this address for the last week, but who has clearly edited before and who might be the same person as the other 92.xxx IP editors who have dominated that article for quite a while but I can't really tell because of the way their IP address changes with frequency (maybe, if that's the same person). I surely understand now that there's no reason to treat IP editors, who with great frequency it is difficult to hold accountable for their editing history, any differently from editors who register an account and can have their history checked relatively easily, unless of course they use sockpuppets, which is to say another account, a concept very similar to, but apparently much more frowned upon, than hopping (deliberately or not) from one IP address to another. I'm glad to have had you answer my simple and straight-forward question – in which I asked for a legitimate motivation for people to edit with an IP address rather than an account – with the royal blow off. I'm sure there's no reason for Wikipedia to ever consider banning IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP

    Despite a strong consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors, Wikidemon is insisting that entries in lists do not need to be sourced, and that the onus for removing material lies in the editor who wishes to remove it, despite WP:BLP saying the exact opposite. As a result, he's restored a bunch of unsourced and/or improperly sourced names to List of Jewish actors. For example, he's restored Scott Caan with this link as a source, despite the source itself nowhere actually stating Caan is Jewish. He includes Jerry Orbach, without a source, despite the fact that Orbach had a Catholic mother and was raised Catholic. But more important that any specific item, given the complete repudiation of his views at WP:BLP/N, is it appropriate for him to be doing this? Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the argument is whether or not list articles need an inline citation verifying each item's justification for inclusion in the list, or if sources contained in the linked article are enough. I'd say Wikidemon is correct -- either do the work to carry over the citations to the list article, if you'd prefer they all be cited, or leave them be. Equazcion (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged, and they need them on the page in question, not on some related page. That's true of anything, but even more so with living persons. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not exactly the question. The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead. Equazcion (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One that was deleted was Ron Silver. Someone read that article and tell me he's not Jewish. Also, he's not living. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be easy enough for the person adding the name to source then, wouldn't you think? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It seems to be established, so this may not be the appropriate venue. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What "seems to be established"? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Equaczion you appear to have the onus exactly backwards: WP:V is says quite clearly that any that if material challenged must "be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Or, to use your words, with some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be adding those items. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too much policy wank for me. We're faced with a situation where we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete. Equazcion (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know these claims are verifiable? Actually following policy is not "policy wank", and there are no policies that "guard against" enforcing policy. What would quite obviously be best for the encyclopedia would be to have the list comply with WP:BLP and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article. And if there isn't one, then removing it would be justified. There is one list that I can think of where its primary watchdog is death on anything unverified, but that's a little different, as List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is an OR magnet. The question is, what exactly is being "challenged"? Is it the assertion that something is factual? Or is it simply because of the lack of a citation? It's not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems obvious to me. If someone challenges something in regards to our living subjects, we only reintroduce it with a source. Unless Wikidemon has managed to definitively answer the question "Who is a Jew?" we should probably only reintroduce subjects with good sourcing. AniMate 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, to begin with, there are important principles at stake here. One is the principle that all items in Wikipedia articles must be cited, per WP:V. For some reason some editors claim there is an exemption for lists, despite policy actually explicitly repudiating that notion. Another is the principle that it is incumbent on the person adding material to ensure it is properly cited; again, that's basic policy, but for reasons that escape me some editors fight the notion that they should actually have to cite claims they add to articles, or imagine they have another "exemption" if they add the material by way of reversion.
    In addition, many of the items are or were erroneous, or had citations that did not support the claims being made. This is unsurprising; my experience with these lists is that they are often filled with dubious or erroneous material, which is a good reason to demand that all items in them comply with policy. And finally, the lists are filled with dozens of items like this, and there are many lists; if it were just one item, then yes, it would be easier to try to source it (assuming a source could be found, which is not a given). However, as there are hundreds of items like this, it's better to re-iterate policy here, rather than having to fight this battle again and again. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball raises an important point, as to which a response would be helpful. Jayjg -- when you deleted those items, did you have an informed good faith reason to believe they were untrue? Or were you deleting them just because they lacked sources? Lacking either: a) a good faith reason to believe they were untrue; and b) info as to whether they were untrue?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V does not require a determination of the state of mind. It requires content to be sourced. Period. Active Banana (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have ways of handling unsourced material. One way we handle an unsourced article is to tag it. Another is to AfD it. For what I assume are self-evident reasons, when AfD'ing an article (which obviously is short of any deletion, the step taken here) we in implementing our policy of sourcing implement another policy -- that of not willy nilly deleting, without a good faith effort by the nom to search both in the article and on the internet for other sources that would support the entry. Even if they are not in the article. Many policies support that, but I daresay the objective is the same as it should be here -- especially for a sysop. We don't want to delete good content, and we require to that end the person proposing deletion to do a search to makes sure that they can make an informed suggestion of deletion. Those policy considerations should have been applied here -- Jay should have first done a wp:before search, and then he should have, as to any entries for which he felt there was not RS support, either a) moved them to the talk page; or b) tagged them as such. Mass deletions were POINTy and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same battle that happens all the time. One side removes an unreferenced statement. The other side demands that the statement be returned, and then demands that the deleters should reference the statement rather than delete it. Let me refer the entire cadre of combatants in this little skirmish to WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If someone wants any article, including a list article, to say anything then THEY need to add the reference. It isn't the responsibility of anyone except the person who wants the statement to remain in the article to provide the reference. The person who objects to the statement is well justified in a) referencing it themselves b) adding the "cn" tag or c) removing the statement altogether. They may choose any of these. Choice a) would be nice, but choice c is fully justified for any contentious statement. If its easy to reference, rather than coming here to complain about someone removing it, return the statement with the reference. Ultimately, the person who wants to say something must provide the backing for what they want to say. It isn't the responsibility person who doubts the veracity of a statement to find proof that the statement is true, if they doubt its truth to begin, then why would they believe that a reference even exists?!? --Jayron32 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted Jayjg's latest edit here as apparent disruption. I hope that it was a simple mistake, but this is starting to look like a WP:POINT problem. I'll answer in more detail shortly. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you are restoring unsourced content and calling its removal disruptive and pointy? Quantpole (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [10]. I count 10 unsourced entries that you restored. You are acting completely against policy and all the advice from others both here and at the BLP noticeboard. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look a little harder. The correct count is zero. I did not restore any uncited claims about living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the source on that page to say that Ron Silver is Jewish, or Susan Strasberg? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Quantpole (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quantpole, these people are dead, so his claim that "I did not restore any uncited claims about living people" is correct (although a link to Amazon is hardly sufficient for one that is living). I have no idea why he just doesn't source those eight entries though, but then again, I have no idea why we even have such a list. It's not as if most of these people are being notable for being an actor and a Jew, they are actors who happen to be Jewish. We don't have a list of blue-eyed actors either. This should be a category, not a list, just like many similar categories. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I didn't specify that it was living people. All I asked was whether he had restored unsourced content, to which he said 'No'. So he was just lying then. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Jayjg is correct. WP:V requires that any editors trying to add or re-insert unsourced material, even to a list, do so citing reliable sources. I don't think policy can be much clearer on the subject. If it's obvious that someone is Jewish, then there should be no problem finding reliable sources to support their inclusion in the list. If no such sources exist, then maybe it's not so obvious after all. ← George talk 08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what the policy says. As I mentioned in the last forum, before Jayjg shopped it here, we've been through this drill a number of times here, at RfC, and before ArbCom. There is no policy basis that permits blind mass deletions of verifiable content for being uncited, without more - and WP:BURDEN does not give those making such deletions an end-run around by prohibiting good faith reversion of their disputed edits. Anyway, that's not at issue here. Jayjg reported me not for adding unsourced claims that living Jewish people are in fact Jewish, but for adding carefully considered sourced claims to that effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me quote it for you: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious or negative material about living persons must be removed immediately." You claim that Jayjg removed verifiable content, and he claims that he removed unsourced or poorly sourced content. Above, he gave Jerry Orbach as an example, which is indeed unsourced in the current version of the List of Jewish actors. While not a living person, his Catholic upbringing makes the label questionable. Where is the reliable source that Orbach is Jewish, that makes his entry "verifiable content," as you claim? ← George talk 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A clue for you - Jerry Orbach is dead. BLP does not apply to non-living people. If you want to claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation and can be mass-deleted otherwise, you've got an uphill battle policy-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Jimbo, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." And did I claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation? No, just contentious material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This material was challenged, and someone's religion is often an inherently contentious issue. These entries should be cited to reliable sources; failure to do so - or worse, reinserting the entries unsourced - is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. ← George talk 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty random. Jayjg's twisted account of the edit history notwithstanding, it's sourced[11] that Orbach's father was Jewish, and that's apparently the reason why some editor (not me) decided to include him in this list article. It's not a policy violation to include deceased Jewish entertainers in a list of links to Jewish entertainers. If you think it is, you're welcome to lobby to change the policy on verifiability, or a guideline for when we call people of Jewish ancestry Jewish, but this is not the place. This is a notice-board to handle behavioral problems that necessitate administrative intervention, not a place to complain about editors who oppose mass deletion sprees. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the ten other actors you re-added without sources? Where are the sources that they are Jewish? It is indeed a policy violation to add entertainers to this list after their inclusion has been challenged, without providing the proper sources for their inclusion. ← George talk 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to search for and add sources to the list article with respect to those non-living people, or to any of English Wikipedia's several million articles articles, as you see fit. That's not a behavioral issue and it is not the source of this complaint. Are we done here? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're confirming that the ten challenged, unsourced entries you re-added in violation of Wikipedia's policies about citing reliable sources was the underlying behavioral issue behind the content dispute, then yes, I believe we're done here. ← George talk 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't confuse content policy with behavioral policy. There's no behavioral violation in answering an editor's stated content objections without meeting their unstated objections, but you're free to lobby for me to be blocked for not bringing every deleted sentence to featured article standards before reinserting. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to see you blocked, though it would be nice if you added citations when re-adding contentious material. And I don't think asking for citations for ten uncited entries in a list is quite the same as asking you to bring the article up to FA status. ← George talk 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district. That's the deletionist's first clue. Then I googled ["ron silver" jewish] and found quite a few references to his passing in Jewish publications, and about the fourth or fifth line down there was this[12] in which Silver makes reference to himself being Jewish. In a fraction of the time the deletionist has spent arguing about this issue, he could have found this. If he's got doubts about an entry, he should apply a citation tag to it rather than a meataxe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my personal tact would have been to tag the entries rather than remove them, though removing them is fully in compliance with Wikipolicy. ← George talk 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it said George M. Cohan was Jewish, that would likely be somebody's idea of a joke. A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted. I would also submit that since the deletionist obviously doesn't know a Jewish name when he sees one, he should go work on something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very dangerous ground. We shouldn't try to interpret someone's religion from their name. There are plenty of people born into a religion, or given a religious name, who are not religious, or oppose religion, and would object to being labelled as a member of a religion. ← George talk 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Especially in this case, since a person's surname is (usually) that of his or her father, whereas "Jewishness" depends on the mother′s being Jewish (or on conversion to Judaism). Deor (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even so much as looked at the article about Ron Silver? And by the way, a Jew who becomes an atheist is still a Jew. It's not just about religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I mention Ron Silver? Is there some reason you're ignoring the dozen other unsourced names that were re-added? And if someone doesn't consider them self Jewish, it doesn't matter, because an editor decided that they should be labeled as Jewish anyways? We rely on reliable sources for a reason. ← George talk 11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Silver point is well taken. It stands for the proposition that no wp:before check was done here, which would have reflected good faith and been in keeping w/wikipedia safeguards against careless deletions of RS-supportable-material. That was one problem with what was done.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is a Jew? Fram (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have looked at the first four people removed by Jayjg's most recent edits: Two without article, one about whom we only know that his father is of mixed Mexican Catholic and Hungarian Jewish descent, and a Latter-day Saint. I think it's fair to say that it's not just about Ron Silver. Hans Adler 11:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. It has to be taken case-by-case. Jayjg's blind deletion of someone who's obviously Jewish disqualifies him from this subject on the grounds of incompetence, ignorance, whatever you want to call it. There are plenty of other subjects eagerly awaiting his meataxe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My point being if he's that ignorant about Ron Silver, he shouldn't be working on that subject at all. Maybe the other ones have problems, but he's just meataxing with no thought behind it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or let's take Fred Astaire, restored in this edit: "Astaire's mother was born in the United States to Lutheran German immigrants from East Prussia and Alsace, while Astaire's father was born in Linz, Austria, to Jewish parents who had converted to Catholicism." WTF? I guess he is one of those people who just have to be Jews because, somehow, you know, it's obvious. Right?

    Now the following is a serious question: Do we have editors here who are simply copying stuff from sites such as http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html ? Hans Adler 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Take it case by case rather than blindly deleting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Next one from the same edit, Bob Einstein. Nothing about his religion or ethnicity in his article, but his parents are both categorised as Jews (without relevant sources, of course). That makes him a Jew, right? No, it doesn't. My parents are both Protestants, I am not, and neither is my brother. Hans Adler 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Judaism is more than just a religion, and if you don't know that, you're not competent to be editing this subject either. Also, why is this being debated on two different pages? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't categorise someone as a Jew if he doesn't think of himself as a Jew. This is still Wikipedia, not "Jew Watch". I have started making my comments here rather than at BLP/N when I realised that this does in fact require administrator attention. In my opinion those who edit warred to keep that crap on the list need to be blocked.
    Listen, mate, it's not OK to just copy a crappy list from a crackpot site such as "Jew Watch" into Wikipedia and then claim that those who want to clean up have to justify every single case, one by one. That's a racist denial of service attack against the project which we can't permit to work, whether that's what actually happened here or not. (And apart from that it's time that you do something about your editing statistics. >10% on ANI doesn't look good for a non-admin, especially one who doesn't usually make insightful comments.) Hans Adler 11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's more than a religion, yes, but that doesn't mean that having Jewish parents and a Jewish name makes you Jewish. I linked to it above already: Who is a Jew?. If you want to lecture people on their lack of competence, it would be better if you didn't use such an oversimplification to judge them by. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, "mates", Ron Silver identified very strongly with being Jewish and supporting Israel, which you all would know had you bothered to look into it. I know it crimps a deletionist's style to be asked to look into something before deleting it, but if he had bothered to do that, we might not be seeing this case argued - on 2 different pages, yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose when your mother accidentally breaks a glass when washing your dishes she has to listen to your complaints for the next few months, right? Hans Adler 11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're funny. FYI, she agrees with my argument here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my reply was not about Ron Silver but about your incorrect generalisations and overestimation of your own competence, your reply to it is quite irrelevant. Fram (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And since you won't address the point about blindly deleting, your reply is also irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You make an incorrect statement (at least twice), I answer that, and you start about something completely different, one specific example which had nothing to do with the generalizations about Jews you made, but everything with the state of that singular article. Why should I reply to statements you want to make which are not a reply to what I was saying? And why won't you reply to questions or remarks about your statements? Fram (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one who's so ignorant he doesn't know Ron Silver was a Jew, and a Jewish activist at that. If Jay had bothered to look before swinging the meataxe, we wouldn't have lengthy debates going on on at least two different pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under the impression "It's so obvious" is an appropriate substitute for a citation, and that anyone who doesn't realize this is ignorant and disqualified from editing this list. I think you're oversimplifying the issue and wouldn't mind you addressing concerns raised here rather than hammering the Ron Silver point home ad nauseam.--Atlan (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you miss Baseball's point. Let's say we have a list of black people, and Muhammad Ali is on it. But there is no footnote. To just delete because of the absence of a footnote is disruptive. It hurts the project. A simple google search will yield the fact that there is RS support. That's what should have been done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Next one from the same edit [13], Ray Ellin. I could find no indication anywhere that he is Jewish. Perhaps he has a Jewish name? I did in fact find some indications on the web that he might be Jewish, but so far nothing reliable. Note that this is the first reasonable case under all those that I have examined, and I simply started from the top. Hans Adler 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stand-up comic Ray Ellin was performing at a New York comedy club a few days after Rosh HaShanah. It was his usual act — some family stories, some bantering with the audience. As usual, he asked people in the crowd where they came from. “Germany,” said one couple. That’s raw meat for a Jewish comic. “I wish you,” Ellin said, “a year of health and happiness — and reparations.”

    10 seconds research... Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I have now removed a few actors from List of Jewish actors. I have observed that in some cases when I google for name + jewish I find some reasonable information, and in others I find Wikipedia, followed by a mixture of irrelevant stuff and Jewish conspiracy crap. This is a typical example of what I mean. Real life is calling now, but I am sure the list needs further purging. Hans Adler 13:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Considering the discussion and that editors are aware there is a request to cite the names and that all such claims about living people require quality supporting citations, take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to get into the "who is a Jew" question that's a different content matter that cannot be decided here at AN/I. I'm not terribly familiar with the Judaism-related articles here but in larger society, identification as a Jew is an overlapping matter of ethnicity, heritage, culture, and religion, and can a matter of self-definition, external definition, context / circumstance, and designation by an authoritative or official person. Matters such as ethnic identification are best dealt with editors in the relevant content area who are famiiar with the subject, rather than newbies imposing their personal beliefs or analysis on first impression in a drive-by manner. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make this clearer since everyone seems to have ignored it last time. Statements which people, in good faith, believe to be untrue do not need to remain in articles. The existance of the statement in WP:BLP that contentious statements must be removed immediately from living person-related articles does not mean that the converse is policy, that is it does not mean that in non-BLP articles contentious statements must remain indefinately unsourced. If someone believes something to be blatantly false, they should remove that statement. Period. If someone else has reliable evidence that the statement is true, it is their responsibility to provide the source in order to return the information. If people want a persons name to remain on a list, regardless of whether the person is alive or not, then it is THEIR responsibility to place a proper, unambiguous, reliable inline cite into the article in question. It is not the responsibility of anyone who believes a statement to be incorrect to do that research. If you want a name to remain on the list, find the source. Period. --Jayron32 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true where an editor has a good faith believe that there is something wrong with a specific piece of content. However, it is not the way things work in cases of content deleted for being verifiable but unsourced. There, I would not agree to a procedure that permits deletionists to blank swaths of article content in a way that is indiscriminate with respect to its verifiability, yet imposes a heightened sourcing burden on any who would disagree with what they are doing. In any event, that's not what happened here. I wasn't the one Jayjg was originally edit warring with or threatening - I stepped in and was the one editor who actually did something constructive, which was to source the BLP content Jayjg said they were objecting to. I also admonished Jayjg not to threaten adminsitrative tool use in a content dispute. For my efforts Jayjg simply deleted me with a rude edit summary and filed a report here, that looks like retaliation and forum shopping given that this was my first edit to the article and we were all engaged in an active discussion at another noticeboard on this issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a lot of crappy entries among those he removed on one of the pages, and quite a bit on the other. These entries were added without any discussion, many of them in a single bulk edit a long time ago. I can see no reason why they can't also be removed in bulk. Perhaps the best approach would be to move them to the talk page for discussion. It's a pity Jayjg didn't do that, but you could have done it too. Hans Adler 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire list article is of modest quality - weakly sourced, poor formatting, incomplete, without clear inclusion criteria, and an imperfect repeat of material already in the articles the list points to. It may be that the whole list should be deleted, merged, or reorganized - perhaps the existing categories already cover it. That would take some time. You've also raised a valid, but very difficult, question of when we can call someone a Jew even assuming solid sourcing. The serious business of improving articles time and comes from content edits... not edit warring, complaints against others, or policy discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving the info to the talkpage, rather than tagging as dubious, would be reasonable as it would have the same effect of saving the info for other editors, who have not watchlisted the article, to review and restore as clean. Simply deleting it, when there is not a good faith reason -- based on a good review of the article and a good google search -- to believe it untrue, is simply disruptive. We don't allow people to delete articles without a wp:before search. And if there is a basis for the info either in the article or in sources unearthed in a google search, the article survives AfD. To not use a similar approach, and simply mass delete without having done a wp:before-type check is simply disruptive, and does not reflect good faith editing. For a sysop to do so is especially troubling. I think it's time to close this string, as the consensus appears to be that Jay would have been better off doing something other than mass deleting the sort of info that is routinely reflected in cats and templates without footnotes.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? The consensus here is that the material should be removed, and not restored without proper sourcing, and that Wikidemon acted improperly. SlimVirgin, AniMate, Active Banana, George, Fram, Jayron32, Deor, Hans Adler, Quantpole, Atlan, and Off2riorob all objected to Wikidemon's actions. You, Baseball Bugs, and Equazcion agree with Wikidemon's actions. Eleven editors disagree with Wikidemon, three agree with Wikidemon. Please make more accurate statements in the future; people here can read the discussion, you know. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please cut it out. We've dealt with this again and again in this forum and others, and there is absolutely no consensus for your position, and clear admonition by Arbcom not to use tools to support it. As an administrator in an administrative forum you ought to have a little more decorum than systematically misrepresenting the edit history to harass good faith content editors like myself. A single edit you don't like after being cautioned about that and you bring it straight to AN/I? You are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that twelve in support of Jayjg. --John (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidemon, we're up to twelve in support of me, Wikidemon, 3 in support of you. And on the related BLP/N thread, Sean.Hoyland, Good Ol’factory, CarolMooreDC, and Crum375 agree with me. That's 16 editors who support my position, 3 who support yours. That's a pretty strong consensus, actually. As a Wikipedia editor, you need to stop misrepresenting the discussion here, and start listening to what editors here are saying. You've been duly cautioned, and are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, I'll do you the favor of ignoring that nonsense. Other editors support you because you've systematically misrepresented the situation here. I added reliable sources per your request and you played sour grapes. But please take a look in the mirror, administrator-wise. Don't file any more bogus retaliatory AN/I threads for matters that don't conceivably merit adminsitrative attention, don't edit war, and don't threaten tool use in self-involved editing situations. Please take a deep breath and get on to some productive editing, if you can - or at least sleep on it. If you can't do that you'll be arguing that again at RfC or ArbCom, but surely you're better than that. If there is any uninvolved person watching, can we please close this as a no action? We've made our statements and I don't see how anything good or actionable is going to come from Jayjg continuing to berate me, and me trying to set the record straight. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the previous discussion. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The good that could come of this is that editors simply follow mandatory policy in future. Imagine that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay -- of the 12, how many of them responded to the following points made above:

    1) no footnotes in similar cats;
    2) no footnotes in similar templates;
    3) it would be less disruptive to dubious-tag, unless the point is to be disruptive;
    4) it would be less disruptive to move to talkpage, unless the point is to be disruptive;
    5) shouldn't the concerned person do a wp:before search, much as when deleting an article at AfD, and has one been done here?; and
    6) will you support (or yourself handle) the deletion in toto of the lists I set forth above, all of which are completely bereft of footnotes?

    And how compelling and complete have your responses been to those point? Or have you not even satisfied your WP:ADMIN obligation of replying?

    Furthermore -- you keep on throwing around the phrase "three editors" as though it is the holy trinity. Which of the below do you count as the "three", and which were you leaving out (other than, of course, the last one)?

    1. Wikidemon (a number of comments)
    2. "The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead." and "we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete."←Equazcion
    3. "It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article." and "If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that."←Baseball Bugs
    4. "Jewish ... 10 seconds research"... Rich Farmbrough
    5. "take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list." Off2riorob
    6. Epeefleche (a number of comments)
    7. Plus assorted "supporters" of yours who say they themselves would not have deleted, but rather would have either tagged the items or moved them to the talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Near as I can tell, the point is to either be disruptive or lazy. The fact he deleted a Jewish activist from the list, and hid behind the letter of policy rather than using his brain, indicates he's incompetent to be doing this work. I may have said that already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Sixteen, Eepefleche, not 12. And Baseball Bugs, your personal attacks aren't really relevant to the discussion, and I doubt they're winning over any of the 16 editors who disagree with you. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me say (although I know you were directing your comment at Baseball) that I do not think you are lazy. Nor do I think you personally are a disruptive person. But I do think that your mini-Katrina deletions are highly disruptive, interfere needlessly with the goals of the project, and that you would do well to commit to a) answer my above questions; and b) desist in such practice in the future in lieu of one of the assorted alternatives mentioned above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeepefleche, in answer to your question, I started this thread because Wikidemon inserted unsourced or improperly sourced items into the list, reverting my removal of them. That was the action I objected to. Why don't you name the editors here who supported Wikidemon's re-inserting uncited names in the list? That certainly wouldn't include Off2riorob or Rich Farmbrough. In fact, as far as I can tell, only 3 editors support Wikidemon in insisting that uncited entries are allowed on lists, contradicting the plain words of WP:V and WP:BLP - you, Equazcion, and Baseball Bugs, who actually made the arguments "Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district" and "A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted." If it wasn't right here on the page, people would think I was making it up. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay -- as when you bring a matter to arbitration, when you bring a matter here your behavior as well as the behavior of the subject of the "action" is subject to being reviewed. Indeed, it's often, as here, difficult to separate the two. As to where you did respond, I would urge you to consider whether Off2riorob's suggestion, for example -- which was not what you did -- would have been less disruptive editing on your part, and more in keeping of the goal of the project. And if Rich's suggestion -- that 10 seconds of research -- which was not what you did, apparently -- could have avoided needless deletions of RS-supportable material, which is in the interests of the project. You may have missed it, but both of those editors, which you left off your list of "three", were suggesting things that you might have done that you failed to do.
    Furthermore, you still have not responded to most of my questions above. I've made a number of arguments. WP:ADMIN requires a response. Yet all you've done is tally others who -- like you -- did not respond to them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Epeefleche, your arguments were responded to and rejected, either here or in the BLP/N thread. I'm under no obligation to respond to each one personally and individually, nor is anyone else. There has been a collective response, and a collective rejection of the notion that one can insert uncited items on lists. This is the primary, fundamental issue at hand here, and must be dealt with first. All else is secondary. When I see you telling Wikidemon he was wrong for doing that, then I'll re-examine your other suggestions. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not worth the pixels to refute that mischaracterization of consensus or misrepresentation of the single edit I made that lead you to retaliate with this report. If you're addressing Epeefleche could you please do that without making yet more accusations against me? I've explained again and again exactly what I edited and why, and your choosing to ignore my explanation in favor of a continued insistence that I'm promoting unsourced content is truly vexatious at this point. You made your report. There will be no administrative action. The article is now sourced so the point is moot. Now please give it up. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing

    This reversion[14] wasn't exactly constructive or in good faith given the above discussion. Spot checking Jayjg's edit history I see a pattern of contentious sloppy deletions of notable Jews from lists of Jewish people, and think we may need a broader review. I'll be checking some others from the past few days and selectively restating some that are easy to verifyh. I'll be providing citations so nobody can accuse me of policy violations - not honestly anyway - but I do think we need to visit in a mature, collegial, productive way the question of how we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidemon, you inserted a claim using a dubious source, as I explained on the article Talk: page. Your re-reversion, however, was neither constructive nor in good faith, nor was your following me to the RS/N noticeboard to expand your conflict with me. None of my deletions have been "contentious" or "sloppy"; I've never deleted a properly cited name from a list of Jewish people. The way "we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation" is by adhering to WP:BLP and WP:V, as in any other article; a novel concept, perhaps, but one you should strongly consider for the future. And if you continue on this path of following me all over Wikipedia to revert me and/or insult me on various message boards, we may indeed need a "broader review" here, but it will rather be of a pattern of personal attacks and harassment. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that Jayjg is 100% correct. The source didn't say he was Jewish. AniMate 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It did - read it. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the source you inserted. Quote it saying Mays is Jewish. Give the direct quote. Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says he had a bar mitzvah. You're arguing a different point that has nothing to do with this thread, perhaps that non-Jews are having bar mitzvahs these days. I would ask you to stay on topic, but the topic isn't too good either. Do you have a good faith belief as an editor that Mays is not Jewish? If so you're wrong but please bring that up on the appropriate talk page. If not, give it up, seriously. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy had a bar mitzvah, and Jay thinks that doesn't indicate he's Jewish. Jay continues to demonstrate that he is unqualified to be doing this kind of work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an interesting source called "Jew or not Jew".[15] Of course, it's written by Jews, so what do they know about the subject? Well, more than Jay does, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that certainly looks like a website that Wikipedia would classify as reliable for the purposes of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, glad you agree. Then we can start using it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Good luck with that. BTW, who publishes that "Jew or not Jew" website? Well, no doubt it has that sterling reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires for BLPs. Can you describe its editorial process to us? Jayjg (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bassball Bugs, if you are being serious about this, then it is even worse than I thought, and I would suggest that you withdraw from every discussion of including people in lists based on reliable sources, or from any discussion related to reliable sources in general. I have the feeling that Jayjg's answer was rather sarcastic, as it should have been. That source is terrible. Fram (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course my response was sarcastic, as Baseball Bugs knows (or should have). Perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to sarcasm, but really, after all the insults, denial of plain policy statements, insistence that we should judge who is a Jew based on their names (or their father's name and occupation), his bringing this site was just a bit too much. Jayjg (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on first sight it looks as if they are using precisely the same criteria that we should be using. That doesn't mean we can use it, but we can compare what we are saying with what they are saying for consistency. Any discrepancy is a reason to look closer. But I find it hard to believe that so many here are sufficiently obsessed with who is a Jew and who isn't to create these silly lists. Hans Adler 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew Jay was being sarcastic, while Jay couldn't tell that my comment was also sarcastic. But since he clearly knows nothing about the subject, doesn't know a Jew from a Gentile, and has spawned arguments on at least 3 different pages due to his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to this in the first place, nothing should come as a surprise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd you would claim that I "clearly know[] nothing about the subject". I've essentially single-handedly written 5 of the 12 Featured Articles in Wikiproject Judaism, and another 6 Good Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. How many Featured and/or Good articles have you written in Wikiproject Judaism? Jayjg (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (after edit conflict) I can sympathize with the frustration of being called out on weak edits. But please don't lower yourself to edit warring to preserve the mistakes or tit-for-tat accusations of bad faith. As I noted elsewhere the parroting of my comments is not helpful and suggests you're getting too hot about this. A preliminary review suggests that a number of your other content deletions in this area are indeed sloppy and haphazard - as disputed mass deletions often are. It's indeed proper when encountering a pattern of bad edits to check out how far it extends. Bad mass deletions merit careful selective mass reversions, but as I think I said I am looking these over one by one, and only restoring things that can be verified, and adding citations for anything unsourced. I doubt that's going to be Wikipedia's final answer for list articles but I'm being extra careful given the scrutiny and lack of resolution here on the policy / style question. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't like being called out on weak edits, then please stop making them. Also, if you can't stop posting to threads in which you've been refuted and admonished by over a dozen editors, then maybe it's time to back away and cool down. Seriously, for your own good. And pretending to "undo" my edits as you do here, when in fact you are actually adding material that was never there before - specifically, adding citations that were never in the article before - is both misleading and needlessly provocative. And finally, harassment is a really bad way of dealing with your feelings, so I strongly counsel you against it. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't too swift, and it's not worth a response. However, I will note that you've misrepresented my newest edits. You can do what you want, but stepping back would be a very good idea. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, stepping back would be a very good idea, which is why I suggested you do it. What I wouldn't suggest is showing up to revert me at even more articles that you've never edited before. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please stop it with the bogus accusations. I'm fixing some bad edits you made on the disputed and largely discredited minority position that otherwise verifiable content should be deleted merely for being uncited. The community has been to AN/I, RfC, and ArbCom several times recently on this, so please don't try to pretend this ridiculous complaint can establish consensus for what you're doing. I've added cites in the BLP cases so that my editing is beyond reproach - yet you still reproach me for fixing your mess. Best to pause the edit warring and retaliatory behavioral complaints, while we can clean this up as a content matter. You're best bet is to find something else to do for the moment. There's no shame in that. Surely there are some other things to edit. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you not understand that one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies "requires anything challenged or likely to be challenged... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question"? Your allegation that the things you refuse to cite are "verifiable" comes across as disingenuous when you keep repeating it in spite of the multiple editors who have explained to you that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability explicitly state that you must cite sources for them. ← George talk 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not support mass deletion of verifiable content merely for being uncited, nor is WP:BURDEN a secret tactical weapon for those who want to do that. Instead of accusing me of being disingenuous on this, I ask that you give me the credit of acknowledging that I am sincere when I say the community has considered this matter before and rejected mass deletion campaigns. If you won't give me that credit I don't really have much to say other than that I heard you and I disagree. Anyway, as I mentioned at the start of the above subheading, there have been some bad content edits that need to be fixed. The removal of Jews from lists of Jewish people seems to have a false positive rate of at least 80%. I'm fixing that 80%, with citationss. I might make a few mistakes here and there but the ongoing sour grapes accusations and edit warring to undo my fixes are just annoying at this point. Nobody is going to protect an article or block me over this, so I truly hope people can pipe down and get on with things. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please identify where WP:V says that the amount of challenged, unsourced material that can be removed is limited? A quote would be great. I would also accept a link to a discussion in which "the community... rejected mass deletion campaigns" of challenged, unsourced material. ← George talk 07:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not spend time belaboring that obvious point. Edits made individually for specific content concerns are clearly different than mass edits made to enforce formal compliance with rules. If you want to explore Wikipedia history on mass deletions, one good starting point is the search bar. There is also an archive index and several hundred pages of discussion for this notice board, and some indexing system over at Arbcom. Deletionists come and go around here, and they cause a lot of trouble, but they tend not to last long as deletionists. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know whether this is the right place, to say this. I hold that unsourced information should only be removed if it is likely to be challenged (seriously, not for the sake of it). Otherwise we should keep it. This should apply to particular information, as well as whole articles. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that SlimVirgin wrote This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged. That policy appears to be a big invitation for conflict. If Woody Allen didn’t have a citation in that list, one editor’s “likely to be challenged” (a young person, or an older person who crawled out from under a rock) would differ from another’s.

      It also seems to me that the common-sense interpretation of what SlimVirgin quoted is at-least partially being overlooked in its practical application on those lists. If one simply clicks on a link to Woody Allen, the lead states he is an actor. An in-page search turns up eleven incidences of “Jewish”. So it seems clear to me that Woody Allen’s inclusion in the list A) would not be deserving of being encumbranced with a presumption that it is “likely to be challenged”, and B) would eventually be deleted by some editor for any variety of reasons. Why?

      …Because List of Jewish actors 1) provides a column for citations and then doesn’t specify anywhere on the page that 2) Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged nor does it state that Items must be cited here on this page; not the target page. This is a prescription for conflict and needless wikidrama. Editors can get into edit wars with another editor and simply revert what another did. Many editors are too lazy to click the link to Woody Allen and read what’s there; they might be too offended that another editor added some links that were uncited on the list page. Or editors may simply not be aware of what SlimVirgin is exceedingly familiar with (“This has been discussed and decided a thousand times”).

      I personally couldn’t care if something has been discussed a thousand times if clear and unambiguous guidance governing what to do isn’t provided in a venue for mere-mortal editors of common capability. It does no good to have someone say “This was discussed on Villiage Pump on Archive 5189 ad nauseam”. Gee, I’m sorry; wasn’t there.

      Now, I do note that the page has stated “You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions.” And then there is that column that stands out like a sore thumb with citations in it. Given those circumstances, I wouldn’t personally have dreamed of adding a bunch of actors to such a page and not added the citations; I would have felt lazy, at the least, and in violation of the implied requirement of the tag across the top of the page. So, for would-be contributors to the list, I would have suggested that they follow the common-sense implications of having a tag at the top of the page that talks about “reliably sourced additions” and that column where so many other editors took the time to add citations. To do otherwise, IMHO, smacks of an editor who fancies him/herself as the *creative* type who leaves the busy-body clean-up for others (IMHO).

      My suggestion is simple: Revise the adviso tag at the top of the page to state Unless it is explicit and clear in a linked Wikipedia target article that the individual is A) Jewish, and B) an actor, entries must be cited here on this page. Someone could have done that in 30 seconds instead of the four man-hours that have been wasted here with back & forth finger pointing and wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      P.S. After noodling about it for a bit to see if I could convinced myself it was a good idea, I got WP:BOLD and addressed the issue (∆ here). It seems WP:COMMONSENSE to me, but revert me if it isn’t helpful; I didn’t make a marriage proposal to the edit or anything. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a reasonable first pass. I have a few comments. The page needs some work. Can we discuss the content over there on that talk page? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me? (not my cup of tea.) I assume yours is an open invitation to others who routinely edit there. As to your first sentence: Good; I’m glad I could help. Greg L (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, I've removed your personal opinion from the article, which actually contradicted policy, and instead just directly quoted policy there. Rather than inventing radically new, contradictory policies, we should instead be reinforcing the existing ones. I can't see there being any objection to this, since I've just directly quoted policy, rather than interpreting it in any way. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The content discussion is ongoing on the list article page. I would suggest that anyone who would care to help improve this or any of the related list pages join the work and/or discussion over there - there's plenty to be done. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseball Bugs

    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.
    No and no. Consensus is soundly against these proposals. —DoRD (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – No consensus to do so. And, as you can see, I'm not Baseball Bugs. Ta. HalfShadow 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone uninvolved step in and guide Baseball Bugs away from this topic? His comments are defnitely not helping, and are only intended as attacks on Jayjg. Only from today, we have[16][17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

    In this edit, he introduces a new source, with another arrack on Jayjg of course[26]. The fact that that source is completely unreliable only reinforces the idea that it would be a lot better if he didn't continue in this and related discussions anymore, as he isn't contributing anything constructive, and his endless attacks are getting very disruptive. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not the one that started arguments on at least 3 separate pages. If he had bothered to deal with that list in a more intelligent way in the first place, he could have avoided all this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are closinga section on your own actions as resolved? Are you begging to get blocked, or is there another reason for such blatant behaviour? Fram (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—I have removed the "resolved" tag, because the editor against whom a claim was made has no right to put such a tag. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI page ban proposal for Baseball Bugs

    Some editing statistics for this user, over the last 10,000 edits (per WikiChecker):

    • 39.5% various reference desks
    • 17.8% user talk
    • 12.0% other project space
    • 11.4% article space
    • 9.6% ANI
    • 8.8% article talk

    The problem is not these statistics. They would be perfectly fine in the case of an editor who is making insightful comments on ANI in order to facilitate discussions. But these statistics are a problem in the case of an editor who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions. Therefore I am proposing the following:

    For the remainder of the year 2010, Baseball Bugs is banned from all ANI and AN discussions to which he has not been invited by another editor.

    How do others think about this? Is this an eccentric idea? Hans Adler 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • My 2¢? If he’s not disruptive, let him post. We don’t need 8 man-hours of wikidrama to discuss Bugs. I find it hard to believe that his posts on ANIs serve no purpose. If his posts have a common theme of sounding utterly ridiculous and he is often at odds with the thrust of your arguments, then take comfort in the amazing good fortune of your having an opponent who shoots himself in the foot without your having to lift a finger. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just invite him every time I see a new thread :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    • Bugs is pretty much the reason I post here. He serves to advertise that ANI isn't a private members club, and that ordinary editors (such as moi) can contribute. I'd like to think ANI benefits from my presence here; I certainly think ANI benefits from Bugs' presence here. (Disclaimer: I've previously supported Bugs' (unsuccessful) RFA - my views on what constitutes a good editor or a good admin may not be mainstream...) TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see Bugs make an intelligent comment at ANI, let alone a positive overall contribution to the Wiki. Others may feel differently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair observation; though you failed to append a big fat “IMHO” at the end. The only solution that I am aware of would be Wikipedia-style eugenics: strip someone of their ability (I’m not sure it’s a “right”) to speak here at this German beer garden because they seem incapable of making an “intelligent comment.” Greg L (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please close this - it's a collateral attack arising from another active dispute here and on other pages. Let it rest, guys. Please put the stick down and start editing articles. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikidemon, whatever your views, it is in no way an attack. It is a good-faith attempt to improve the situation. If you feel it is misguided, so be it, but please don't intentionally inflame the situation further. (I make no comment on the issue itself.) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Wikidemon. A collateral attack is exactly what this looks like to me. Equazcion (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Wikidemon. An attack need not get into personalities, as we used to say, it can be by an unwarranted request for a restriction, which is surely an attempt to damage Bugs' reputation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      As a term of art, a "collateral attack" is a type of argumentative flanking maneuver: in addition to your substantive argument against a debating opponent's position, question their right to present it. You see that sometimes on this page - as here, where this thread continues a content dispute that has now sprawled across several pages. In law it's a jurisdictional challenge. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that it should be closed; not sure I agree with "attack" - it seems to me to be a legitimate concern - albeit one I don't share. TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've yet to see Bugs make a disruptive comment at ANI. It's up to users where they spend their time. I don't really care about the stats. ANI can constitute 100% of your edits for all I care, so long as you're not a disruptive presence. Bugs is often helpful, sometimes humorous, and rarely totally useless in his participation here, IMO. And also IMO, Hans is only proposing this because he generally disagrees with Bugs -- which is no reason to do anything. Equazcion (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bugs is rather pointed with criticisms (as am I), but there is a gulf of difference between sharp and disruptive. To be banned from AN/I is ChildofMidnight territory, and this in no way reaches that. This was an extremely petty proposal. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • “Petty proposal” seems unjustly harsh. Hans wrote “who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions.” Hans seems to have been expressing a heartfelt and sincere observation and was advancing a proposed solution and wanted to run it up the flagpole for others. I suspect you are spot-on correct that Bugs’ situation doesn’t rise to the level of “ChildofMidnight territory”. You had a great post there, in my opinion, until you added those last six words. “Misguided proposal” might have been a better choice. Greg L (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call for an ANI ban, but I would advise BB to step away from the Jew list topic, as he's starting to sound like a broken record. I mean, how many times does he need to say Ron Silver is a Jew and everyone who doesn't instantly realize that is ignorant? An unhelpful point that's been repeated at least 8 times in the thread above alone.--Atlan (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Every serious (i.e. non-vandalism) edit to WP is as useful as any other and just because Bugs chooses to make a lot of his contributions here and employs a degree of humour while making really very valid points is no reason to ban him from here. There's countless other users that are technically on the right side of the rules but could do with being kicked off of WP altogether before we get to Bugs. If the community once again practices a bit of self-harm and decides to impose restrictions on Bugs I'll side with Duncan and make it my purpose in life to invite Bugs to every discussion raised. raseaCtalk to me 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user:BruceGrubb and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk:Christ myth theory

    Thread withdrawn; filer is drafting a RFC/U. NW (Talk) 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BruceGrubb has been editting the Christ myth theory article (I.e. the view that Jesus simply never existed) for a long time. Sadly, his contributions at this point are little more than a never-ending parade of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page.

    Bruce objects that the article is poorly defined, that the definition used in the article is synthetic and the product of original research and that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. To support his claim he refers to a few books, notably The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, editted by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.

    This book, which was published in 1982, states: "Over the last two hundred years or so, some skeptics have sought to explain the New Testament witness to Jesus and the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory." It then goes on to describe how advocates of the Christ myth theory argue that Jesus' miracles depicted in the gospels can be explained as early Christians just copying from other works available at the time, an argument anticipated by Lucian, a second century writer who accepted Jesus' historical existence but felt that the gospels exagerated his biography. The Bromiley text goes on to discuss more of the theory's history and then moves on to mention that other thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell thought Jesus' historical existence was an open question.

    Bruce, however, has misunderstood this source and thinks that Lucian and Russell are both classed as examples of Chrst myth theory advocates proper though they accept that Jesus existed. On this basis, Bruce claims that the definition Bromiley uses differs from that found in the Wikipedia article (which is currently supported with three different sources all written by university professors and published through major universities). He's raised this objection over [27] and over [28] and over [29] and over [30] and over [31] and over [32] and over [33] again--for more than a year. He's been corrected every time (I can get diffs if needed), by a variety of editors, but he presses on regardless, refusing to drop the WP:STICK.

    I've recently informed Bruce that if he didn't stop this nonsense I'd submit a report to the ANI seeking some sort of censure for disruptive editting as WP:DISRUPT mentions this sort of tedious, time-wasting, consensus obstructing talk-page behavior [34], [35]. Not only did he not stop [36], but he then said my statement that I was coming here [37] constituted a "personal attack" [38]. Please, do something about this so the Christ myth theory page--which is contentious enough without Bruce's shenanigans--can have a better shot at making progress. Eugene (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not involved in this article directly, but I participated in its good article reassessment which has just ended by removing that status and delisting it. The majority of the GAR comments were that the article is not NPOV, that CMT is poorly defined, that it appears to be a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus, and that a couple of editors appear to be behaving in violation of WP:OWN on that article. It seems to me that these issues need to be addressed before anyone is reprimanded for insisting that the article become more NPOV and policy compliant, which appears to be a majority view, as is clearly seen on its GAR page. Crum375 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have some evidence that you (Eugene) has listened to those who feel that the article needs POV attention? Looking at the GAR review and the talkpage it doesn't seem as if the consensus is in fact behind your interpretation of what is neutral POV and that Bruce's concerns have not been duly adressed. That might be why he feels he needs to repeat himself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been willing to make a number of concessions to those who've cried "POV!": the most obvious example is that in mediation I agreed to a compromise in which certain material was removed from the lead and a few marginal quality sources were removed [39].

    But the issue here isn't the article's POV/NPOV status; it's that Bruce is factually misrepresenting a source over and over and over again on the talk page despite numerous attempts to correct him and that this sort of thing is prohibited by WP:DISRUPT. As for Crum's concerns, it's precisely Bruce's sort of disruptive talk page obstructionism and obscurantism that impeeds more meanignful conversations which could potentially resolve the questions concerning neutrality and so on. Please help us. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not just Bromiley (who as I pointed out before requires some WP:OR to shoehorn his definition in the the Jesus wasn't a historical person position the article has taken) but also Dodd, Richard Dawkins ("The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (The God Delusion pg 97)); Price, Doherty AND Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) all regard Wells' post Jesus Myth position as Christ-Jesus Myth one which agrees with the first part Welsh's definition ("The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory"); and I could go on with the many sources some of which are just notable (like John Remsburg that show the definition the Christ Myth Theory the article mainly uses is the product of WP:SYN as well as WP:OR and by excluding those definitions that don't support the one the article present there are always going to be major WP:NPOV issues (which it has been tagged with yet again).
    I once agreed with Akhilleus that there was a definitive non-historical hypothesis that we could form an article on but after reading much of the material I honestly can't see any real support for that position. Dodd is so vague as not to exclude a historical Jesus, Bromiley's story of as well as his use of Lucian and Bertrand Russell without one single mention of Drews or any other 'great' of the "formal" non historical position seems to leans more toward a 'gospel are accurate history' position definition than the man never existed at all. Price, Doherty AND Boyd all calling Wells with his mythical Paul+historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus a Christ-Jesus Myth position only adds to the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably isn't the place to do this, but perhaps correcting you here (yet again) will show the adminstrators what exactly the problem is. Bruce lists a number of works that he thinks undermine the very clear definition of the "Christ myth theory" that the article currently sources with university publications; here are a few of Bruce's ostensible counter-examples: (1) Bromiley's ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (2) Dodd's History and the Gospel, (3) Dawkins' The God Delusion, and some inspecific references to (4) Price and (5) Doherty. It's like deja vu all over again.
    1. As I've already indicated, Bromiley (or an anonymous contributor to his volume) doesn't say what Bruce wishes he said. Bromiley states on page 1034 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that the Christ myth theory has only been argued for "the last two hundred years or so" and that the advocates of the thesis employ an argument similar to that used by the 2nd century Lucian. Also, Bromiley deals with Russell's Jesus agnosticism only after wrapping up his overview of the Christ myth theory proper.
    2. Dodd never actually defines the Christ myth theory so there's simply no way to set his non-definition against the actual definition currently used in the article. Dodd's book simply includes little superscripts at the top of each page to help roughly orient the reader, such as "occurence and meaning" and "historical and supra-historical"--they aren't section headings or anything, the text just flows from one page to the next with no breaks. At the top of page 17 the superscript reads "The Christ myth theory" and on that page Dood speaks of the theory that some people just made Jesus up as the symbolic representation of a mythic god. He then goes on to say, "Or alternatively", and then sketches out a different view that Jesus may have been some totally obscure person dressed up in a ready-made myth. Does Dodd think that this "Or alternatively" information is part of the Christ myth proper or does he think that he's moved on to a totally different option? To what material does the superscription apply? We don't know; as I said, he never actually defines the phrase.
    3. Dawkins never even uses the phrase "Christ myth theory" in his book at all!
    4. Price writes of Wells on the back cover of The Jesus Myth, "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous..." If Price contradicts himself later on, that doesn't undermine the article's definition, it only undermine's Price's reliability.
    5. Doherty is an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources.
    This is precisely the sort of nonsense that Bruce has been burdening the page with and while a few editors have tried time and again to correct his mistakes, he just keeps on posting the same references over and over and over, confusing the new comers and forcing us to have the same arguments time and again. Please, stop him. Eugene (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't, I notified BruceGrubb for you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I had thought the talk-page notice would be sufficient; but you're right. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly part of the problem is the source material is a mess. Before the GAR (which really surprised me) there were no less than four attempts across two noticeboards even even define what the Christ myth theory even was:
    and none of them answered the concerns much less formed a consensus. I should mention that before I called him on it User:Eugeneacurry was calling editor Kuratowski a liar [40] and given his statement of pastor being a First Baptist Church of Granada Hills so there are possible WP:COI issues here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take Bruce's claims of COI with a very large grain of salt; he once made the same accusation against books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press at the page in question [41] [42]. This only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's editing here. Eugene (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press both have exclusive contracts to print the Authorized KJV and it is in their best interest to kept the head of the Anglican Church (ie the King or Queen) happy which means supporting the idea Jesus was a historical person by default. As I said later on it would be akin to expecting a totally unbiased paper out of BYU regarding historical accuracy of the Book of Morman, the Pontificia Università Lateranense to put out an unbiased study on abortion or the viability of having married priests, or any US university putting out an unbiased study on Communism c1951-1960. To believe university presses are totally immune to pressures is to live in a fantasy world. Even the most respectable of medical journals are not immune to this--why else do you think Lancet put out an article in support of homeopathy in 1997? Also going over the delist of the GA I seen several charges against Eugene for POV issues providing independent support for my WP:COI concerns.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find Bruce polite and extremely patient, indulgent even, towards those who don't share his view. I share his view about the inadequacy of the definition, but am concentrating on the article's comment that the scholars who argue for this decidedly fringe theory are pseudoscholars, and haven't had time to concentrate on the definition issue. But I occasionally read the discussion on that issue and am amazed at the pure unkindness of Bruce's opponents towards him, their inability to see there is a problem, and his perennial humanity in return. 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)

    There are times I have lost it (if you go though the talks pages I do make a few first class blunders but as the Japanese say 'even a Buddhist priest will get angry if you smack him in the face three times') and I actual left the article for a while because the constant POVing was driving my blood pressure through the roof (sadly I had similar issues with the Multi-level marketing article but at least there I was able to pull one reliable source after another to clearly make the points I was making.) I came back and while I didn't like where the article had gone I thought it was going somewhere and stayed out of it for a while until it became clear the somewhere it was going was off the NPOV cliff (again). The only peer reviewed journal that I could find that even tangentially touched on this issue (and was thrown out because it was felt to be outside the journal's expertise) was Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness) Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 which said "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text).--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This misdirection only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's edits to the talk page. I never complained about civility issues. The talk page has often become heated and I'm in no position to pretend to be "Mr. Manners" here. This has always only been about Bruce's disruptive editing. Further, Bruce has now reverted, as he often does, to using the discussion of the article per se as a forum for discussing the subject of the article. Please, admins, take some of the distraction out of this article's existence by taking Bruce out of it, at least for a little while. Eugene (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eugeneacurry, you are the one doing misdirection with the "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." word games you are trying to use to ignore what Dodd is saying. You have called another editor a liar (removing it only when it was point out to another administrator), verbally smacked down Crum375 who chastised you for it, Sophia and SlimVirgin both claimed you were POV pushing the article in the GA delisting, and were pushing for calling Drews an Anti-Semitism even though editor Paul B indicated that the term meant a totally different thing than it does now (ie not a hater of the Jewish people) and yet the term links to the hater of the Jewish people article. While were at it there seems to be a problem with the New Testament Introduction: The College Press Niv Commentary reference used to back this up as the 1994, 1997, 2008 version that is searchable via google books doesn't have Drews in it at all So why did this reference only appear in the hardcover version?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please not that Bruce is trying to obscure this report through a number of pointless diversions; this is precisely the sort of thing he continually does on the talk page. If Bruce would like to complain about my supposed POV issues let him do so, but that's not the subject here. And as for David Fiensy' NT intro book, it's simply one more attempted distraction. The book appears once in the article and isn't connected to Arthur Drews at all but to another person, Bruno Bauer. Bruce is attempting to draw a false equvalency here. Please don't be distracted by it. Please block him. Eugene (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, him. —^
    Seriously, are we in kindergarten here? I always thought Wikipedia was a community of late teens living in basements. Hans Adler 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a little harsh, Adler. I have to admit, I did confused by the stuff on Drews' own page with what was on the Christ myth theory but he is called a "religious anti-Semite" on his page without really explaining what that means; I through the previous reference Arthur Drews (1865 – 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe, Vortrag von Dr. Bernhard Hoffers, Lehrte, im Geschichtssalon Karlsruhe, 24. April 2003 at google translator and found out that was a majorly bad idea as trying to pull any sense out of "First you should in fairness, after I one of Drews and Nazism had made allusion just say that Drew's publicly against tremendous growing anti-Semitism in the twenties has pronounced itself." gives me headaches though I can see who ever put it there thought it demonstrated Drews was not an anti-Semite (unless they knew German then they knew exactly what it meant). It still seems off to use terms that have certain meanings in 2010 that may have had totally different from those in 1927 based on one and only one reference that really doesn't explain what those terms even meant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In such cases just ask a German for a better translation, such as: "For justice' sake [I] should first, after I have made these hints about Drews and Nazism, also say that Drews has spoken out publicly against the enormous rise of antisemitism in the 20s." You should generally be careful with what German scholars say about Nazi era scholars. Most are their academic descendants and are either uncritical or hypercritical. – Unsurprisingly, the term "religious anti-Semite" was added by Eugeneacurry. [43]
    Here is something more detailed translated from elsewhere: "To understand Drews' own position during this time more clearly, it is necessary to draw on his convictions which he voiced publicly at the time in the journal Freie Religion. On one hand Drews positioned himself unambiguously against antisemitic stereotypes. On the other hand he also expressed thoughts that correspond to a racial religiosity. For example Drews asserted that Christianity was the expression of a 'sunken time and the mindset of a race foreign to us'. He stressed that 'Christianity [had] absolutely nothing to do with Germanhood' and therefore a 'German Christianity'would represent 'nonsense'." [44]. Hans Adler 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the translation. My late mother knew German fluently and I still remember one of her examples of just how awkward translating the language was: 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket.' Conan-Doyle even had his creation say "only a German is so discourteous to his verbs." Back to the point at hand:
    "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous, moving closer to the recent theories of Burton Mack." (please note the part pf Price's that was left out)
    Back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18 there was a lot said on this matter and going over Price's Deconstructing Jesus on page 228 he actually defines the pure "Christ Myth Theory" and states "According to the Christ-Mtyh theorists "Jesus had first been regarded in the manner of an ancient Olympian god" which does not exclude Wells mythic Paul Jesus concept. In the conclusion Price states "The gospels Jesuses are each complete syntheses of various other, earlier, Jesus characters." and there there may have been a historical Jesus behind any one of these versions or none at all.
    "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." [...] Is it, after all this, possible that beneath and behind the stained-glass curtain of Christian legend stands the dim figure of a historical founder of Christianity? Yes, it is possible, perhaps just a tad more likely than that there was a historical Moses, about as likely as there having been a historical Apollonius of Tyana. But it becomes almost arbitrary to think so. For after one removes everything that is more readily accounted for as simple hero-mythology or borrowing from other contemporary sources, what is left? (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)
    "G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament?)
    The entire "Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" article which in part says "But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth." [...] "Wells specifically addresses the parallel cases made by Earl Doherty and myself to the effect that the Q source need not go back to a single teacher at all, much less one named Jesus." In short Wells' current idea is that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character made of at least a preexisting Christ Myth (accounted by Paul) plus one or more historical teachers whos actions were record in the Q Gospel. Last time I checked a composite character was by definition non historical as no one person did all the the things the composite character.
    "Far from being a radical, Wells is simply mainline scholarship taken to its ultimate limit, engaged in dialogue with his critics, and with copious references to topical writings. He accepts much that is normative in NT historical scholarship, and but for his "radical" view that Jesus is a composite figure, could easily be mistaken for another conservative apologist drone, grinding out defenses of the position that Paul's companion Luke authored Acts, or that the Tomb was really empty. Wells is the last in a long line of men like Robinson, Loisy, and Drews, scholars who trod the mainstream paths to show where the mainstream had gone wrong." (Turton, Michael (May 16, 2003) The Jesus Myth and Deconstructing Jesus)
    These are the true WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATs that tend to happen in the Christ Myth Theory article--anytime you get one of these examples which present even the possibly that the "Christ Myth Theory" could include a historical person you get a kind of hat over the eyes, fingers in ears, la la la I can't hear you tap dance and it has really gotten old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, at most this just means that Price, the non-professor extremist self-publishing here, is inconsistent and thus not a reliable source on living 3rd parties according to WP:IRS on three different counts. We've been over this before--many times. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eugeneacurry, you clearly are missing (or ignoring) the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As I have pointed out several times by publishing articles in Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Journal of Unification Studies, etc. Price fits the "work in the relevant field" requirement (Please note this does NOT say on the topic of the article and wouldn't make sense if it did so don't even waste our time going there). Also Price's position on Wells is independently supported by other sources like Boyd, Turton, and Doherty so it is not like he is the only one saying this. Per the order presented on the WP:RS it would seem Boyd being published through Baker Academic is of a higher 'rank' than Wells' Open Court book. Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" but Boyd does and as the more reliable source we would have to go with Boyd for how "Christ Myth theory" is defined especially as it is independently supported by Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said all this before: WP:IRS says "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Price's views are widely considered extremist so his self-published stuff can't be used to define other people. Further, WP:IRS goes on to say that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" Given that Wells is still alive, this further indicates that Price's blog articles cannot be used to categorize him. Ditto wth Doherty, only more forcefully since he's not an academic at all. Double ditto with Turton, another non-scholar whose self-published web review article you yourself once said was "somewhat useless" [45]. These absurd attempts to grasp at straws perfectly illustrates Bruce's disruptive editing on the talk page.
    It's nice to see that you finally concede that Wells doesn't see himself as part of the club any longer; I'll save the diff. It's also nice to see that you now feel that Christian scholars publishing through real publishers are more authoritative sources for this article than even the Christ myth advocates themselves; I'll save that diff too. But I note for the admins here that both these points represent major shift on Bruce's part; he's argued the exact opposite on the article's talk page (E.g. re: Wells [46]) and seems to have only reversed himself here as he's been progressively backed into a corner.
    The book by Boyd and Eddy would be worth considering, but they clearly support the definition of the "Christ myth theory" currently used in the article:

    "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend."

    Paul R. Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165

    Please admins, don't allow this thread to go stale or become nothing more than one more go-around on Bruce's tendentious carousel; please intervene. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see some evidence for concern here, but I am unclear what you are requesting. Is it a topic ban, a block, or something else? NW (Talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that a full-blown topic-ban is neccesary. A short block would be fine. All I want is for Bruce to knock off this broken record routine. I think that if some sort of official action is taken against him, even a minor one like a 24 hour block, he'd get the message that he can't just go on bogging down the talk page with his tendentious edits month after month after month, confusing the new comers and making a ton of needless work for everyone else. Eugene (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One issue is that ANI threads don't necessarily lend themselves to fair examinations of the evidence. Perhaps you could file an WP:RFC/U? NW (Talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, NW, I'll do that; thanks for the advice. I suppose that means I withdraw this. Eugene (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, this is the fifth thread Eugene has started at ANI in two months. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That could be viewed as evidence of a possible WP:GAME violation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing by HairyWombat

    I regret to see that HairyWombat (talk · contribs) has been selectively notifying people involved in a particular image deletion discussion about its deletion review. Specifically, different but equally strongly-worded messages (one identified me as "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy" – a false accusation) to EncycloPetey and J Greb (both editors who expressed opinions on the same 'side' as HaryWombat in the discussion) but to none of those who were on the opposing side. In my opinion, this is a clear case of votestacking and campaigning, both violations of the behavioural guideline WP:CANVASS—which has a convenient table at the top identifying the various factors.

    HairyWombat has not been notified of this discussion because they have instructed me not to post on their talkpage. If someone else wouldn't mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified. Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a note at the DRV. However, since I had already commented there, another admin should be the one to warn or sanction HairyWombat. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply. On reflection, I accept that I was guilty of canvassing. I will accept whatever sanctions administrators choose to impose. What else can I say; it was dumb and I should not have done it. As for User:TreasuryTag "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy", I stand by that and explained it here. It is not just User:TreasuryTag seeking this, but this user did initiate the Deletion Review. Finally, on my Talk page I request all users not to clutter it up. HairyWombat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I had never ready WP:DPR#FFD until Mkativerata (talk · contribs) linked to it on the DRV. I had only read the (admittedly contradictory) sentence on WP:FFD which I quoted in my DRV statement. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As User:TreasuryTag had not read WP:DPR#FFD then the user was unaware that they were seeking to change it. But they were still seeking to change it. HairyWombat (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    But you agree that your statement accusing me of "seeking to change" the policy was false? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DPR#FFD states "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". In their Deletion Review, User:TreasuryTag wrote "The result of 'no consensus' should, therefore, be ... where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image."[47] That seems very clear. HairyWombat (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of actions

    I have just protected Bishop Hill (blog) following my reverting of a merge redirect of the article to that of the blog's author. There is an ongoing merger discussion, which was formalised a couple of days ago by the creation of a RfC. This is the second time in 24 hours that consensus for the move has been "declared" by one of the proponents, and in this instance the action had the following edit summary "The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way". I have been attempting to admin this Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation related article these last couple of weeks, and had previously protected the article upon reviewing the editing history and determining that there was a slow edit war. I had lifted the protection upon request, and had then blocked three editors who then made major edits without apparent consensus. As well as protecting the article, I have also banned the editor who redirected the article last from editing the page until the RfC has concluded. I invite review of my actions, and suggestions on how to proceed further - I am assuming a redirect is the likely outcome of the RfC, and would appreciate pointers as to how to ensure the determination that there is consensus after a reasonable period (and how long should that period be). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also related discussion at my talkpage, particularly Talk:LHvU#Blog again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not permitted to edit a page back to your favoured version and then protect that - this is a clear abuse. Nor are you permitted to "ban" PG - he has as much right to "ban" you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not his favored version, his action was as an administrator not as an editor. He has also not banned User:Polargeo only temporarily restricted him to the talkpage of the article after Polargeo attempted to merge the article in what looks like an out of process edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With any block under this regime a key question is about uninvolvement:
    • ...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions...
    Nobody is commenting on this so I assume that LessHeard vanU qualifies. Another requirement is that the user be warned:
    • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...
    Was such a warning issued?  Will Beback  talk  21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather busy just now, but would note that LHvU blocked me without warning after my only edit to the article, which I made in response to talk page discussion of content which in my opinion was (and, as now restored, is again) a coatrack based on a passing mentions in news reports, giving credence to blog claims involving a living person. While I did note my action on the talk page, giving reasons, the proposal that I follow 0RR on the article to be unblocked was no big deal, and I agreed accordingly. LHvU is evidently giving priority to stopping an edit war which I wasn't really part of, which is a judgement call. My concern about the paragraph remains, and I note that the current version as reverted by LHvU claims that the radio "interview was first posted on the Bishop Hill blog" – the "first" appears to be unsupported by the reference, which merely refers to "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog" without saying that this was the first posting. Others may care to review that wording. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (resp to Will Beback) All editors are under a general warning, given when I noted the lifting of the previous indefinite protection on the article talkpage. I subsequently blocked 3 editors for making unilateral removals and redirects following the lifting of the protection, and then declined to do so when WMC again redirected the article in a merge attempt - citing consensus on an RfC he inappropriately closed - per AGF and also Cla68 for undoing same. I gave my rationale at my talkpage, of which PolarGeo was a participant. To consider that PolarGeo would not be aware of the consequences of reverting the undoing of the redirect would be a great stretch of imagination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's difficult keeping up with the levels of restrictions and precise state of all the articles, it doesn't seem to me to require any stretch of the imagination to accept that editors have good faith differences in being "aware of the consequences". However, I accept that LHvU was using his best judgement in taking actions to stop slow edit warring, and acting within policy. The preservation and restoration of dubious content seems to me to go against normal policies, but this remains a judgement call in unusual circumstances, and LHvU is entitled to hold a different opinion on that. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert was apparently to remove a page blanking that was improperly done. It's not like LHVD chose specific content; he simply restored the content that was previously there. I see no problem with his actions here. Fell Gleaming(talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The ban would appear to be out of process. Per the banning policy, "Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings." Perhaps I've missed it -- I'll admit just doing a quick scan -- but I don't see any cases involving Polargeo and this article. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The general sanction is linked above, here it is again. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, can't imagine how I missed that. I'm not sure I'd agree it was a disruptive edit, but I won't fault LessHeard's judgement on the matter. Shimeru (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Notwithstanding LHvU's spin on the issue (which I find misleading), you don't revert and then protect. Sure, there are a few exceptions to the rule, like obvious BLP violations. But as an admin you have to choices - either revert or protect. You can't do both. Especially over something as trivial as whether an article should be split or merged. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true. "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Arkon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As people are pointing out elsewhere, it's standard practice to revert and protect when there's been an abuse of process or inappropriate editing. William Connolley and Polargeo have both tried to pre-empt the results of an RfC that was posted only a few days ago and where comments continue to arrive about whether to merge the pages, and if so in which direction. It's too early to close the RfC, and neither of them should be involved in doing that anyway. Therefore LhVU reverted their merge and protected the page so they can't do it again. It's unfortunate that he had to do that, but that was their fault not his. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The real abuse of process here (IMHO) is that a merge discussion that had started on April 21 and had pretty much reached consensus was unilaterally turned into an RfC at the last minute, and now certain editors insist that the RfC run a full 30 days before any action is taken. Some editors (myself included) consider this an unnecessary delay, perhaps even a deliberate stalling tactic. This is discussed at Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Slapping_an_RfC_on_top_of_a_merger_discussion and Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Done. Yilloslime TC 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC is a formal, established, and accepted step in the content dispute resolution process. One important element in an RfC is that it invites participation by previously uninvolved editors because the RfC is listed on the "open RfCs" page. I think we should welcome input from previously uninvolved editors as they could very well provide new ideas or suggestions about the dispute or examine it with unprejudiced opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That all sounds good in principal, and that's why I've initiated RfCs myself in the past, but is this case, for the reasons enumerated immediately above and in the linked takepage threads, the RfC was used improperly. Yilloslime TC 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YS, I started the RfC, and I've not been involved in the discussion for weeks, so your arguments don't apply. I started it because it looked as though a small number of editors were being unnecessarily aggressive about the issue, so I felt fresh input might help. That page has the appearance of having certain editors assume control of it, with any new person arriving at the article (who doesn't agree with them) being attacked and undermined, told they must read and adhere to previous discussions, told they're not allowed to open a new RfC because discussion is already taking place among the people who matter. That's exactly the atmosphere that calls for an RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RfC does not override consensus. Also the RfC tag was slapped on to merge discussions that had been going on for weeks and had reached what I judged to be a fairly clear consensus (at least as clear as it is ever going to be). I didn't realise that peoples' comments could suddenly be made part of an RfC. I had not edited the article itself before this. I was simply trying to enforce consensus. LHvU has banned me from editing the article, when I had no previous warnings what so ever. I would like clarification on why he feels he can do this and whether it has any weight. I have no intention of reverting any of his edits myself and he could simply have asked me not to and I would have of course complied, he does not need to be heavy handed with me although I can see that he probably needs dealing with heavy handedly himself (because his view of others appears to be based on himself). Also I would keenly like to know what offwiki contact brought SlimVirgin into editing this because the conversations I have seen that she occasionally is mentioned in, or comments on, are very one sided rants indeed. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway LessHeard appears to be using his admin tools and powers in any way that he can to stagnate an article at his favoured version and against consensus and is using the fact that a belated RfC was slapped on the talkpage when those wishing to avoid a merge found they were losing the argument. RfC is an informal request for outside comment, it is not a policy that can be used to stagnate development of an article or wikipedia against consensus. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is some remarkably poor behavior from all parties on this one. Reverting to a previous version and protecting is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Unprotecting an article one has edited is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Perhaps very long topic bans for lots of parties should be handed out liberally - but then, who am I to suggest that admins actually step up to solve the problems as opposed to just push them down the road. If any admin has the courage to step up and deal with this, please contact me and I can give you various sized balanced lists of people whose substantial absence from this topic area would help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I unprotected the article but my only ever edit on the article was reverted and the article was then immediately protected by LessHeard. I did not undo his edit, only his protection, because he claimed that the protection was against me. There was no need for this as I would never undo his edit. When LessHeard then explained the protection was for other reasons I immediately reinstated it. I don't understand how Less Heard is acting as an admin when he is enforcing content decisions of a minority whilst I am simply trying to enforce consensus as an editor. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It does appear that Less heard is reverting the article to a POV he agrees with (which is against consensus) and then protecting it at his prefered version. This is based on the fact that someone started an RfC when there was already consensus to merge. He is then "banning" me from editing the article after I have made a single edit which I thought was enforcing consensus. He not only undoes my edit but bans me and protects the article. This appears to be based on nothing more than the fact that someone started an RfC. I have yet to find the rule that an RfC underway in any way prevents editors from following consensus. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I`m seeing a lot of "Reverted to his prefered version and locked it" here, Would someone bo so good as to explain how LHVU can have a prefered version of an article he has not actually edited? mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very silly question. But to explain the obvious: you (or I, or LHVU) can have a POV about many things. That POV may or may not be declared. Or LHVU may even have made unverifiable assertions about his POV. Whatever: the lack of edits to the article is irrelevant to the "having a preferred version". That LHVU *has* edited it back to a given version rather indicates that he prefers that version, for whatever reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. Muddled thinking on your part. Preserving the status quo against disruptive editing does NOT indicate a preference either way on his part concerning the content thereof. I suppose you could argue that it shows a preference on his part for honoring the spirit of the underlying policies but that's another matter entirely from the content issue. --204.11.245.203 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very silly statement. To explain the obvious to you, an uninvolved admin can take an action which he believes was taken in bad faith or which he believe subverts an ongoing process. This series of edits is certainly the latter, and likely the former too. Do you get it now, or do I need to explain it further? :-) ATren (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very bad form. This gives a strong impression of the "Wikipedia Review cabal" tag-teaming against William "the Antichrist" Connolley and other common targets. That said, this is a most unusual lapse of judgement for LHvU so I don't think it needs to go any further than the chorus of tutting we see here, not unless it happens again anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bali ultimate

    Thread outlived its usefulness a while ago. Please uncollapse *only* if you truly believe something productive will happen by continuing this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) This user has in the past affronted me with his contemptuous tone. On this very WP:ANI even, if memory serves me. If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am a rabbi. But this post is unacceptable. Please also note that it comes after this post, which clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). I kindly ask you block this user, perhaps even indefinitely. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. The Menachem Mendel Schneerson page is about a deceased Chabad rabbi, many of whose disciples believed he was the Messiah (some still do, or think he didn't really die or something). Chabad is a controversial movement, Schneerson was a controversial person, the article is an unbalanced mess. Why? A number of Schneerson disciples guard the article. (No where is it mentioned, for instance, that many scholars and other Jewish groups believe that a cult of personality revolved around Schneerson). Chabad is also of course an organization that seeks to aggressively expand (like a lot of religious organizations, nothing wrong with that per se) and is having an outsized influence on the wikipedia article about Schneerson to suppress criticism. More people with both an interest in accurate research and history and no connections to chabad would be useful. I must admit, absent the Chabad pov-editors the article would probably end up badly skewed the other way (lots of people hate/hated Schneerson). Perhaps this is just a classic case of systemic wikipedia fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"! Debresser (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't fucking care. I'm done here. Have fun.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's uncivil but I don't think it warrants a block, much less indefinite. See WP:WQA perhaps, or WP:RFC/U (if it is a recurring pattern as per your comment). –xenotalk 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything deserving of a ban. Little bit incivil, maybe, but he appears to be right on the merits. We really do need more than hearsay to remove a reliably-sourced addition from an article. If anything, it would seem to be the opposing side that is unwilling to abide by WP:RS. Shimeru (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is precisely what that discussion is about, and is best discussed there. This post is about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. When did we start to allow such language on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't typically block people for an expletive or two, much less indef-block them. If you feel there's some established pattern of harassment of you, then you could try WP:RFC/U (not WP:RFCU, that's something else). I would suggest, however, that you might be making a mountain out of a molehill, here. Shimeru (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been the target of Bali Ultimate's ire before, but per Shimeru, he does appear to be right on the merits. Wikipedia's action over incivility is irregular at best, and I doubt you'll see any action taken against an editor who is correct on the merits of his argument but incivil in doing so. I suggest the reporting party grow a thicker skin and take comfort in the fact that when another editor resorts to profanity it reflects badly on himself. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am severely disappointed. I thought better of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"! Or "I don't fucking care". Nor is that last statement evidence of a good Wikipedia attitude. And no reason to make an effort to sound sophisticated here now. If you are capable of writing such sentences, and of the other insults you inflicted upon me in the past, you can not be a part of the Wikipedia commmunity. Such is my conviction. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser was a party to the above case, which I admittedly did not follow. Bali ultimate may have used a few naughty words, but I believe he's right on the facts here; I *know* he knows his stuff. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is the only site that I'm a member on where being incivil (hmmm...WP:CIVIL doesn't mean much, does it?) is allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell me this JCelemens. I was right about the Online Quran Project. If I said "what the FUCK are you saying JC, the article needs sources or it WILL be deleted", I would have been blocked in 0.5 seconds indefinitely. The fact is that Wikipedia gives "established" editors extra room for breaking the rules because hey, you cant piss off the big editors, right, otherwise who's going to do the editing? Anyone remember Giano II as well? Yea. Sorry Dresser, its unfortunate that things are like this and its just not right. What some people dont understand is that if you let abusive editors stay, they spoil the whole experience for everyone else. And now Bali ultimate will become even more abusive as he learns that he's give free reign because he has a lot of edits. (hey if he cant be blocked or warned for using abusive language, the rules should fucking apply equally for us). Why dont we CHANGE the WP:NPA to say "Four letter words can be used if you are you right". Tolerating language like "what are you fucking on about" is 100% wrong. Debresser, you can use it too from now on really. The best thing to do? Leave Jimbo a message. Jimbo will not say its ok, trust me and he'll tell everyone else here that its wrong, sorry. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anyone saying it's right... just that it's not grounds for a block. And incidentally, speaking as the admin who closed that debate you linked... no, I wouldn't have blocked you for that, much less indefinitely. Shimeru (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one can be blocked for incivility like that, then how will it stop? If no one goes to jail for robbing a bank, the robbers are going to keep coming. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's time we put an end to this type of abuse. As i see it , this term is used rightly in 3 types of situations only: in the literal sense as the appropriate English noun or verb, as an rare expressions of extreme anger or frustration indicating the last stage of verbal as distinct from physical violence, or--when used routinely-- to indicate one's membership in a group who is living or like to pretend they're living in a perpetual state of imminent physical violence. The only other use of it is the wrong one, of desire to offend other people who do not use the word routinely. The tolerance of it here dates from the RPG days when even ordinarily good people as a convention adopted the manner of violence-dedicate game characters of the loutish variety. Anyone who thinks the current WP is or ought to be such an environment does not belong here. If not this, it's the desire to be obnoxious. Bali is often right, as he in the issue here, but that makes it worse, because he could establish his position without any extreme language--especially because he had calm solid support on that talk page. I think we need to actually establish and enforce a rule that such language if repeated after a warning will get you blocked. If any of the old-time players here feel uncomfortable with that, they should remember that they are making everyone else here uncomfortable. I'll make a deal with Bali , though, in consideration of our long-term relationship here-- , he may use fuck or any other abusive words he pleases to me, on my talk page where it will disturb nobody else and where I've learned not to mind it, but not to anybody else. It does not hurt me, and it may amuse him. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I find your position reassuringly normal. Like in civilised world. I for a second thought I was in the jungle. I also thank Matt57 and Joe Chill who wrote me some moral support by email and on my talk page. I still hope something normal and civilised will come out of all this. I am really shocked by the matter-of-fact acceptance of what I soundly believe is not accepted in the real world. I think and hope that if a coleague on work would speak to me like this repeatedly, he would get reprimanded at least. Luckily, I have not met such verbal violence in real life, and that in itself might teach you something. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, is nobody affronted by the contempt inherent in this edit above, which basically says that he doesn't care what editors on WP:ANI will say in this thread. Or this edit on the discussion page, which boils down to a complete rejection of Wikipedia reliable sources policy. Debresser (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No more so than by the contempt inherent in, say, telling somebody they should not edit Wikipedia. Or using AN/I as a threat. Or declaring that reliably sourced information cannot be added to an article without your permission. (Okay, that one is more OWN than CIVIL.) Or questioning the motives of admins attempting to mediate. I wouldn't say you're exactly innocent, here.
    That doesn't excuse Bali's words. But if you feel your injury is grievous enough to pursue further action, a few potential paths have been sketched out for you in previous responses. My advice would be to step away for a while and cool down, but it's your call. Shimeru (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not worry about me being "cool". After last evenings cold shower, I am as cool as can be. I refer off course to the unexpected reaction of admins condoning offensive language and personal attacks. I will indeed consider the options laid out above, but at the same time think I should persue the present one as much a s possible. And I was happy to see that at least some editors and admins agree with me generally. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with reminding editors that there exists a WP:ANI in order to help them stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? No reason to call that a threat. Also, stating my opinion is not the same as declaring that reliably sourced information cannot be added to an article without my permission. You should be more careful when assessing edits. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "As long as these issues have not been addressed to [my] satisfaction, the information can not be restored." That seems like a declaration to me. But then, that's one of the limitations of plain text -- lacking body language and tone, it's sometimes difficult to divine what someone's intent was based on what they wrote. We can but use our judgement.
    Incidentally, there is a difference between refusing to block a user for writing something and condoning it. You should be more careful when assessing edits. ^_- Shimeru (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. :) I did notice the note you dropped Bali ultimate, and I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Many editors use strong language to indicate that as far as they are concerned a line has been crossed and they are really, really furious. They shouldn't use strong language to express that, but let's think about why they shouldn't use it for a moment. — It's because saying "Your post is unreasonable and made me irate" would express the same thing as "What are you fucking on about?" and is more constructive because it's marginally less likely to invoke a symmetric response.

    Now if that's the main reason why we can't use expletives, then surely similarly unconstructive posts that could easily be phrased constructively are just as bad. Such as "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia", which is straight from Debresser's post which triggered Bali ultimate's explosion. That's just as bad. In fact it's slightly worse because (1) Debresser is obviously wrong in the underlying content conflict and using fallacious arguments, and (2) it appears that Debresser may have been tweaking Bali ultimate in cold blood, while clearly Bali ultimate was genuinely (and justifiably) irate. Hans Adler 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What appears to you has no connection to reality. Perhaps review WP:AGF again. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to assume bad faith to see that "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia" is not a constructive comment. Sometimes I say such things myself, but I shouldn't, I am not proud of doing it, and it's not constructive. And it is not better than using expletives. Hans Adler 10:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree here. I think an editor who feels he may insult other editors, is not an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they piss on Wikipedia, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an editor who declares publicly on ANI that it's OK for them to tell others that they should "stop editing on Wikipedia" is not an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they, um, actively ignore Wikipedia's processes, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked. Hans Adler 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Debresser is the instigator here, and while decorum is always a nice goal to shoot for, a burst of frustration on Bali's part when faced with such circular arguments is not entirely unexpected. Before this becomes a boomerang moment, let's move on. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hans Adler, being told to "stop editing" is not an excuse to use four letter words and is also not grossly uncivil as using 4 letter words. I'd say that people who justify abuse are not an asset to Wikipedia and should be blocked, what do you say?
    Tarc, you've instigated me (dont ask why, you just did). Can I now abuse you using 4 letter words? When will people start learning that abuse is wrong no matter what? If you are told "stop editing", you can either be rational and say (1) "I have as much a right to edit as you do and needless to say, will ignore further demands to stop editing", or (2) get mad and use 4 letter words. #2 is an abusive response to something that isnt really abusive and is not even a personal attack. Debresser, its sad that commonsense isnt common at all as we can see. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Use whatever words you feel you need to get your point across, bro. Now if a line is crossed where you start f-bombing descriptions of another user (e.g. "so-and-so is a fucking moron"), then there may be problems. But this wasn't that. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to block Bali ultimate for 24 hours

    If abusive behavior is left unpunished it will continue and this is not consistent with WP:NPA. I recommend a 24 hour block for Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) for using abusive language ("what are you fucking on about") and refusing to accept responsibility for his abuse. This is not escalating this issue but doing justice where it needs to be done. Getting mad and using 4 letter words in reply to someone else is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If Bali is not blocked I may use 4 letter words myself at times and will cite this incident to justify what I did. Please help stop abusive editors on Wikipedia:

    • My understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is:
      • "what the fuck are you on about" - fine (legitimate question, requesting clarification).
      • "what fucking nonsense" - borderline (stating you disagree, OK. Suggesting the other editor is speaking nonsense - not OK).
      • "dont fucking bullshit" - unacceptable (suggesting other editor is lying).
      • "why did you fucking revert me", - fine (legitimate question).
      • "what kind of pussy faced edit was that?" - borderline/unacceptable (commenting on content, not a contributor - but very likely to be misconstrued as an attack on an editor).
      • "what kind of asshole would put in a reference like that?" - unacceptable (describing a fellow editor as an "asshole").
    • ...but the easiest approach is simply to avoid language like this, and tolerate it from others. TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either. Yet, the lack of a "decent language police", does not lead to everyone using such words all the time. How do you explain that? Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TFO, "why did you fucking revert me" is 'fine'? I'm done. Its called incivility. Look it up.
    Count Iblis, "In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either", wrong. You cant use 4 letter words in a meeting room for example and if you keep doing that you'll likely be fired. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper analogue would be a prison sentence, as that amounts to being blocked for participating in society. It is common knowledge that in board room meetings F-words are frequently exchanged when things are not going well, just ask Alan Sugar. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand me - "why did you fucking revert me" is fine in the context of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The word "fucking" is little more than a modifier, it's not directed at the recipient per se. That said, I thought the salient point of my comment was the "Don't swear; expect others to swear" line. Incidentally, pretty much the only time I swear in real life is in the meeting room, or other environments where the folk around me are swearing. TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Need more evidence of wrongdoing. There's nothing wrong with the word fuck, especially as an adverb, so long as it isn't used in one of its adjective forms to describe an editor. I think the best course of action here is for the bigger of the two editors to go edit other subjects and stop breathing down each others throats. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct course of action is give a 24 hour block (and longer the next, 3 months and so on) so next time he thinks twice before talking to another editor in an abusive tone. Sadly everyone here with a few exceptions is making a joke out of it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The use of such profanity and vulgarity really detracts from the professionalism of this encyclopedia. I would be happy to support a policy that would entirely ban vulgarity being used by editors. Basket of Puppies 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have started an essay about this topic here. Basket of Puppies 16:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That essay is rather ridiculous. This isn't Sunday School. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer. Since it's in project space I have taken the liberty of adding some neglected aspects. I have taken care to reference all potentially surprising statements contained in the improved version. [49] Hans Adler 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really necessary to oppose this nonsense? Use of expletives as modifiers etc. is, and should be, in the grey zone in which motivations and causes are examined and at least a warning is given before even thinking about a block. Hans Adler 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Honestly. This is Wikipedia, not a primary school. Sometimes expletives are unnecessary, sometimes they're unexceptionable. Lots of grey in between. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It might not have been fucking polite to say it, but it's wasn't a fucking personal attack either. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • F*** that s***. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-Fucking-Way ⌣ — Better to boot some of the POV warriors from the fucked articles in question. A huge proportion of the civility-whinging on this project amount to attempts to change the subject. So, peanut gallery, click here to help sort the WP:OWNership problem on that bio. 87, at the moment, and it needs to go higher. Sincerely, Jack-Fuckin'-Merridew 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fuck that shit Blocks for profanity? Shit no. I may swear like a damn sailor in real life (actually, I'm being generous with the "may" part of that), but on-wiki I try to keep it restricted to just my talk page or key project-level talk pages (well, and this post). That said, that's just my personal policy. "what are you fucking on about?" is a perfectly valid question; I'm not surprised by anyone finding the tone a bit gruff, but to somehow suggest that it warrants a block? Uh, no. Hell, I'd consider your comment of "If Bali is not blocked I may use 4 letter words myself at times" to be more disruptive that what you're pissed off at Bali ultimate over; "If I don't get my way I'm going to throw a tantrum" is exactly how I read that. People swear; get over it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't admire people who swear because it's cool, and liberal swearing has never seen necessary to me, but that's just me. His conduct doesn't breach any policies as long as it's not directed at certain users in violation of WP:NPA. SGGH ping! 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose. Blocks are not punitive and the word fucking is not a personal attack as it is not directed at anyone, but merely expresses an agitated state of mind in the speaker. Profanity by it self is not a cause for blocking, unless it forms a pattern of generally agressive behaviour towards other editors, in which case the words used are irrelevant, but refusal to change the behaviour pattern whether accompanied by profanity or merely boisteroius prose would be the blocking reason.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- Blocks are not punitive, nor is swearing necessarily indicative of personal attacks. Reyk YO! 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's prove Bali ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word

    I have run into Bali ultimate a few times in discussions about the way Wikipedia covers sexuality, ranging from child porn, homosexuality, images of a sexual nature, sado masochism, etc. etc. I take an extreme liberal POV in these matters and Bali an extreme conservative POV. Just yesterday on the AN page when I asked clarification about what was going on with Jimbo Wales, Bali wrote about his view that Wikipedia is far too liberal. If it were up to him, Wikipedia would be patrolled by an Islamic religious police :) .

    So, we should be careful not to move even a femtometer in that direction. Instead of blocking him for something some of us feel strongly about, let's prove Bali Ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word as long as he doesn't launch personal attacks. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "far too liberal" is not correct and is actually his way of justifying what he did. Lets delete the whole WP:NPA then if its liberal or "polocing". It is possible for someone to be polite and not be rude or aggressive. There are tonnes of examples of those kinds of editors. Its not like I'm asking to find water on the moon. Tolerating the F-word, hello, come on, you cant be serious. What the fuck is wrong with you? See my point? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is more offensive? Allegations of racial/religious bias and irrationality or saying What the fuck are you on about in response to a circular, logic free argument that has been continuously spun for weeks? For instance, the complainer wrote: If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am a rabbi. (Nope. I have no problem with that and no diff will be found to support that allegation). Why was this written? To imply some sort of bias without any evidence for it. This post... clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). Wow, what a happy choice -- I'm clearly either crazy ("irrational") or acting out of "personal prejudice" when i insist that the word of an anonymous wikipedia editor (and a committed partisan) shouldn't trump a reliable source. I don't really care about the insinuations. Standard practice here. But someone with a grasp of what the actual word "civility" means (rather than the bastardized wikispeak version of the word) would appreciate that the larger civility issue is the loaded language, the insinuations, the game-playing (again -- a group of editors with a single-minded point of view still effectively control content of the article on a man they view as infallible and holy), and ultimately the reason we're here. Someone pushing skewed content wants to be rid of someone they don't agree with. And some of you are enabling him. That this thread remains open is equal parts funny and sad. Back to lurking.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU are enabling abuse here get it. Now you know - dont do it again because if I see it I'll make sure its noticed and talked about. And why did you remove my comment from your talk page? Let people see it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a comment from your own talk page is fine, especially when it's a fucking WP:POINT violation. [50] It's removing comments from someone else's talk page [51] that is abusive. Hans Adler 18:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think talking like this "what are you fucking on about" is not abusive, but removing comments from a user talk page is. Great, what can I say. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16 Hans Adler 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had missed that; it's pretty creepy to be seeking personal phone numbers of another editor's loved ones. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh nothing wrong with that.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    don't-fucking-bet on it. Jack Merridew 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there's a difference between using the word "fuck" and a personal attack. "What the fuck is wrong with you?" is a personal attack (as is "You're not right in the head"). "That edit is fucking great" is not a personal attack. TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No sorry, abuse is abuse and I made my point clear. "What the fuck is wrong with you" is equivalent to "what the fuck are you on about", hello?? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we'll have to agree to disagree. The former is an attack; the latter is a (vulgarly phrased) question. TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain to me the difference between "what are you on about" and "what is wrong with you". Why would adding word "fuck" in this specific case make one phrase less offensive than the other? Answer that question. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "fuck" would make no difference. "what is wrong with you?" contains no vulgarity, but is an attack (it implies there's something wrong with the target). "what are you on about?" contains no vulgarity, and is not an attack. TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting silly. Wikipedia is a place where people should strive for a collegial atmosphere that fosters rational and intelligent discussions. Cursing rarely helps achieve this end so adding "fuck" in either sentence, or anywhere else, is inappropriate at best. For what it's worth, I don't think anybody should be blocked just for uttering a curse word in isolation, but as part of a pattern of disruptive discussions, blocking should absolutely be considered. It's distracting and unnecessary (this thread as case in point). — e. ripley\talk 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "inappropriate at best", exactly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked for >B>one week for the following response I gave at my talk page:[52]
    "Lessons on civility"
    "I will take lessons on civility from you when hell freezes over". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your incivility knows no bounds; you are a master at it. Keep up the good work. Cheers." Duke53 | Talk 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get some consistency for blocks is all I'm saying (though it doesn't help matters when admin 'friends help friends'). Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "admin 'friends help friends'" - thats whats happening here, it looks like. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps most people don't think using the word fuck is a big fucking deal. AniMate 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last sysop who was of that misguided view and reflected it in his editing has, quite properly, been de-sysopped and tossed out. Clearly uncivil. Sysops, especially, are bound to model appropriate behavior and follow wp:civil.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you're referring to Tanthalas? He wasn't emergency desysopped for using the word fuck, but for abuse of admin privileges (unblocking himself). You're totally misrepresenting what happened there.--Atlan (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) He was "de-sysopped and tossed out" because he unblocked himself and blocked another admin in a way that arbcom considered to be "wheelwarring". It had nothing to do with his use of swear words. Trying to indiscriminately equate swearing with incivility is ridiculous. Yes, sometimes people are rude and swear at the same time, that is against policy. Sometimes people swear but aren't rude, that is not against policy, nor should it be. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was quite properly blocked first for his use of profanity, which was clearly a wp:civil violation. He unblocked himself, as you say. Had the initial block been inappropriate, his unblock would have been fine. That wasn't the case. So he was indef blocked. I'm not indiscriminately doing anything. I'm telling you that use of the F-word is uncivil. I'm being quite discriminating in my statement. Any sysop who doesn't understand that, and doesn't get his obligations under wp:admin to follow wp:civil should not be surprised to receive similar treatment. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, even if the initial block was clearly inappropriate, an admin should never unblock themselves. They should ask someone else to review the block, like anyone else. Prodego talk 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree if there is any question at all as to whether it is inappropriate, that is the case. But, for example, if he had blocked himself by accident -- and then unblocked himself -- there's no way he would have been de-sysopped and kicked out of the community for that. Anyway, we can look at various arb statements, including those at a matter I brought to them where a sysop was using the F word, for statements indicating that that is simply not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodego blocked Tan for needlessly harrassing Malleus Fatuorum on his talk page. So again, not for profanity as you would have us believe. Were profanity not involved, he would still have been blocked. Your point that incivility should be dealt with is taken, but this is just a bad example of it and rather unconvincing. I think what others are trying to say here is that profanity does not equal incivility and you shouldn't be blocked for uttering the odd "fuck" or "shit". I can do well without those words, but to each their own.--Atlan (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NPA block request

    not going anywhere, either. Jack Merridew 01:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about the profanity, however, this comment by Bali Ultimate was a personal attack on myself;
    Herbert (if that is your name). I am inclined to believe that the poster is Olidort. I'm also inclined to believe that he's lying. I'm inclined to believe this whether he gets a letter to the editor published in the Mossiach is Coming newsletter (or however messiah is transliterated) or not. How will you handle your little computer science detour into the humanities, then? You've already gone on record as saying that all history you haven't personally witnessed is equally valid (good little wikipedian that you are) so this should be fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to request that an uninvolved admin block for this unprovoked personal attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrmmmm. Prodego talk 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can easily see an argument that he was being a jackass, but I don't see an actual attack. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So Herbert is his real name? Apologies. I don't really care what his real name is. I was just signaling that i didn't know. As for the rest, read my response to him on my talk page if you're interested.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing it, either. This is a off-topic, which is really the biased ownership of the bio by his, uh, fans. Jack Merridew 19:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point, that the article needs to not be WP:OWNed by any group, I believe I am in agreement with you and Bali Ultimate. This is why I was asked to get involved in the article talk page some weeks ago and why I've been doing so.
    The question is, whether we allow Bali Ultimate to be attacking those uninvolved admins who are reviewing and intervening in the situation there.
    If EVula's opinion is the consensus here then that's fine; my opinion is more offended, but this is why we ask admins to ask for uninvolved admin review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, George. I don't think we've met or interacted much. I don't know the backstory of how folks got involved in that article (well, besides those who are there per their faith). I know Bali ultimate to be a reasonable editor and believe you'll come to this conclusion with some more talk. What you're calling an attack is not, really, and seems to stem from only a cursory read of your user page (rather like the pretty brief glance I gave it; people don't read everything they could; there's a lot of text on this project).
    This whole level-2 thread needs to be boxed and the focus put on the article and the POV editing that seems to be occurring there. I've started editing the bio and will read the talk page; see you there.
    FWIW, I'm here because Bali ultimate is a serious editor and I have had unimpressive encounters with Debresser and Zsero before, on other articles. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No no, lets not block this guy. He's great, he's a role model. Its perfectly fine. Said JClemens to Debresser in this thread above: "I suggest the reporting party grow a thicker skin". How would you feel Georgewilliamherbert, if someone told that to you here? You wouldnt feel good. What is happening here is trolling because people like that are good at playing with the rules and dividing the masses and in the end a lot of damage is done before they are stopped because half of the people didnt see anything wrong with it and didnt agree with any kind of discipline. This is whats wrong here. Its plain nonsense and its being allowed to go on. And now you can see admin Evula and Jack here saying "nothing wrong here". I'm glad he did that because he did that to an admin now. Its really all gone the drain. I will be adding this insult in my report to Jimbo. Whats worrying is not this specific editor's actions, but the general public saying such behavior, attitude and tone towards another editor is ok. I'm sure Bali here wont get any kind of block at all which basically means, he can continue being rude, aggressive, belittling and abusive towards other editors. Looks like something similar to Giano II. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any particular reason why every single user gets on my case when I accidentally use a cuss word, but not calling someone a cuss word? Is there special privileges for certain users? Can anyone tell me why admins kept on defending someone that called me a troll when I brought it to WP:ANI? The truth is, I wasn't breaking any rules and here comes a (more established might have to do with it) user calling me a troll and reverting my edits in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are there no admins willing to look into this? Hello? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are plenty of people who have already looked into it. Its not an attack, stop being so sensitive and stop wasting everybodies time continuing this discussion--Jac16888Talk 00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so why arent you marking this as resolved then? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit. It's still incivil. Doesn't WP:CIVIL mean fucking anything to anyone? (It would be hypocritical to get on my case). How about we change the policy so that it reads that only certain users can be incivil and be backed up by admins? Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Chabad topic bans

    There seems to be a pattern of ownership and biased editing continuing in the area of Schneerson and Chabad. Since we've got some outside attention on this issue at the moment, how about we sort just who should be editing such articles? I've only just started looking at this, but given that there was an inconclusive ArbCom case, the community might care to impose some topic bans to facilitate the future editing of these articles. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If ArbCom didn't find that necessary, I hardly see the merit to this proposal of yours. Especially since there is plenty of discussion about this subject on the article talk page. Unless you mean to propose editing the article without the involvement of those who know most about it and care the most. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is that owning and biased editors be removed from the fuss; I'll add that those with a WP:COI had better review that link and consider voluntarily recusing from that bloc of articles. You seem to have pretty clearly stated yours. Jack Merridew 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins and editors are fully empowered to investigate and enact community sanctions regardless of what Arbcom has decided to pass on involving itself in.
    That said; while we could do this, and while I'm personally concerned about ensuring that policy gets applied fairly and consistently on the articles, we haven't gone to a RFC or more independent uninvolved admin opinions yet, and (this incident notwithstanding) behavior of people engaged in the talk page discussions has generally been within normal bounds.
    I don't see it as necessary or appropriate at the current time, as an uninvolved admin who's been working on issues on the talk page (of the Schneerson article, at least). I am perfectly happy and willing to file for community sanctions in cases where I see abuse of the appropriate magnitude; this is not near that level. You and the others aren't being disruptive in the admin intervention needed sense, much less the topic ban needed sense.
    I see signs of WP:OWN and other issues, but everyone's talking about it in generally reasonable terms, and banning you and the others isn't IMHO necessary.
    Oppose - premature, not justified by current behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a clear picture of what's going on in there and if this is premature, I'm fine with it getting sorted over more time. I do expect that it will come to this. The area certainly needs more participants. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Merridew wrote: ...how about we sort just who should be editing such articles?

    Perhaps not a bad idea to apply to all controversial articles. By default, a topic ban is imposed for everyone. ArbCom appoints suitable editors who are allowed to edit the articles in question. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was not my idea. Sure, the AC has a role in some cases, and I note that they rather washed their hands of this mess, so it falls to the community to address. These articles will not significantly improve as long as the members of a messianic cult are the arbiters of content about the cult's history. The COI'd need to go; this is really a blanket solution, across all controversial articles. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is not a matter of messianic or not. And I also don't think the messianic ones can be properly described as a cult. There are people around who revere Schneerson (either as a dead person or otherwise). That makes editing this article a little tricky, to "keep all costumers satisfied", but I think the article talk page is doing a fine job, without violating either truth, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and said sensivities. I propose we continue doing just that. Debresser (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Confused about image removal

    Resolved

    I cannot understand why the following image File:Gettin' over You - Single cover.JPG has been removed. It had legitmate use in the article Gettin' Over which i've been patrolling and working on for a few days. It was never to my knowledge tagged in article itself stating it was up for deletion via discussion and as of yesterday i checked the image's license/summary and everything appeared to be in order. Can someone find out the following please:

    1. Why was it deleted?
    2. By whom?
    3. Can it be restored please?

    Please note I am NOT the uploading user i simply edit on the image's parent article.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, and now its suddenly been restored? not be rude but what was going on there? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Don't know what happened, but the image has a valid WP:FUR, has not been deleted, and I've restored it to the article. Please trust me to just get on and fix things. Rodhullandemu 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing file is File:Gettin' Over You - Single cover.JPG, the difference being the case of the "O" in "Over". —DoRD (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would explain it then. SGGH ping! 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to point fingers, but it appears that someone introduced a typo in the file name. :P —DoRD (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And to my eye, that same person seems a little too quick on the trigger placing speedy delete tags. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just note that file names are case sensitive. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To note i was told that prepositions less than fives letters should be small case according to WP:MOS therefore Gettin' Over You should be named Gettin' over You. I did not place the speedy deletion tag as being suggested above.Lil-unique1 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not say, or mean to imply, that you speedied that article, rather that I looked over the list of a dozen or so articles that you did tag for speedy deletion, and thought that some of them were clearly notable and worthy of keeping. That was the meaning of my comment that you were "quick on the trigger" with SD tags. Please be sure that the articles you tag are of no value to the enecyclopedia before you tag them for deletion. Sure, an admin has to agree and delete them, and sure there's always deletion review, but it's really better for everyone if the process isn't even started if the article is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for that. There will always be a difference of opinion but yes i strongly believe that the articles i noted for deletion were on the whole candidates for CfSD. i only every tag them for quick delete if they are obviously bad e.g. gibberish, no content etc. or where there is no context. The main one's i focus on is the latter. It is my belief (which you are entitled to oppose) that an article which has no context even if the information is sourced maybe be irrelavant and so its purpose on wikipedia is questionable.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying, but my feeling is that context can always be added if the subject is notable, so it's probably best not to tag with SD articles about notable topics, and deal with the lack of context with cleanup tags (or, even, editing it to provide the context). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd editing pattern (high edit rate, extremely low content changes with no edit summary (User:Git2010)

    Regarding this editor: Git2010 (talk · contribs · count): Anyone know what to make of this behavioral pattern? A comment to their talk page went unanswered. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like an unauthorized bot account - I could make trivial edits at that rate if I wanted to, but there's no way I could sustain it, and in any case making edits like [53] at high speed smells like AWB genfixes to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'm assuming you mean the user Git2010 (talk · contribs · count), as linked in the header, and not Gitmo2010 (which doesn't seem to be a registered account)? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fixed it. User recently created a User page (albeit an enigmatic one). Probably harmless, though edit summaries would be nice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we need to see an explanation though. I've notified the editor of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He hasn't done anything since you posted this but I don't think this should just disappear from here just yet. Definitely something strange going on.--58.122.40.118 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editor on Apple TV

    Resolved
     – Blocked 24 hrs by Department of Redundancy Department (talk · contribs). –xenotalk 19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Awhile back, I answered a 3O on Apple TV. AshtonBenson (talk · contribs) was inserting text that used Apple forums, Apple FAQs and other sources to synthesize a section together, and the other editor disagreed with it. I sided with the latter, saying that it was inappropriate. A fourth editor came to the page and agreed with me and the other guy. AshtonBenson accused the three of us of meatpuppetry (side note - first time I've ever seen a 3O accused of meatpuppetry), and there were heated words. After several reversions, AshtonBenson was reported for a 3RR violation, but the page was fully protected. Benson then counter-reported the three of us for meatpuppetry, but that was declined.

    Fast forward a week, and the page's protection expired. AshtonBenson is, once again, reinserting the text. I don't think this is an issue for dispute resolution; there's a fairly clear consensus that the text is wholly inappropriate, and it just seems that we have one particularly tendentious editor. As I'd rather not see this escalate any more, I've brought the issue here. It seems to me that AshtonBenson is particularly combative; he has reverted multiple warnings from his talk page, and he's repeatedly changedheaders on the talk page to reflect his beliefs about us being meatpuppets. Further, he created Digital Monitor Power Management, a one-line article about the same text that he's trying to add to the Apple TV, which seems to be a step towards WP:POVFORK. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The additional section is clearly WP:OR "sourced" to forum posts, so I have removed it. In addition, the accusation of meat puppetry is completely baseless, so I have warned the editor against making personal attacks. Whether admin intervention becomes necessary is entirely up to AshtonBenson. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DoRD, you seem to have mistaken the term "meat puppet" for an insult. It is not. It is a recognized Wikipedia techincal term. Thank you for your interest. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DoRD is an administrator; I'd like to think they know what a meatpuppet is. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HelloAnnoying, your version of events is quite strange. Could you please clarify which words were "heated"? Also, as I recall, you reported me, I reported you, and both reports were resolved via protection of the page. You somehow seem to imply that your report was officially verified and mine was not -- this is not the case. Although I may be tenacious, I must take issue with your use of the word "combative"; there is no evidence to substantiate this personal attack you have made. And, last of all, I fully admitted that creating a new article for DMPM was unnecessary and voted in support of merging it with DPMS, so I can't see how the contribution of that material is in any way relevant to this discussion. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • Agree with HellowAnnoyong: I had hoped the the temporary page protection would have provided a needed break and for the most part AshtonBenson seemed to be more cooperative. But with the recent reversion against what was, except from his efforts, a complete consensus that the material in question was not supported by reliable sources. Given the accusations of meatpuppety, as a good faith effort at dispute resolution I asked contributors on the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_64#Apple_TV_and_discussion_about_Digital_Monitor_Power_Management where a participant on that board also agreed with the consensus. One would have through the weight of at least four independent editors would have convinced AshtonBenson to find a reliable source for the content (if available) or leave it alone, but instead he just went back to reverting. Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus among meat puppets is not consensus, per WP:MEAT: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a meatpuppet is, AshtonBenson. Furthermore, this does not justify your edit-warring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. AshtonBenson, neutral third opinions have nothing to do with meatpuppetry, and repeatedly asserting that they do is disruptive, and could lead to a block, whether or not you continue edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. A meat puppet is (usually) someone the other puppet know in meatspace. It certainly isn't some random editor found via 3O. –xenotalk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as an update, the tendentious editing continues. Just now, AshtonBenson yet again changed the title of a thread from "AshtonBenson and Apple discussion forums" to "AlistairMcMillan's Meat Puppets and Apple discussion forums". This clearly isn't going to stop anytime soon, and it's just becoming increasingly disruptive. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And as I previously warned AshtonBenson against making unfounded accusations, they've been blocked for 24h for changing the section heading once again. —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hm2k WP:POINT disruption.

    A few months ago Hm2k was in a truly horrific display of Tendentious editing. This invovled several admin and users reasoning with him about why his list didn't meet notability or wuality standards. He is now deleting every redlink he finds. I've tried to explain that not all redlinks need to go as there are several pages like this [[54]] that use those as a way of writing articles and maintaining organization. He has ignored this and has reverted the edits. I would suggest another user or admin discuss this issue with him and have at least a short round of good faith for him. Right now in my opinion he is disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't mind, I've linked the user in the section title for convenience. SGGH ping! 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given him a carefully worded message. His "removal of redlinks" on one article simply removed an entry, not just the redlink, which is obviously a no-no. Just because the article doesn't exist is no justification (WP:WTAF or otherwise) for deleting content. Outside this one, I've just advised him of all the benefits of redlinks. I don't know the history of this user so am unaware of any point he might be making. SGGH ping! 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His AFD was at [[55]]. If you can see the afd for that you'll see what I mean. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Do we need to pull out the bucket-o-trout and give all involved a good trout whacking? ;P
    The List of shell providers AfD was related to things which were happening on Talk:Shell account (as well as Talk:List of shell providers) and while User:Hm2k certainly played a role in it, he was also being baited by someone who had originally followed me to Talk:Shell account during an earlier, somewhat heated discussion. For the record, I don't find myself in agreement with Hm2k in removing the majority of these red links, although after some of the heated discussion on Talk:Shell account was well over with, he and I discussed a number of things and came to mutual understandings. I've been avoiding editing many of these articles in an attempt to avoid getting into an argument regarding the red link removals as I have too much on my plate already. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In a slightly-related topic, would it be correct for me to continue removing redlinks from List of youth orchestras in the United States?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User H@mk has no concept of consensus or policy. He was warned by a admin then said he would continue deleting redlinks as he saw them. I'm sorry but this user is problematic and a site-ban should be put in place until he accepts the will of the community at large. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation of WikiProjects by User:Kingjeff

    In the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that User:Kingjeff has created two full-blown WikiProjects without the approval of the WikiProjects Council. As I understand it, consultation with the Council is required before the creation of a WikiProject. Is there anything that should be done about this? – PeeJay 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What are the two WikiProjects? The "council", as far as I can tell, doesn't have any actual authority, and is just there to help out new projects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that the council was there to decide whether a Project is a good idea or not. After all, if every Tom, Dick and Harry created a WikiProject whenever he felt like it, we'd have thousands! FWIW, the Projects that Kingjeff has created are Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football competitions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bavaria. It was later decided at WP:FOOTY that the football competitions Project should be redirected to WP:FOOTY's season article task force. – PeeJay 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    EVula is right in that the Council is more of a 'best practice'; it's not mandated. But it helps to ensure a project isn't already covered, or best covered as a task force of a parent topic. –xenotalk 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I never created WikiProject Bavaria. I merely help upgrade the project to a position where they can formally use the project pages. So, I think we should keep WikiProject Bavaria out of this. From what I see from from the seasons task force, it doesn't have as broad of a scope as I intended. Kingjeff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it belongs to the bold. Kingjeff should be given a barnstar for his initiative, ANI threads. Association Football competition can be turned into a taskforce of the Association Football project, but ANI ain't the place to discuss this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, policy is quite clear that failure to adhere to the letter of a process or policy in the attempts to do something legitimate does not invalidated either a post, an action, an edit, or any manner of things an editor tries to do. A wikiproject being "good" or not depends on the actions of those involved in the wikiproject in increasing the number of articles, increasing the number of non-stub articles, fighting vandalism, helping newbies and others find information and each other for help, and a host of other REAL EDITING criteria; not any council's opinion on whether or not it technically meets any preset determinates that are subjective or meaningless anyways, like "how many editors can you get to join?" "is it a distinct topic?" "does it overlap another wikiproject?". The more wikiprojects we have the better, editor interaction and support is much needed. Everyone needs a friend and to know they arent alone in editing.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long Term Vandal at 72.37.171.52

    Back in April, I noticed an editor from this IP 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding nonsense and deliberate misinformation while reverting attempts to undo his vandalism. While this IP has been tagged as an SharedIP, looking at the IP's edit history and look over diffs, its been made clear that a good majority of the edits dating back late 2009 are by the same user who continues to vandalize articles, ignore warnings, and stretch his edits between days or weeks to evade blocks.

    Edits like these follow the same m.o. as the chronic vandal edits from all throughout April and last night and show a pattern of long term abuse by single user from this IP:

    • [56] -adding deliberate misinformation
    • [57] - undoing removal of vandalism
    • [58] -adding deliberate misinformation
    • [59] - adding deliberate misinformation
    • [60] - undoing removal of vandalism

    When this user was given a 4im warning on April 28, he resorted to using alternate IP addresses from a different host to evade a block and resume his vandalism. (See ANI report) When those alternate IPs were rangeblocked, he continued his vandalism again with the 72.37.171.52 address. (diffs:[[61], [62]) I reported this IP to the vandalism noticeboard a couple of times, but no action was taken.(the reports were just tidied up, and I was eventually recommended by an admin to file a report here.) --GD 6041 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And the disruptive behavior from the same user continues... At this point, its obvious he's not going to stop. Can someone please block this guy already?--GD 6041 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blockage needed, indeed. --Elvey (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block anonymous edits from student gateway

    I'd like to request a block for all anonymous edits from my student gateway ip address (64.85.181.66). I'm trying to teach them to be good stewards of this resource, but for some it is just a joke and I'm tired of being partly responsible for adding to the workload of the folks trying keep the articles clean.

    Thanks,

    Splarfage (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This one? Only 3 edits, only one recent ("hi mom") it's hardly taxing our resources! :) SGGH ping! 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're responsible for the IP (i.e. a school authority), you can email info-en-s@wikimedia.org to progress this. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the information. While there are few incidents at this point, I'd like to nip this one in the bud before it gets out of hand. Keep up the great work. Splarfage (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict with Headbomb Re Forever Knight

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    This is the wrong forum for this discussion. Please follow the instructions at WP:DR. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    A conflict has started with myself and this user which is getting ridiculous. It started when User:Headbomb restored the List of Forever Knight episodes from a redirect[63] to the main article in June 2009,[64] per consensus, as it had been primarily copyvio and nothing but titles after all that was removed. I initially disagreed with his restoration, but after he reverted[65], he added the air dates I figured that was fine and proceeded to properly format the list using the {{episode list}} template, adding a basic lead, adding the basic ELs. He began an extensive edit war over it, becoming abusive and uncivil, undoing the entire reformat for what appeared to be an effort to restore his use of a non-reliable source (IMDB), and to claim that his format is the proper format per "featured lists" (it is not). The format I put in place follows what is proper per FLs and WP:MOSTV. I attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page,[66] but he continued reverting while we were talking and refusing to simply continue editing with the new, proper format. I asked him repeatedly to stop per WP:EDITWAR but he continued reverting. I started a discussion at the talk page, requesting additional views from the project as well, but after I posted those, he reverted again.

    I filed a report at the Noticeboard, where his response started with "Fucking christ, you really can't stand it when people try to do stuff do you?" (clearly not civil). His later responses and edit summaries continued with this sort of abusive and bad-faith language. I noted that at not time during our attempted discussion nor his edits did he actually indicate he intended to do anything more beyond restore the list and add that one reference. He did not flag it as in-use, indicate continued work on his edit summary, anything. My reformatting came seven minutes after his last edit which had an edit summary of the "Ref" he added, and which we edit conflicted over.[67][68]

    He later gave me "permission" on the edit warring board to reformat the list again, claiming "he was done", so I did so. He has proceeded to continue reverting my edits, delinking an unnotable character (pretty sure he was deleted in an AfD)[69][ and an unnotable screenwriter[70][71][72][73]. He went on to create a category and a template. As the series has three articles: Forever Knight (barely a stub), List of Forever Knight episodes, and Nick Knight (purely a stub), and per general project consensus one what goes in a television navigational bar I nominated both for CfD and TfD, respectively. He responded by leaving an abusive note on my user talk page[74], and making personal attacks in both deletion nominations, calling them, among other things, "pointy" and accusing me of "stalking" him, trying to get him blocked (no, trying to get him to stop edit warring), and seeking "revenge"[75][76][77][78] I have worked with the Forever Knight articles since 2007[79], and helped clean out a ton of the copyvio last year, so how my seeing edits related to it is "stalkerish" is beyond me.

    As it seems clear he intends to continue this tirade for awhile, I feel administrative eyes might be useful, as I'd rather not continue dealing with him and am getting tired of his continued abusive profanity and incivility. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI notice was left, per requirement, and removed[80] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's getting ridiculous, stop try to delete everything I touch. I'm here to write articles. I want to make the general topic of Forever Knight suck less, and all you're doing so far is trying to get me blocked and make my life miserable by CfDing and TfDing because you can't assume good faith for two seconds. Can't you back down for even one minute?
    And knock it of with your "appears to" and "supposedly" and the rest of your scare quotes. I was basing myself on List of The O.C. episodes, AnmaFinotera switched to the template-based style midway through my edits which kept giving me conflicts and got in the way of doing things (I never used that template before). Apparently taking a feature list as an example is a crime punishable by death nowadays. IMDB has nothing to do with it, although you've removed the reference I used, instead of providing a better one (AFAIK, IMDB is fine, maybe it is, maybe it isnt', but that is the reference for the current list).
    Then, other crime punishable by death, I created a category. What horror! And to add to the ignominy, I created a navbox! (Which, BTW, I haven't even linked to yet, because it's rather primitive and I need to write many of these articles).
    So if AnmaFinotera assummed good faith rather than climb on the Reischtag, we wouldn't be in this pickle. I was and clearly am clearly working productively on this, and it would be nice if he stopped throwing sticks in the wheels of people who create content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb, you need to calm down and not insult other editors, or you will get yourself blocked, and that's hardly necessary. I don't see any stalking or baiting here. Assuming good faith doesn't come into it; if AnmaFinotera believes that the category and template are inappropriate, of course they can nominate them for deletion, even if they believe you're trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia (which I also believe). If you want them kept then make cogent arguments for this and other editors might side with you. Crying persecution won't aid keeping them. Fences&Windows 22:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c) If we can't count on an editor with over 100k edits, and an editor with over 50k edits, to somehow avoid diving headfirst into a flame war, what hope is there for the hoi polloi? Anma, how about giving Headbomb some breathing room to expand this, let him work on this for a while and then come back to it to tinker with it? And wait for some other WP:TV people to chime in? And give the template and category a break to see how they evolve? Headbomb, how about dialing back the aggression about 3 notches, so it's easier for others to concentrate on content issues without being sidetracked? The talk page of that list is depressingly empty. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tried that and suggested solutions and see what that got me. CfD, TfD, and ANI. However "Anma, how about giving Headbomb some breathing room to expand this, let him work on this for a while and then come back to it to tinker with it? And wait for some other WP:TV people to chime in? And give the template and category a break to see how they evolve? Headbomb, how about dialing back the aggression about 3 notches, so it's easier for others to concentrate on content issues without being sidetracked?" Sounds good to me. Which I thought was what would happen after I told Anma that he could switch the list to the template-based version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not examples of dialing back the aggression 3 notches. Letting you work on it in peace for a while would be common courtesy that I would hope most of us would extend to one another, but it isn't required. And when you overreact to perceived slights, you make it less likely that you'll be extended that common courtesy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He did not indicate any problems with edit conflicts nor that he was continuing to do stuff until the edit war report was filed. His initial response, beyond the one with no edit summary, was instantly hostile and combative, without again any indication that he was doing anything other than adding the airdates (which were kept in my initial revert) and the unreliable source. He did not start adding any further content until I warned him for edit warring, and posted notes to the list talk page and the project. At NO time during the discussion before that did he give any indication that he was doing anything else, and his initial responses seemed only to confirm that he disagreed with my removal of the IMDB source. Had he responded like a polite adult, and simply responded to my initial note by indicating that he had reverted because of edit conflicts while he was adding the directors/writers, we wouldn't have had any of this mess. I attempted discussion with him in two venues, not counting edit summaries. He was hostile, combative, and assuming bad faith from the first two reverts[81][82]. I will also note that after my report, I stopped reverting, and he continued his edits. When he specifically claimed he was done, I went in and did mine (just as you have suggested here), and he again began making reverts and continued acting hostile. Even after yourself and another asked him to tone it down, he expand his reply here with more of the same overreacting retoric[83] and continued claims of "bad faith" in the CfD[84] because I pointed out the topic has only four potential articles as far as I can see. And note that no where have I asked for him to be blocked, other than to note in the 3RR report that we had BOTH done four reverts and it is very typical that both parties are blocked in such a case regardless of reason or discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit summary should have read "will you JUST WAIT, for odin's sake you can't fill eveything in two seconds". 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    "He did not start adding any further content until I warned him for edit warring, and posted notes to the list talk page and the project." Yes, this is what happens when you give people 2 minutes windows to reply before going to ANI. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This went on for HOURS and you obviously found time to reply to the notes on your talk page, but not to take an extra second to explain yourself? And to perform all the other edits pointed out here, including the note on my talk page. Not once did you attempt to be civil nor to actually discuss the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone close this thread now? Nothing good can come out of it. Anma refuses back down, and I'm unwatching this page before I say things I regret. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bybee Memo and Torture memos

    It seems to me that Bybee Memo has just been cut and paste moved to Torture memos, although possibly in an edited way. (However they definitely share chunks of text.) I reverted the editor and told them to ask an admin to do a proper move, but the editor simply re-reverted, claiming it was a completely new article. I am going to bed now, perhaps an admin can look into this. Hans Adler 00:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a cut-and-paste move that I can see, but if the latter has unattributed chunks of text from the former then the two articles need to be histmerged. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A histmerge is desperately needed from an Admin. This user has undid attepts to allow for histmerging. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedant17 disruption, after two RFCs

    Pedant17 has engaged in a pattern of disruption at the WP:GA-quality rated article Outrageous Betrayal, repeatedly reverting to a poor-quality version of the page pushing out his POV for E-Prime - despite not one but two WP:RFCs which do not support his changes.

    This has gone on long enough. There were two attempts at dispute resolution, and ample talk page discussion. Consensus did not support the changes by Pedant17.

    At this point in time, a block would be appropriate.

    I have been involved in quality improvement on the article, and so would appreciate it if another admin could act here.

    Dispute resolution
    1. RfC: Recent wording edits to article -- August 2009
    2. RfC: Removal of words Is and Was -- February 2010
    Disruption by Pedant17

    Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the consensus of the two prior RfCs.

    The edit summaries given by Pedant17 are noted as well.

    Prior admin comment

    Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cirt asked me to take a look at this offline; having reviewed the edit history, article talk page, RFCs, and ANI archive, I have a preliminary opinion that Pedant17's edits are disruptive in the sense that they are repetitive and against consensus on the RFCs, article talk page, and the prior ANI thread from six-ish months ago. I don't think they're vandalism, but they are controversial (stylistic changes that many editors object to and which have been consistently undone by other editors).
    Pedant17, It's not considered acceptable behavior to keep trying to end-run consensus by coming back every few months and re-doing something that others have concluded should not be done. I understand that you feel that this improves the article, but Wikipedia is not a project anyone can edit, it's a project that everyone edits, and everyone must be able to edit together and in cooperation. Continuing to try to sneak changes back in, after this degree of controversy and criticism, is disrespectful to the idea of consensus and to the other editors who have objected to your changes.
    I don't believe that an instant block or other immediate sanction is called for; however, I agree with Cirt that this has gone beyond talk page and RFC and is now something meriting administrator attention. Pedant17, I invite you to respond here and engage with us on the topic of editing cooperatively and how consensus works on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also asked to comment. I'd be interested to hear what Pedant is hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest putting the editor under probation. I recall a similar concern about this editor's conduct which was raised in March 2008. I wasn't receptive to the concerns at the time and favoured content dispute resolution, but given that content dispute resolution has been tried and the concerns still exist, I'm more receptive to the idea of community imposing a sanction (perhaps in lieu of an administrator imposing a block). What do others think? Cirt, do you think that would help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ncmvocalist, I'd agree that a sanction is warranted but how would you define this probation you suggest? I'm not certain that would be adequate or sufficient in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd word it as "Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page, set of pages or topic(s). The ban will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at User:Pedant17/Community sanction." The way I see it, a block might be overkill, but if the concern deviates from this one article, then it'd be pointless to just ban him from this single page. This conduct concern affects pretty much the editing of any page on Wikipedia (the concern in 2008 was over the Friedrich Nietzsche article IIRC), yet sanctions might assist him in understanding how Wikipedia (and wiki consensus) work in practice, even if it might take a while. Administrators would have broad discretion in deeming whether Pedant has made an edit which is disruptive, particularly with respect to sneaking changes against consensus. And of course, should he not comply with the ban(s), enforcement would occur via blocking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod, that sounds agreeable, but the issue is that he has exhibited similar behavior at other articles, including [85], [86], [87]. (Repeatedly revisiting the same sets of articles, using deceptive edit-summaries to cause disruption, etc. etc.) However, the remedy you propose might be a good start to an appropriate solution. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Gage accused me of personal attacks and vandalism

    He's been edit warring on the article and now removing my comments about his actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=361797686&oldid=361797516). He has kept reverting to his preferred version of an article and accusing me of vandalism when I point this out. Can some other admin help instead? 71.139.1.193 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have refrained from both already. How I can continually "edit war" on a fully protected article is beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    When i point out that Gage is the the source of the edit war and has promised to keep doing it he removes my comment as vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=361797156&oldid=361797022).
    When I added a anew comment noting the last deletion he deleted that as vandalism as well: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=361797156&oldid=361797022)
    Then he removes it again as an attack: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=361797686&oldid=361797516) and accused me of attacking him twice: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.139.1.193). 71.139.1.193 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have refrained from both already. How I can continually "edit war" on a fully protected article is beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this seriously over a stupid Family Guy episode? Talk about WP:LAME. I recommend the Anon IP seek Dispute Resolution. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) Gage is not an admin. (b) Gage's reverts at RFPP were dumb, and uncool. (c) Gage appears to be saying he won't do that anymore. (d) Discuss the issues that resulted in page protection on the talk page. (e) It will be more productive if the namecalling that seems common on that talk page was stopped. (f) I don't think there's anything more to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some points to echo Floquenbeam
    1. IP 71 is referring to the edit-warring that took place prior to the page protection.
    2. Gage should not have removed IP 71's comments from WP:RFPP.
    3. The warnings left at User talk:71.139.1.193 are specious.
    4. IP 71's badly formatted comments here and at WP:RFPP make him/her difficult to understand. That may not be his/her fault, but it is nonetheless the case.
    5. I've declined to unprotect the page anyway so most of this is moot. Suggest returning to the article talk page, perhaps with a quick detour to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
    CIreland (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I thought he was an admin, sorry to assume that. I was using the article talk page and everyone but Gage has been working to communicate. He accused me of a personal attack when all I did was comment that he promised to keep edit warring. Then he removed my comment as a personal attack and vandalism. I have no problem getting more opinions but my comments should not be deleted as attacks and vandalism when they are not. Others seem willing to use the article talk page but Gage is acting like his decision is final and stated he'll just revert everyone else anyway. If he stops blanket reverting and deleting it would be a good thing. 71.139.1.193 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    172.0.0 Vandal Back?

    70.27.75.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.27.75.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The contrib page of the IP, 70.27.75.122 looks to be very similar of the activity of the 172.0.0 vandal, the talk page insulting, and childish vandalism on politician pages. Any thoughts, or other IPs that may have the same activity as this one? Perhaps the 172.0.0 vandal has moved onto the 70.27.75.00 range? Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note, 70.27.75.122 was blocked by NawlinWiki so that isn't needed, but discussion on the user's edits is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This looks to be a Bell Canada IP. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, (note this is 2 years back) I found another 70.25.x.x IP that appears to be the same of the other two posted above. Take a look at 70.29.15.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3 more for the stockpile:

    70.54.34.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.27.26.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.54.32.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Here we go again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a range block is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any thoughts on if this is the same 172.x.x.x guy? Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible, could be using a cell phone or friend's computer, maybe be on vacation. But since these are Bell Canada (with the 70.) and the 172.s are AOL, it would be tough to guess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than the one that NW blocked, no others that I can see have edited in a few days. I think it would probably be best to see if he starts hopping around again before implementing any range blocks. J.delanoygabsadds 04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's probably the best thing to do. Keep in mind that the targeted pages of this vandal are all protected until February of next year, so it may not be such a problem this time around. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Political soapboxing originating from 69.116.82.228

    69.116.82.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly adding the same two or three political essays to talk pages related to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Radovan Karadžić and a few others. They have been blocked twice but seem to have slowed down recently, last time keeping it to three edits presumably to avoid another block as a result of accumulated vandalism warnings. Since the same edits have also been carried out by blocked users Lpcyu (talk · contribs) and Lpcyusa (talk · contribs), and have been spammed across the internet (see [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22What+It%E2%80%99s+Like+to+Chill+Out+With+Whom+the+World+Considers+the+Most+Ruthless+Men%22&fp=3bcec086c379bebf this Google search, for example), could something a bit more permanent be done, a longer block or maybe something as simple as an edit filter. Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Six month block applied to IP, and the accounts linked to the IP for sockpuppet tracking purposes.
    If they come back, we can semiprotect the articles and talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Astronaut (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block needed

    User:Uber Pula is a username violation, meaning roughly "super dick". Like that wasn't enough, he added a libelous piece here [88]. The referenced article (in Romanian) doesn't even remotely support the paragraph. Can we have those flagged revision now? Pcap ping 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whacked. No comment on FR1070. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, what happened? (new features)

    Resolved
     – Somewhat.

    The tabs are all rearranged, and worst of all, on my home PC the print is tiny. So what happened, and who do I talk to about getting it fixed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a "take me back" link at the top of the page? Click that to go back to your preferences. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thank you for your help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt the same way about this change. Luckily we're not stuck with that terrible format.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing, too; Vector busts the wikimedia+ addon. I tried it two weeks back and quickly switched back because of this. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I encountered the new format, I clicked on the "take me back" link and I got a database error message, but the "take me back" seems to have worked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully that has been fixed. Prodego talk 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything's fine for my screen now. Seems like this all is an example of the old saying, "If it works, it's production; otherwise, it's a test." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The other old saying "nobody likes change" couldn't be more applicable here, and really we should embrace and adapt to such changes with a smile on our face. You can't stop progress! However, having said that, I gave up after 2 minutes when I noticed the scripts weren't working and the block/delete/protect buttons were hidden or missing. I don't like change... ;) – B.hotep •talk• 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind change, as long as it's an improvement. I like the search box on the left rather than at the top as the new version has it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too! - I fixed it by creating the css code at User:Begoon/vector.css - if you'd like to copy it, feel free, but I haven't tested it much, yet :) Begoon (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a warning as to a change I've experienced. Used to be that when I went back and forward, it kept what I was working on. So, if I had a draft, and had previewed the draft, and then went to check my watchlist, and returned ... my draft was still there. Not in this new version (as it warns may be the case). Lost half an hour of edits. (though I think that will please a certain IP out there...). Caveat emptor. (btw, I was using Mozilla Firefox)--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also a little more trouble now to cancel what you were doing. And "watch" is hidden. Maurreen (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't "watch" the star in the upper right corner? When it's an outline, the page is not watched, click on it and the star is colored in to indicate that the page is watched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ←All I'd say is, if you do turn off the new features: fill in the feedback form! – B.hotep •talk• 08:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder how much the new logo cost them... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the new, 3D, logo only available to those of us who didn't run away screaming from the new skin? I went back to monobook before I was aware of the new logo (not that it would have affected my decision, but I'd like to have something to complain about, and being denied the shiny new logo sounds like just the kind of thing I can whinge about ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Horrible alterations. What I object to most is the creation of a "TB" (talkback) interface - that's only going to encourage the annoying spammy practice of people putting that annoying template on the page. An optional script for this is fine - but there should not be an alteration to the basic user interface without a consensus that this is good practice.--Scott Mac 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's that talkback thing? I didn't even see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone back to the old interface too. The new one lost all the additional tags in the toolbox apart from anything else. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You would probably keep those tools if you copy over the contents of your "/monobook.js" to a new "/vector.js". The need to do this is apparently something that wasn't well enough advertised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks, I'll try that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back too. Now if only we could also choose to go back to the old logo. Equazcion (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait - I'm confused. I think I've got the old logo, but I'm guessing I'm an idiot I'm wrong. Are there examples of old and new logos anywhere so I can Get Clue Fast? TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    compare File:Wikipedia-logo.png (old) and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg (new). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think. The difference is too subtle for my poor old eyes - I guess I probably do have the shiny new logo after all. I'll just have to find something else to whinge about ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. :) As for something else: well, the "watch/unwatch" button (as someone above pointed out) is just a graphic. I have the "load images automatically" option unchecked in FF3 (for reasons I won't go into unless someone asks!) so it is just a gap. – B.hotep •talk• 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am embarrassed to say I went back also, I guess my feelings for now is if it's not broke don't fix it...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Logos: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_logo Dragons flight (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only to say so, I've gone back to Monobook. Also, the new logo is too blurry, as is the text below it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what happened to the trial with real live editors before unleashing it? Jeesh. And my first irritation is to have to click on the left to get the lowest level of buttons: it saves no space at all. Tony (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to come back here for another gripe, but... having just come back from lunch where I invariably surf the internet on my old Sony Ericsson mobile phone, I can confirm that Wikipedia does not work on devices using OperaMini. That includes the Nintendo DSi as well! ... Why are you all laughing at me? :p – B.hotep •talk• 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, really, seriously – it doesn't work. The drop down navigation doesn't work, the search box has no button to either "GO" or "SEARCH" with. I had to go to Google and use that to get to pages on Wikipedia. :D – B.hotep •talk• 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been using it for a week or two and prefer it. I like the search window at the top, the * for watch. But then I don't use any weird tools, because the first thing you know about software upgrades is that they always break non-trivial user configurations. It works fine on the N900 :-) 78.32.170.90 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you need a /vector.js? I don't have one and Twinkle works fine. My only problem is that the search button no longer has the option to search but just goes directly to the page. And Tony1 the "Try Beta" and the option to give feedback has been there for a while. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some people activate Twinkle through the gadgets preference, but some still import it manually through their .js files (I, for instance, prefer it that way because I can pick and choose which parts of Twinkle I want.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's possible you've loaded Twinkle through gadgets (as well as having it in your monobook). I suspect most of your monobook scripts won't work, though. –xenotalk 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah!. It's checked off in the preferences. Hmmm! Looking at the monobook.js I suspect that I'd have no idea what they did if it wasn't for the headers. It's a good job breathing is automatic or I would be in trouble. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This always happens when we have change. I think a change was definately needed, I think it'll grow on people. I do think it is a little plain actually and the front page could also do with a makeoever but I think it is an improvement. At first I was unconvinced about the logo but if I see the one on German wikipedia now it just looks so dated.. I quite like the hidden columns actually, I'm glad now you can have the option to display languages or not as I like them to be listed. I still think though that the developers should allow people the option to shrink the side bar and have a full screen. I have this as coding but it might be a good idea to allow in in preferences options so if you are reading rather than editing you can hide the side bar. I do think though there should be the options for more page designs and the option to customise your own layout/graphics. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blah. The new toolbar looks like something Microsoft designed in 1997. I spent about 2 minutes trying to figure out where they had moved all my stuff before I gave up and went back to my preferred, tried and true oldskool interface. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How to import old settings into new skin

    I believe this page should have been advertised more widely, at least during the switchover. A sitenotice of some kind (can we do it on just talk pages yet?) wouldn't be ridiculous, even now, for a few days or a week. How do I import my monobook settings. Rd232 talk 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Old SPI case needs closing

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guildenrich has been sitting unprocessed after an inconclusive CU result for more than 10 days. I recognise it's a difficult case to judge just on "DUCK" criteria, but I urge some fellow admin to take a good look and give it serious consideration. In my personal view (having first hand experience with the field, including interaction with both the sockmaster and the suspected sock) this is still a compelling case on behavioral grounds, and the sock account Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs) is clearly disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Truly an ugly case. I'll wait until this evening (about 12 hours), and close it out as unconfirmed if no-one blocks before then. If this were Vegas, I'd bet on a match, but I'm not convinced enough to indefinitely block an account. Other admins may well feel differently.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling and Inflammatory attack page

    {{resolved|User:Matt57 blocked for one week for edits, some highlighted by others during this discussion, that are simply not acceptable in a congenial environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

    {{discussion top|Closing with an offer that if he agrees not to discuss or refer to Giano or Bali for the next six months he will be unblocked, otherwise the block will run the given length. MBisanz talk 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

    • Clearly this was a deeply misguided effort by MBisanz to stifle conversation that is evidnently ongoing and on the same subject. As his efforts, whilst in good faith, were clearly misguided and of poor judgement this is not archived. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor, User:Matt57 with whom, before yesterday, (as far as I'm aware) I have had no previous interaction seems to be hell bent on antagonising me and attempting to cause trouble and disharmony. My attention was drawn to him yesterday on Jimbo's page when he felt the need to cite me in an argument while forbidding any other editor to respond; he has since been pursuing me on my page and elsewhere. He has now transformed his user page into an attack page. I have removed the inflammatory comment once and it has been re-instated [89]. I would like an admin to deal with this, preferably before I do. Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is - it seldom achieves anything, but one lives in hope. If not I am more than capable of dealing with this person myself.  Giano  12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have been a little interpersonal spatt. You are better off just ignoring him, if you like I will ask him nicely to remove the box on his Userpage, as putting that up there is only helping to continue the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the two Giano diffs per WP:UP#POLEMIC, as there is no evidence of Matt57 having a dispute (aside from on his user page) with Giano. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It should go- that's not what user pages are for- though I'm not sure removing like that is any less inflammatory than their presence in the first place. He should be politely encouraged to disengage and move on rather than make mountains out of molehills. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of a agree that rather than remove them (which may cause more grievance), it would perhaps be better to allow him the chance to remove them, Hipocrites removal of two comments from Giano has left two similar comments from User Bali ultimate, one out all out would have been better imo, or as I say , allow him to remove the box himself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still two on there, are they related to this Bali thing above? SGGH ping! 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree as well, and I took the liberty of knocking the rest of the "naughty list" off the userpage. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I missed that but....This edit from Matt57 to Bali Ultimate yesterday clearly is actionable as a personal attack. ---Hey Bali, please stop fucking justifying abuse, alright. Go fucking read WP:NPA. Or leave Wikipedia if you cant talk to people here without using 4 letter words, for fucks sake. (note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point). Thank you and sincerely and hey, dont fucking remove my comment too. HINT: you can say things in a polite mature rational way or you can start being emotional and use 4 letter words. Whats less abusive? If using 4 letter words isnt abusive, give me the telephone numbers of your loved ones and I'll call them all and air out some feelings about you using some nice choice words. Stop abusing people. --Matt57 3:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ...Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That comment is disgusting. I'm seriously tempted to block for it, the only thing that's stopping me is that it was 24 hours ago... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, given that this is clearly a pattern, I am going to block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him for a week. I welcome review of the action here and any admin may feel free to alter, amend or lift the block without further consultation with me if there is consensus to do so here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree and fully support the action, mentioning someones loved ones and suggesting contacting them is bang out of order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this issue starting to arise this morning (I have Giano's talk on my watchlist for no other reason than I'm to lazy to take it off) and noting the diff provided by Off2rioRob fully support the block. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a danger Matt57's comment is being taken out of context. It was pointy, but the language used was used for precisely that - to make a WP:POINT. So... I support a block if the reason is WP:POINTiness, but I'm hesitant to condemn the comment as "disgusting", given the context.
    I'm certain that Bali wouldn't provide the contact details of their loved ones; I'm equally confident that Matt wouldn't actually "pull a Woss".
    Matt's frustrated by what he sees as double standards regarding swearing. That's no justification for WP:POINTy behaviour (and, as I said above, I have no problem with a block for that) but I do feel the language used and the things said were purely to make a point.
    (Disclaimer: I had a very public spat with Matt yesterday regarding language. I disagree with some of what he believes, but I do feel he has the best interests of the project at heart, in particularly the need for editors to converse in a civil manner without recourse to swearing).
    Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 'nother disclaimer, though you all probably realise: I'm just a regular editor, commenting only because I've been involved with Matt57 recently)[reply]
    I feel the same about things as TFOWR said above. I think that Matt57 was trying to make a point. For the record he is asking for an unblock here. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, i just quietly removed the comment on my talk page after having a small chuckle and was otherwise happy to forget it/ignore it. Have no idea why the fellow is so worked up about me. I'd never heard of him before yesterday.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should certainly hope it was not a block for POINT violations, because Giano was skipping around making POINT edits only last week, with no block in sight, which would be a gross double standard, but harldy unexpected. As it is, the block was for 'repeated and egregious personal attacks'. I'm just dissapointed we didn't get to see how Giano intended to sort this out himself, if this block hadn't been made. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano has nothing to do with this as far as I can see, his behaviour has no bearing on Matt's and there was no reason for matt to bring him into this. If you have an issue with Giano, this isn't the discussion to sort it out--Jac16888Talk 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think Matt57 randomly chose to involve Giano while he was being enveloped in the 'what is the difference between civility and personal attacks' / 'why does this policy apply to me but not to X' death spiral experienced by many new users? I very much doubt it. I rather think Giano is central to this discussion, whether by nefarious means on Matt's part, or simply by a hardwired institutional awareness dynamic. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt obviously chose Giano because of his past behaviour, not because of any interaction between the two. I'm not exactly a fan of giano but this is clearly a case of matt picking on an easy target--Jac16888Talk 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The unrestrained edits on this page from such as MickMacNee are one of the chief reasons I come here so seldom. It is a great pity that so many lurk here only in the hope of having a snipe at me. No doubt a few of the others will be here sooner rather than later to form a convention of the peanut gallery.  Giano  15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, much as I am generally a fan of yours that persecution complex attitude (however much it may be deserved) is not helpful. You asked above "Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is ". Well, its got the guy a 1 week block and his request for unblock denied. One would think that concludes this? Pedro :  Chat  16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that my belief that certain people stalk my edits in the hope of sanctioning for perceived incivility within seconds, is just a false perception on my part. Easy mistake. Anyway, as you say the matter is dealt with - odd though isn't it - how long it takes some things to be picked up and not others? Giano  17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, regretfully, that maybe there seems like more holding off when your name is mentioned, (no slight on you Giano - more that perhaps there is a lack of courage or more accurately waiting to see what the crowd say) but I hope you don't mind me marking this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unmarked as resolved; I don't think it has been, because I think as dod some others here that the block length is excessive. Matt has made his point, and,given his frustration at what appears to be unfair treatment of different editors, I think it is a good idea to soon unblock him. I am not doing it myself, because I took his side in his original complaint, and suggest that the other party be blocked, for using that sort of language in the first place. I doubt the business about contacting was meant seriously, considering the prior discussions about proper language--Of course it was a very poor idea to suggest such things even as a joke, because it is , as it should be, one of the absolutely forbidden types of behavior.Perhaps the fair thing is to reduce the block to 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the lack of basic common courtesy in notifying me DGG that you'd undone that. Cheers. Really nice. Pedro :  Chat  18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion if you are going to 'unresolved' something you should use tlx to nullify the template, rather than removing the comment altogether. –xenotalk 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocking admin is open to an unblock, subject to consensus here. That said, I believe a block is fair (I'd be happy with a 24 hour block, or even leaving the duration as is). Shortening the duration of the block would also be an opportunity to note in the block log that there a WP:POINT lay behind the civility issues, and that the block was as much for pointiness as it was for civility. TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per TFOWR. Shorter block where POINT and NPA/HARASS are recorded or longer block where only NPA/HARASS is recorded? Seems like a double-edged sword either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block — I pointed this diff out yesterday, to no effect. I would extend the block to indef pending a clear statement the no real-world harm was actually intended and an acknowledgment that the comment was quite inappropriate. Given that, a reset to a week would be fine. Whomever Matt57 is, is trolling and banging-on, and refuses to drop the fucking stick. Civility et al are not weapons, people. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that what Jack Merridew is referring to above was Matt57 attempting to use a rhetorical device, which went wrong and came across as a creepy real-world threat of harassment. It should be obvious that such a statement is disruptive to a collegial editing environment (indeed, to any not shit environment). I don't think it would be very productive to require Matt57 to acknowledge that. It should be sufficient to simply point it out, given that Matt57 is obviously aware of the "block potential" of such comments. The usual caveats apply: this assumes some good faith and some constructive contributions elsewhere. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Mebbe, but as I comment to TFOWR just below, I see the original parenthetical as applying only to the word 'fuck' and not really adhering to the phone numbers/loved ones comment. I'm unclear, beyond AGF, just what his constructive contributions elsewhere might be, but he's certainly climbed higher on folks' radar screens in the last day+ ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Matt57 has indicated that no real-world harm was intended; I'll dig out a diff. I suspect Jack's second requirement may be harder to obtain, though... TFOWRpropaganda 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the diff I was thinking of: "I had specifically said in that post that I was making a point and therefore you could have seen I did not literally mean that comment." TFOWRpropaganda 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen that, and his comment in the original diff. My take is, and was, that he was referring to his use of the word "fuck" as a deliberate point violation. He stated "(note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point)". The comments about phone numbers and loved ones really stand apart from that. Anyway, he does appear to clarified that he's, uh, fucking around and is not serious about his real-world threats. There remains his long-term disruptive nature to consider, as I commented just below. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Moar. I've been looking at Matt's history. His prior block, for a month, included the comment that next time it's indef (not a mere week). The issue was whatever exactly was occurring at AN/I571#User:Matt57 crossing several lines in smear campaign against CAIR. I also note the irony that his first block was, in part, for incivility. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to unblock, with the proviso that his user page does not go back up as it was, and that he accept that everyone is pretty much done with this particular incident, and we don't want to hear about Bali or Giano anymore from him. (If he doesn't agree to that, then I still think technically the block should be undone, but in that case I won't bother spending time arguing for it). His comment to Bali was certainly sub-optimal, but I saw that comment yesterday and didn't think it was the creepy harassment that people are making it out to be, and now he's confirmed it wasn't intended that way. Perhaps if we de-escalate, he'll reciprocate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not so arbitrary break (Matt57)

    Perhaps the 'Crat was sent from above. In my considerable experience they usually are!  Giano  20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't look like he's going to accept the terms of the unblock in any case so it'll all be back here in a week anyway. – B.hotep •talk• 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also strongly oppose unblocking at this point, requesting the telephone numbers of the loved ones of other editors and suggesting you will telephone them is wrong wrong wrong, editor does not seem to understand this. I care less if he didn't mean it or he was trying to make some point, he should not have said it ever. User is on a last warning and should consider himself lucky to only be blocked for a week, he has yet through his comments failed to understand anything at all. Actually I support raising the block to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing the Devil's Advocate, I cannot think that he truly expected the numbers to be provided. However, it's the reference to a person's "loved ones" (ghastly expression) that was a bit creepy - there's an invisible barrier between the Wiki personae and the real life personae - even a hint at invading the RL personea as a result of the Wiki needs to be stamped on mercilessly.  Giano  21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was a rather odd unblock condition; either agree to not talk about certain people for 6 months, or wait 7 days and then talk about them again? Choosing the latter was a foregone conclusion. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An entirely unenforceable condition bound to end in tears, no doubt. – B.hotep •talk• 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute. Choosing the 7 day block over the 6 month ban is only a foregone conclusion for someone who values being able to make personal comments more highly than being able to edit Wikipedia in general. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh. I made no complaint. I'm a big boy (and i found the running around with hair on fire antics amusing). My advice is unblock him, if he goes about stirring up further trouble, deal with it then. I'm far more concerned with people who stand in the way of decent article content (who are rarely blocked for their behavior) than with people who are a pain in the ass here or on talk pages (who are often blocked for that).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David1287 and Billboard charts

    David1287 (talk · contribs) has a long history of updating and adding US Billboard charts for albums and their respective singles. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with altering these charts, the issue here is that David1287 prematurely updates said charts and without sources. When asked to provide a source, he posts the information into a forum and cites his own post. Billboard.com updates their charts every Thursday, and every Tuesday/Wednesday he updates charts across dozens of articles without providing a source. For charts such as Alternative Songs, it's not a major issue since Billboard.com will eventually update. It's still not great to have a source saying one thing and the article saying another. However, for charts no longer published by Billboard.com like Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Mainstream Rock, it's a larger issue because they're almost impossible to reliably source. His communicative abilities are also lacking. During an edit war between the two of us surrounding Diamond Eyes (song), he only left two short comments.[90][91] Despite receiving several warnings from various editors on article talk pages, [92][93] edit summaries [94][95] and both his account's and IP's talk pages [96][97] David1287 continues to contribute without verifying his contributions. Since my final warning last week, his editing behavior has not changed.[98][99][100][101][102][103]

    According to WP:BLOCK "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I would like to see that David1287 receive a temporary block for not being mindful of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, and for not discussing and communicating with other editors. Based on his specific editing pattern, I think the block would be most effect if given on a Tuesday/Wednesday, or for a week in duration. Also, I'm sorry if this is too long of a request. I tried to keep this as short as possible without leaving out important details. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar edit areas to Sirius 128 (talk · contribs · logs) too... do the contribs align? From the user talk, it seems David1287 has received a large number of warnings. It appears he has been cut quite a bit of slack. SGGH ping! 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked until he agrees to restrict himself to charts and sources listed on WP:USCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken no action against Sirius128: if people think there's a link, I need to see a more convincing case, and WP:SPI is probably a better place for it.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with Sirius128, but after looking into his edit history I'd say it's unlikely he's a sock of David1287. The majority of Sirius128's contributions are surrounding related articles for Bullet for My Valentine, Avenged Sevenfold and Three Days Grace. David1287's edit history includes a much wider variety of articles and almost exclusively edits chart positions. SGGH, do you have any direct evidence to support this? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so much for a sock, more a thought as to whether they both came from the same forum(s) mentioned in the report, largely from editing the same articles, sometimes one after the other, similar name etc. Not making any kind of sock or meat accusation it was just something to consider - but if someone has been able to look into it and is happy no connection that's fine by me. SGGH ping! 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks sock-y to me. Compare the files/FUR's for File:Your Betrayal - Bullet for My Valentine.jpg (uploaded by Sirius 128) to File:Your Betrayal.jpg (uploaded by David1287). Add that to the similarities in user names, the fact that neither acct uses edit summaries at all and that it looks from the timestamps that he logs out of one account and immediately starts editing with the other, and this completely fails the duck test. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shall I run an SPI? SGGH ping! 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't hurt. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Link it here if and when you do. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScottPAnderson

    User making major uncited pov changes to Mau Mau Uprising, Hola massacre, Extermination camp. Attempts by other users to revert are themselves reverted by this user with claims of vandalism. Claims without foundation that changes are "based on wide research and consensus". Persists in changing articles despite attempts to discuss the issue. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably you mean the "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" ;-)
    At first glance I'm inclined to agree with you - several editors have reverted this editor, and the editor's response is simply to direct them to the talk pages. This should be discussed at the relevant talk pages; however, it does look to me like there is already a fairly clear consensus. And changing "Mau Mau Uprising" to "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" in an article called "Mau Mau Uprising" does seem... odd.
    Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    I've reported this at WP:AN3#User:ScottPAnderson_reported_by_User:Squiddy_.28Result:_.29, but there are other problems:
    He has now started adding a single source for all his edits, but the numbers look suspicious to me: in this diff the number arrested has just had 2 digits added to the front of the number. In a later edit he has added a cite to a valid source, but it's kind of a coincidence that the new number is exactly 4,700,000 higher (ie the last 5 digits are from the previous version of the article.)
    The extremely POV tone throughout - see diff here
    A minor point, but carelessness with spelling and punctuation. The combined effect of his edits is a severe reduction in quality and reliability of the articles he's been involved with.
    I have tried [104] offering advice, and using the talk pages. Hasn't worked.
    Accusations of vandalism, avoidance of talk pages, ignoring advice. A stubborn and disruptive editor. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a brand-new editor (DrJenkinsPhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has just popped up on Talk:Mau_Mau_Uprising to assure us that there is a 'general global consensus ... that Mau Mau "insurgents" were, in fact, Freedom Fighters', and that 'the article as it currently stands looks fair'.
    Because of their credentials, I am terribly terribly impressed, and now wish the article to remain in its current god-awful state. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't "freedom fighter", like "terrorist", one of those words phrases we should avoid? (I'm not entirely sure, this question isn't just rhetorical...)
    Assuming good faith, it's entirely possible that these two editors simply may not be aware of WP:NPOV etc. I'll drop by and mention it.
    Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, both 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are mentioned as 'especially provocative' in WP:LABEL. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, I agree about the term "Freedom Fighter". I will change it to something neutral. I hope Scott will be ok with it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJenkinsPhd (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DJP (may I call you that? I can - obviously! - call you whatever you'd prefer). I invited you here simply because you'd been mentioned; I think that Scott should still participate here, however, if you're in any position to give him a gentle nudge ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer Dr. Jenkins please. Cheers.DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks TFOWR. I think Squiddy is "working the system". Please have a look at the article's history. Squiddy reverted the article and when I reverted back to the starting point - it probably flagged an alert somewhere. I havent made edits similar to Scott. In fact I have corrected a lot of POV edits that he made - while keeping it neutral. Trust that clarifies. You are wrong if you think I am Scott pretending to be someone else. DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruption by User:Hm2k

    Hm2k continues to disrupt the encyclopedia. He is disrupting it to prove a point. He is removing redolinks despite warnings not to and is now removing regular links as well. [[105]] I'm pretty sure removing content is not a good thingHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked 24h. I considered this yesterday but the user had been inactive for a few hours when I checked. It was possible that they had understood the issues then under discussion, of which they were aware. Recent edits show that this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding article markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page

    User:Darkstar1st continues to place mark-up tags on peoples comments despite requests to stop. I remove this edit[106] with the notation: "Do not place templates on other editors comments"[107] Darkstar1st then tags another editor's comments.[108] Another editor removes this and tells him to stop.[109] Darkstar1st then tags the comment asking him to stop.[110] TFD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate. But adding them to other editors' posts causes confusion about what they said, since people expect a continuous post to be from the user whose signature appears at the end of it. Such confusion is clearly a Bad Thing (and is forbidden at WP:TALKNO if you want a policy citation). Darkstar1st, please stop introducing comments - whether templated or not - into the middle of others' posts; leave replies at the bottom as is customary. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an extremely disruptive and inappropriate use of templates that are clearly meant to call attention to article issues, not user's own words on a talk page. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the confusion. My tags were an attempt to draw attention to those claiming authority/expertise, yet cite no WP policy other than their own ideas. I will make my observations in the form of a comment, apologies. Tarc plz cite source, TFD, all of your last 5 "edit wars" with me, have all been decided in my favor. Why do you follow me to articles you have no interest in until I make an edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this about following you and "winning" 5 edit wars? What are you talking about? I went and removed tags from Talk:Libertarianism and Talk:Laozi, after reading about it here. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "TFD" is the WP "the four deuces", apologies for the confusion, it appears to be my strong suit. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're admitting a battleground mentality? Frankly, this kind of stuff is disruptive, pure and simple. If you have a point to make, add a comment in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request block and/or pp

    At Erich Honecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an editor using multiple IPs has recently taken it upon themselves to turn the German reunification into an annexation. The editor has so far used the following IPs:

    Is it possible to block them given the various IPs? Otherwise, the article needs to be semi-protected. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: As from the contribs of the first IP address on the list, it is obvious that their previous target was Erich Mielke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they were using yet other 91.41.xxx IPs, and which as a result is now semi-protected. So they turned to the Honecker article instead. The IPs used at the Mielke article were

    PPS: From the contribs of those IPs, it is obvious that the Mielke article was also a substitute target for Stalinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which they had targeted before and which is now semi-protected. The IPs used there were

    Skäpperöd (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm familiar with this editor and as such, protected Erich Honecker for a week. We could block their range which is 91.41.0.0/19. It affects 8192 IPs and it looks like there hasn't been any other recent contributions from others so it doesn't seem like such a bad option. Elockid (Talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Just for the record: From the contribs of those IPs again, it is obvious that they were also the IP recently causing semi-protection of East Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IPs used there were

    Thank you for protecting the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV backlog

    Resolved

    Hi: AIV is a bit backed up. If some kind admin or two could pop over, that'd be helpful. Thanks, RayTalk 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog's more or less cleared up. Thanks to all who helped. RayTalk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Page deleted, threat not serious enough to warrant action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By newbie user Mlgc57k1 at this diff. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Moved to talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any admin is going to be swayed by the threat, so I'm not inclined to see blocking this editor as a matter of urgency. If it were an AfD case, rather than CSD, I'd see it differently since it might influence others, but in this case it is up to an admin to decide whether to delete. This is more an embarassment than a legal problem, in my opinion (I Googled Uberto Gucci and the threat was the second hit... after his Facebook page). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm forgoing the normal immediate indef in favor of some AGF here - I left a warning on his talk page indicating that they needed to retract it, and explaining that such threats are not OK.
    If belligerence escalates then the normal response should apply, etc. Hopefully they will cooperate and retract. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the article as in my view it did not credibly assert the notability of the subject. I agree that blocking the editor is not a high priority so long as the threat is not repeated. --John (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree: I don't disagree with any of the foregoing. I just believe that all threats — legal or otherwise — need to be reported for the record. What sysops do with those reports is entirely up to them. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring and personal attacks by IP

    Can an admin please look through the history of Ashaari Mohammad? In my view, there is arguably a 3RR breach as well as a personal attack in an edit summary, by IP User talk:70.58.218.171. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the IP's edit summaries:
    ...there are some civility issues (however, these were the only three). You may want to follow the process here.
    Regarding the article itself I'd suggest their talk page in the first instance (apologies if you have already, I only had a quick glance - incidentally, the IP has been warned several times for un-sourced content, disruption and attacks). If that fails, then maybe request semi-protection for the article. Don't use that as an opportunity to force through your preferred version; use it to attempt to engage with the IP. If that fails, persue other dispute resolution options.
    Good luck! TFOWRpropaganda 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Who is not an admin, but this incident can most likely be solved without ANI.[reply]
    This is disruptive editing and edit-warring (3RR breach), not a content dispute between two editors. We don't feed these trolls by trying to "resolve disputes" with them; we just block them.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=361982322"