Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to cut short this ridiculously long discussion by noting the administrative consensus for a topic ban on User:Smatprt from all articles related to William Shakespeare, broadly construed. Admins dissenting please note here before the end of the month or I'll just cut the link to the subpage and formally notify Smatprt of the topic ban. --TS 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the ban. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic"

User talk:71.0.213.123 – who may also be User talk:150.199.97.75, User talk:71.145.180.157, User talk:71.145.170.188 – has been removing "Roman" from instances of "Roman Catholic". The editor has been shown that Wikipedia consensus is that such behavior is disruptive (here, here, here and here), and also that even the Archidiocese of New York [1] and the Vatican [2],[3], [4] use "Roman Catholic", and has been given two final warnings [5],[6] but continues to make these edits [7], [8]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall this behaviour as characteristic of a certain blocked user? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The names in the AN/I threads I cited above were User:Vaquero100 and User:The Catholic Knight. Are they blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither is blocked. Vaquero100 hasn't edited since 2006, and TCK not since May 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, the Catholic Knight. I thought they had been blocked. Could be them logged out I suppose, but then this particular 'beef' has quite a following. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, the first IP has clearly continued in vandalistic behaviour beyond a final warning, despite having seen consensus and been rather patiently (I feel) reminded of it by Ken. The final warning was actually several edits ago. WP:AIV wouldn't have a problem with that one so I've blocked that IP for 24 hours for vandalism, I'm looking at the other two now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the other three are clearly the same person or group (identical edit summaries). One is blocked already for three months so the others were free to edit, one could argue for some sort of evasion but it's hard to pin down with IPs. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the same person, though. If the pattern holds, they'll stop editing with their current IP address and start editing with another, so there's really nothing else to do but keep an eye out on their favorite articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the contribs, it doesn't look very likely to me that the IPs and The Catholic Knight are the same person - there's almost no overlap in articles (which is surprising since the shared topic area is Catholicism) and they seem to have different styles. The IPs are clearly the same -- same style of edit summary, lots of overlapping articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the IP addresses, it seems doubtful that they're the same user.

• 71.0.213.123 is from Jefferson City, Missouri.
• 150.199.97.75 is from Columbia, Missouri.
• 71.145.180.157 is from Pflugerville, Texas.
• 71.145.170.188 is from Round Rock, Texas.

I'd guess there were at least two editors involved. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could those be regional networks? Missouri and Texas are not so far away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about Missouri AND Texas, nor the two Texas locations, but being originally from Missouri, I do know that Jeff City and Columbia are only like 20-30 minutes from each other by car, so, somebody in the middle might well be able to hit IP ranges from either. umrguy42 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is behind those IPs, he/she is clearly being a dick, I'd recommend a range block. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• It took me a few hours, but I think I found the master: Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc (talk · contribs). For a summary of typical edits and the IPs used, see User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Since I wasted the entire morning looking for this, I'd appreciate it if someone else would file an SPI--isn't that the appropriate thing to do here? I don't think I've ever started one before, and unfortunately I don't have the time to learn it right now. Beyond My Ken, I think you know how to do this, no? I'm sorry for leaving this to others, but I really need to get back to work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the data - I may have time to file an SPI later today or tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson City and Round Rock are, according to Google Maps, 730 miles, 12½ hours apart by car. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How far they are by car is surely relevant, but important also is the distance the way a duck flies. Consider the contributions from the following IPs:

• 150.199.97.75 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.180.157 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.170.188 (talk · contribs)
• 71.0.213.123 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.143.99 (talk · contribs)
• 76.22.103.246 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.162.148 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.145.196 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.166.252 (talk · contribs)
• 71.200.152.165 (talk · contribs) (only a few edits of our type, but similar IP). Drmies (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who currently lives in Fulton, Missouri, on the third leg of a triangle formed by Columbia and Jeff City in Missouri I can tell you that at least one IP address of a computer that I use actually shows up as Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is well over 100 miles away. Why, how, and what goes on with IP addresses, and if this is an anomoly unique to this part of Missouri I dont know. Just wanted to pass on that just because someone has an IP address to a particular community does not mean they live anywhere near that community or have ever been to that city (I myself have never been to Cape G and couldnt even pronounce it correctly if I tried, I'm a transplanted NYer carpetbagger living in the middle of hillbilly central).Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true everywhere. Most of the pRon sites I visit give my location anywhere from Montreal Quebec to Windsor Ontario, based on my IP at the time. Anyone who has tried that trip knows that even with good traffic that's an 8 hour drive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Even if it's not sock puppetry, it has to be meat puppetry. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, I'll mention that in this edit one of the IPs identifies himself by the name mentioned above. If that's the same Rev. James T. Burtchaell mentioned here, I think perhaps that information could be posted on the talk page of any IP he starts using. That oughta give him the message. (Not exactly a child molester, he only diddled around with college boys, but still he was their professor and all.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything I just posted here goes too far, feel free to redact. I'm feeling a little queasy about it myself. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to know if the account with that name and the IP who signed that name, are the real-life person by that name. Could be a troll using that name, for instance, or someone trying to sully the name even more. In any case, it's irrelevant, because the actions are disruptive whoever is behind them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the account name above is labelled "csc" or Congregatio a Sancta Cruce {"Congregation of the Holy Corss"), while the IP signed as "SJ" or "Society of Jesus". I don't think it's possible to be both a Jesuit and a member of the Holy Cross, since they're rival orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an issue, when our consensus terminology for the church is Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article is at "Catholic Church" ("also known as the Roman Catholic Church" it says), but where is the consensus discussion located? Besides, if "Roman Catholic Church" is an acceptable alternative (and "Roman Catholic Church" redirects to "Catholic Church"), then the editor has no reason to remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic Church" when it occurs, any more than unbroken redirects in wikilinks should be changed, especially when the grounds being cited are that "Roman Catholic" is improper and only Protestants use it. That's the kind of thing up with which we should not put. We're still talking disruption, regardless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It formed sometime last year, apparently. I don't really feel like looking for it because I don't really care about the dispute. But having links to Roman Catholic Church over Catholic Church and edit warring over whether or not to use the redirect is really WP:LAME.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the IPs who are doing that are blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, maybe that's because this consensus is a surprise to a lot of people. (Well, this decision is news to me.) I'm not about to demand we re-open that can of worms, but there are lots & lots of people who expect to see that institution referred to as the "Roman Catholic Church" & for understandable reasons will change "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church". Lots more than insist on the other way -- at least based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen so far. Too bad we can't have some simple procedure for changing the style in articles -- such as asking if anyone minds on the article talk page first, & if no one objects then making the change. -- llywrch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All the Orthodox Christian religions are Catholic and the Roman Catholic church is also an Orthodox church. Orthodox and Catholic are interchangeable. To say that the Roman Catholic church is THE Catholic Church is like saying that everywhere that Buddhism appears we are going to just call it the religion. It may be obvious to Londoner or hillbilly in Iowa who you are referring to when using Catholic Church but the Kazakhstani on the border with Russia is going to think Eastern Orthodox. "When you hear hoof beats think horses, not zebras" only works if you dont live in Africa, if you live in Africa then its "When you hoof beats think zebras, not horses". We are an international encyclopedia with no POV bias towards certain Christian or Western ideology.Camelbinky (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the protestant Christian religions are "catholic", too: the Church of England "understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed". I've no idea how far that extends within the Anglican Communion, but "The communion encompasses a wide spectrum of belief and practice including evangelical, liberal, and Catholic". TFOWR 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking this thread even further from Administrator's concerns, I need to point out that any Christian group which includes the Nicean Creed as a statement of faith can be considered a "Catholic church": there have been numerous bitter disputes over the wording of this profession of faith, but not over the statement that "We believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church". And AFAIK, every Christian group does accept the Nicean Creed as so; the only groups I could conceive which do not would be those who do not emphasize formal doctrine like the Unitarians or Quakers, or those like the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses whom I believe do not accept traditional liturgies like the Nicean Creed. I'd really like to know what the reasoning was for settling on "Catholic Church" over "Roman Catholic Church", & if someone wants to help me understand away from WP:AN/I, I'd appreciate it. -- llywrch (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-start

The SPI's been closed with a note that IPs making these edits shoudl be blocked as necessary, so I bring to admins' attention a new IP, User:75.192.141.33‎, taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, since these IPs are undoubtedly either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, blocks should be progressive across all the IPs, so that we don't get a series of new IPs, each of whom gets blocked for 24 hours for doing the same disruptive things.Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If absolutely necessary, you could create a fairly easy edit filter on that; that might put a plug in it. –MuZemike 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but beyond my capability, I'm afraid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Unresolved

Entire thread has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp this until this has reached the top of the page. –MuZemike

Philip Baird Shearer Again

Unresolved

Moved to /Philip Baird Shearer to save space on this page. Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]}

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is adding the sentence "The settlement was built in 1972 with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of [the international community]" to numerous articles about Israeli settlements. These edits are unsourced. Given the scope of the user's activity, it appears to be unlikely that the user is unaware of our basic policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this a content dispute? What administrative action are you seeking? Basket of Puppies 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a content dispute. It's a failure to adhere to basic Wikipedia policy re: sourcing. A reminder of WP:OR by an admin might be useful as well as a warning to halt the mass changes. Factomancer (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • At the very least, this user needed an ARBPIA notification and warning, which I have just issued.

      If they continue the behavior past the warning, it's definitely a problem.

      (as an aside - how come with this history, nobody had notified them earlier???) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

      • As a party to the original case in 2008, Chesdovi requires no notification. CIreland (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh again with Chesdovi, this is like the 10th notification this week. Chesdovi should follow our rules and guidelines about sourcing, which we already warned him in the previous post. He should be blocked until he decides to listen to our policies. Secret ^account 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I told him in the last report that he had to add his source the first time, not edit war through to the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The ArbCom remedies don't give any indication that involved parties are exempt from the notification and logging requirement -- yes, it's pedantic, but let's toe the line here. Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced. I'm not going to do it because I don't want to become an involved admin. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would actually assume that they should know and abide by them if they were an involved party, and had I noticed that earlier I'd have done something slightly different I think.

        However, they seem to have stopped now, and if it remains stopped (for real) I don't see any need to take it any further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi does not need a ARBPIA notification as he is one of the original Involved parties of the ARBPIA case: [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was not "involved". I see I was mentioned there, but I did not take part or read any of the ARBPIA at the time. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You were, nonetheless, notified of the outcome of the case, including the discretionary sanctions regime, by Rlevse on 19 January 2008: [10]. CIreland (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for pointing that out. I was, however, not involved and did not take any notice of this message, left over 2 years ago. Even so, I did not consider my edits as deserving of the new placement by Georgewilliamherbert. An edit misconstrued by Cs32en has been blown out of all proportion. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The editor in question is a propagandist. He will continue to be one, while avoiding "blocks."Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Go away "Bali" - you views are not wanted here. Stop stalking me. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is accusation is false. All this is nonsense. Cs32en, Factomancer, Secret, Looie496 and Elen of the Roads: What do you mean it's unsourced and sources were not provided? SD provided two sources. It was SD who carried out mass changes to 39 pages by adding "Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community." I merely re-worded 16 pages using the line mentioned above to relect the actions taken by Israel in a more NPOV fashion, while using a different formulation in the other 23: "The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this." Chesdovi (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the large red, bold, lettering style so other editors may not regard you as an idiot. If capitalising is the cyber equivalent of shouting, I am afraid your text choice came over as histrionic gibbering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC))
• You do yourself a dis-service, Chesdovi, by stating that that was all that you did. Your contributions history for the past day shows so much more. In order to prove your point about things in the Israel-Palestine dispute being called illegal settlements, you also edited 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 39 articles about places in Cyprus to describe them as illegal settlements too. I have to question the good sense of an editor who not only disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point, repeatedly (Judaism and bus stops (AfD discussion)), but decides to do so by jumping with both feet into another long-standing international dispute. The fact that you did this to 39 Cyprus articles, clearly not a coincidental number, speaks volumes. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken Uncle G. The legal edits to the illegal settlements in NC were made before SD added her statement to the 39 Golan pages. So according to your reasoning it is SD who is making a "point". The similar number is a coincidence. Also, while it has been accepted that I was in violation of WP:POINT at J&BS, it was not necessarily to disrupt. I had good faith in that article and that's why I tried so hard to bring it up to standard. It was precisely because of a keep at another similar article (that I did not vote on) that gave me the go ahead to create J&BS. I was not so much making a point, but rather following the example set by the retaining of the other page. J&BS violated no policies and was deleted because people didn’t like it. The comment I made on the talk page which insinuated it was a pointy creation was a swift response to a suspecting editor who did not approve of the subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, kiddo. It is still clearly you disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, by taking your Israel-Palestine dispute and leaping in to the Cyprus issue with edits there in order to make a point in the original dispute. The fact that you're discussing your Cyprus edits on your talk page with one of the very same disputants that your having an Israel-Palestine dispute with, that you're currently also now listed alongside at the edit warring noticeboard as well, is making the situation abundantly clear. You're in the middle of the third location dispute in the edit history of Rachel's Tomb. You're spilling over the Israel-Palestine dispute with point-making edits to Cyprus articles, a very foolish thing to be doing. And you're now subject to ARBPIA restrictions, set by PhilKnight. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us not also forget the incident where Chesdovi removed a well sourced Moshe dayan quote without consensus for its removal at the talkpage, the quote which was about that Israel started and provoked the Six day war: [11] and then after this he cherry picked on sentence taking the entire quote way out of context and put it in huge quotations: [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Let us not forget indeed. And if you want to discuss the matter even further, please do. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a twelve-month topic ban under WP:ARBPIA for Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The above discussion, and the user's "contributions" to it, should be sufficient justification. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two users involved in this mass-editing. Can Supreme Deliciousness comment on their ~40 edits in the articles about Israeli settlements ([13], [14],...,[15])? Is the timing and the content coincidental, or it's a WP:POINT response to Chesdovi's edits in the articles about places in Cyprus? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have for a very long time wanted to ad that the Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are illegal in every single GH settlement article, but I have not gotten around to it earlier, I saw Chesdovi reverted my edit at Rachels tomb so I looked at his contributions to see if he reverted more of my edits and I saw his edits at the Cyprus articles and I was reminded that I had planned before to ad the information to the GH settlement articles, so I did. It wasn't to make a "point" as I had planned to ad the information in all settlement articles and I have before added that information to another article about the settlement illegality:[16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of those users provided reliable sources for their edits. See if you cant tell if that might be a difference between the edits. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of those users provided a primary source (or to be more precise, a secondary source that supplies only a quote of a primary source with no interpretation) and his interpretation of that source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And then he proceeded to follow Chesdovi around with edit summaries like you need a source that says: "occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community" [17] which is slightly amusing considering this isn't exactly the sort of source he used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi blocked

I have just blocked Chesdovi for one month, for massively disruptive editing. This simply had to stop, and it was clear that the editor was going to blast forward until blocked. I am open to the block being lifted without consulting me, if Chesdovi can give assurance that the pattern of disruption will cease; however given the sorts of arguments that Chesdovi has been making, admins should be alert for disingenuous responses. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, well deserved disruptive editor. Secret ^account 18:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an overreaction in my view. Obviously Chesdovi and I are on different "sides" of a few disputes at the moment, and while I have problems with some of his edits I recognize that he is, more often than not, a good editor. Most people, including those who disagree with Chesdovi when it comes to many things in the ARBPIA topic area, would recognize that the user is an asset in areas of Jewish history as seen in his work on a number of articles on ancient synagogues. I would suggest a scope and time limited topic ban. Something like a restriction on modifying the location of sites in Israel and surrounding countries/territories and no edits on the legality of settlements for 1-2 weeks. A 1 month block is not necessary and deprives Wikipedia of an editor who, for all his faults, can be a valuable asset. nableezy - 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Nab here, topic ban could be more appropriate. Though Dovi, definitely, needs to treat Wikipedia more seriously, so Dovi should see this as warning for future sanctions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  I am open to replacing the block with a topic ban, but I am opposed to minutely engineered topic bans. It is important to resolve problems like this is a way that will stick, without having to be repeatedly tweaked, because that wastes large amounts of admin time, and time is the most valuable resource we have. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He has already received a 1R restriction, over the entire topic area, until January by PhilKnight. This is just piling on.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was from a different problem. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Looie; I disagree. Chesdovi's editing has been a problem in a very specific set of articles and in a very specific subject within those articles. If a restriction is needed it is only needed in that area. But whatever, make it a topic ban on the whole of the ARBPIA topic area instead, at least that would allow Chesdovi to continue working on other areas. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• This case is similar to Prunesqualer and that user received a slap on the wrist [18] compared to the sanctions issued against Chesdovi. Chesdovi’s last and only block occurred four years ago[19] and he gets slammed with an extremely harsh sanction. A little consistency please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi is an experienced editor with thousands of edits, let's not get carried away with the comparisons. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain what happened here? Chesdovi made a very valid point that nobody bothered even considering. It was SupremeDeliciouness that made mass unilateral contentios edit to numerous articles. Chesdovi merely modified the wording. Who initiated all this disruption?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any contentions changes or initiated any disruption. [20] What does the sources say? What did I ad to the article? So how was it contentious or disruptive? Now look at one of Chesdovis edits:[21] what source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a hugely disproportionate amount of text about legality to tiny stubs, like you did here to something like 50 articles in one day is yes both contentious and disruptive. A failure to understand that (or admit to that) is deserving of nothing less then a topic ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you just said and I fail to "admit" to have done anything "contentious " or "disruptive".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So why hasn't any admin topic banned me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear, some of the comments made by those who reflexively support an "ally" make it very difficult to voice any support for Chesdovi. Chesdovi did not "merely modify the wording", Chesdovi removed sourced information and in its place, without providing a source, added things that can best be described as utter nonsense. That some users dont like sourced information does not make it "contentious" or "disruptive". nableezy - 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nabeleezy, I would be open to a 1 year restricted topic ban if, conditional on that ban being imposed, you give your word that during that year you will not report Chesdovi for any violation other than breaking the topic ban. Feel free to propose a wording that would allow you to do that. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Im confused. So if Chesdovi makes 10 reverts in 20 minutes on an article not covered by the topic ban, I shouldnt report it? Or if he repeatedly inserts BLP violations, I shouldnt report it? Im not saying that has or will happen, I just dont understand the condition. If yall really want that its fine by me. Ive edited with Chesdovi for a few years now and today was the first time I reported the user for anything. But 1 year is way too long. I was thinking more along the lines of 1 month. nableezy - 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, Are you kidding!? the Chesdovi's last and only block came four years ago and you're ready to give him a one year topic ban? This is beyond unfair.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi's recent behavior was significantly beyond acceptable behavior here, and he didn't slow down enough after the formal ARBPIA warning or after the topic-wide 1RR was imposed. There are only so many times we can say "stop" before we turn the red light on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Chesdovi had not made any edits after the 1RR was imposed. nableezy - 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke on edits after the 1RR. He did keep going after the ARBPIA warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support length reduction of block as the length is way over the top. Possibly shorten it to 2-3 days, at most. Basket of Puppies 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let me try to make this clear. Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior. We need a remedy that will prevent the same sort of disruption in the future. This is not about being fair, it is about preventing disruption. None of the people who are commenting here seem to be willing even to express a belief that he won't do a similar thing next week. So far Chesdovi himself has not said anything at all. A promise from him to cease the combative editing will allow this block to be lifted; the reason the block is long is to make it clear that such a promise is his only option. We admins are not capable of micromanaging the editing process in the I-P domain. There are two many articles and too many combative editors. When we apply sanctions, they are going to be blunt instruments. That may not be ideal, but it's the only way of avoiding a complete breakdown. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we have a time-tested and long-lasting tradition of increasing-block-length as blocks follow blocks. Once an editor is blocked, future violations quickly increase to double (or greater) lengths. If they are persistent, they quickly find themselves in the 1 week/1 month/3 months/1 year ranges. It affords the person the ability to conform their editing to Wiki guidelines, without subjecting the Project to undue disruption. Or, as our blocking policy puts it: "For the purposes of protection and encouragement, blocks may escalate in duration to protect Wikipedia while allowing for the cessation of disruptive editing and the return to respected editing."--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Various issues with settlements have been a headache. Nableezy has a couple sanctions because of the issue. If editors are going to play with fire they are going to be burned and that needs to be clear. We have tried centralized discussions. We have tried AE. Nothing has stopped this trainwreck. I do believe the block is a little long but I am happy to see anything that makes it crystal clear that it needs to stop. I think Chesdovi needs to make it known that he understands what he did wrong (if he does believe that). If that is done I hope a reduction is considered but really it is about time that editors realize that such behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, per Cptnono's comments. Good call, Looie496. The behavior on both sides of the I/P conflict on Wikipedia is ridiculous. It's hugely disruptive, and it must stop.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and length of block I almost brought him here myself during the Judaism and bus stops article and subsequent AFD. Thats about all my interaction with him. His behavior there was disruptive, pointy and unapologetic and it seems to be continuing since then. I hope this is a wake up call for him. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as formulated; Agree w/Nableezy here ("Something like a restriction on modifying the location of sites in Israel and surrounding countries/territories and no edits on the legality of settlements for 1-2 weeks") or Basket ("2-3 days, at most"). I believe that the last editor I saw blocked for tendentious editing this week was a 2-day block (for PBS), revised ultimately to reflect instead him staying away from the articles that attracted his tendentious editing for a couple of weeks. Sounds like the correct ballpark, for a first block in four years.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose deviation from regular norms of starting with a short block (or often a warning) and escelating to longer blocks only if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not supportive of blocks myself, but this is one of those editors who needs a break. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: Epeefleche, No More Mr Nice Guy and Mbz1 who here above and below have opposed the block are all pro-Israeli editors. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And what are you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? On what basis does Supreme say that? Coming from someone else, I might simply think that an inappropriate surmise. But coming from him, I think it a personal attack. I don't think Supreme wants editors saying he is a pro-jihadist editor (at least, editors who are not jihadist themselves). SD -- please consider yourself warned for a personal attack, and kindly desist from inappropriate statements here. Crossing it out would go a long way to showing you understand. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the 2-3 days suggestion because that has frequently proven to be ineffective for this type of problem - we need effective measures to handle the issue. As a second choice, I support the block as it stands. As a first choice, due to the block log, I would support a reduction in length so that the block is for a fortnight, but that depends on whether he accepts a binding topic ban that lasts for 2 weeks after the block is lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Chesdovi is not even requesting an unblock, and has stated that he feels that a Wikibreak would be good for him. All of these comments are not accomplishing anything. He can easily get the block reduced at this point if he asks for it. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether Chesdovi requests an unblock or not is not what is being addressed here, so I don't think your comment accomplishes anything except to suggest you're not taking feedback or you've not understood what you are being told. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • There is an appeal process. The editor is choosing not to appeal this. I'm not even seeing an acknowledgment of making mistakes on their talk page. This is fantastic circumstances. An editor received what equates to slaps on the wrist (10(?) of them in total including one for this incident) so if Chesdovi is the example that some admins really really mean it this time then great. I don't see a problem at all.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't follow; he was blocked once in 2006 for 48 hours, and the next block in 2010 was admitted by the block admin as a mistake. That means this is the second block he's ever received; the first in the last four years. No other sanction was tried (except possibly a 1RR which was imposed exactly an hour before this block was imposed), and the point is that other sanctions (like a 6 month topic ban) may have a more useful effect on him than a 1 month block where he admittedly is on wikibreak. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
        • "There is an appeal process. The editor is choosing not to appeal this. I'm not even seeing an acknowledgment of making mistakes on their talk page." The editor receiving 10 sanctions was a different editor involved in the conflict. Sorry for not being clear about that part. SO I basically have two points 1) Chesdovi can appeal through the proper channels. 2) Other editors (including myself) have gotten away with much worse multiple times. This decision by the blocking admin is the notice needed that it won;t be tolerated anymore.Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
          • We're not talking about appeals so your point, much like Looie's, is irrelevant. If an editor has not acknowledged any mistakes, what is prevented under a 1 month block that a long topic ban cannot prevent? It is when a topic ban is ineffective that blocks become necessary under these sorts of schemes and the fact that these were not adopted is what is concerning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Topic bans, 1/rr, and several other remedies have not really worked in the topic area (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans). But since there is not even close to consensus here that the block was inappropriate and the editor is fine with the block then your point is irrelevant. See how that worked out? Fun.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
              • When remedies that are not used enough, they don't tend to work. To put it bluntly, had you read the discussion instead of making drive by comments, you'd have noticed I supported the block and didn't suggest a block was inappropriate. Accordingly, it would be helpful if editors who have already been sanctioned in the topic area voluntarily avoided disrupting Community discussions concerning sanctions in the same topic area. I hope that a specific prohibition will not be needed to make this point more clearly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                • What? I screwed up a year ago. But since I disagree with you (as several people here do) you decide to play that card? Bad form. Anyways, while I have gone a year without being sanctioned several others have multiple. That is half my point.Am I being disruptive right now? No. You kept this going after it was obvious that it was a dead conversation. You need to convince the blocked editor to appeal if oyu have a problem with it. You could also request an RFC/U on the admin. As it stands, multiple people agree with the block and the user hasn't appealed it. So how about you stop rocking the boat.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • You are indeed being disruptive by repeatedly misstating my position in suggesting I do not support a block that I have supported. Please stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • Well I must have misunderstood your intent since it came across that you were supporting a ban instead of a block. Regardless, you don't need to collapse something which is much like disregarding it. Relevant to the conversation. You made a dig and I made one back. You done?Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • Wikipedia isn't a battelfield. Instead of hijacking a comment that was made specifically to the blocking administrator, it would be sensible if you stepped back. I still think you are being disruptive and sanctions will be necessary again in the near future if you don't recognise this; it's not a "dig" - it's a real problem with your approach which appears to have been recognised last year, and I think it's unacceptable that you contribute to this page for the purpose of making digs at other users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                        • As I already said on your talk page, feel free to take to AE. You said my comment was "irrelevant" when it was relevant. You proposed limiting a block while instead adding a ban. There is no reason to do that. So yes, I said your comment was irrelevant. That was a dig at you but it was also the truth. You then made sure to mention me in the edit summary and point out a past mistake and then started talking about disruption and then collapsed the comment. It is bad form no matter which way you dice it. Sure I am not being super nice about it but if you don't see how your communication was a little off then I am surprised. You also could have made your most recent comment as a response on your talk page instead of keeping this going. So if you have a problem take it to AE. I'm not seeing me doing anything worse than you right now but would be happy to hear other feedback in the appropriate venue. That would be acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I supported one of two measures, with a preference for the other measure; this is a review of the block and how to approach an editor with these circumstances - a 1 month block is probably the most harsh of these, yet I supported due to the circumstances which speaks volumes in itself. So yes, your comment is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether an editor is appealing or not; if I was 'proposing' something, I'd do so in a separate section as usual.

And if it wasn't made clear when I reverted you, I'll take it to AE when your disruption is no longer manageable - I don't need you to tell me when that is, and I don't want it shifting to my talk page. I collapsed this entire exchange so users who wanted to read it can click the 'show' button. But you appear to be more interested in escalating than deescalating which isn't helpful. I'm sorry you feel that the sanction that was imposed on you was a mistake, but it is by no means irrelevant to your approach here. I make no apologies for seeing the similarities between what the restriction was meant to do (to prevent this sort of disruption) and the battle approach you've taken here. Taking digs at other users or assuming others are taking a dig at you is wrong on so many levels, which is why it is unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that I felt my sanction was a mistake? In hind site, I realize that I lucked out (see my comment above where I alluded to that). Do you see now how you are being rude? But back on topic, see my first post after yours explaining why I feel reducing a block but imposing a ban isn't something that needs to be discussed and is also partially a good thing. (No need to respond. I was simply making a comment based off the one you made but it somehow turned into many) Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, Ncmvocalist is one of the user, who likes playing in being administrator. Such kind of users are better off simply ignored.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet you still continue even after being told it is unacceptable...I don't think there's any hope of getting through to you through discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose block per No More Mr Nice Guy.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - Any action that pries yet another tendentious POV warrior off the battleground is a good thing. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed; although a more blunt way of putting it, that's essentially what the Community is trying to say. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support with reservations- I agree with the reasons for the block, but I think that a month is a little bit heavy-handed. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support block but feel time is too long A week would be ample, especially if Chesdori promises to mend his ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of TreasuryTag

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block of TreasuryTag to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp until this has reached the top of this page. –MuZemike

Twinkle abuse by Gregorik

This edit is a vandalism revert against me using Twinkle, marked as minor, made by User:Gregorik in an ongoing content dispute. I'm not a vandal, I'm a fellow editor concerned about what's in the lead section of the American exceptionalism article. Here is another revert of my work marked as minor a few days ago. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I agree with Binksternet; those reverts should never have been marked as minor. I don't know if ANI decided it wouldn't deal with rollback abuse anymore (after the last time I ratted someone out...), but these two edits are not right. I have not looked at Gregorik's other edits yet since I don't want to start some sort of hunt, but I do believe that Gregorik ought to be reminded of the proper use of rollback. I see also that Bink has asked Gregorik on their talk page for clarification, but the question was never answered. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• User:Binksternet has a long history of edit warring and his rollback rights were denied as a result (earlier this year). I have no history of edit warring and I'm not interested in warring. My last Twinkle edit was mistakenly marked as minor. Based on the lengthy discussions on the talk page of American exceptionalism (2009-10) it also becomes apparent that, regretfully, Binksternet has a vested interest in slanting said article, and he continues to succeed. Among others, he has deleted a very relevant, peer-reviewed citation published by Ghent University AND the University of Lodz that was used as a balance. All I've been trying to do is balancing the article. Please evaluate. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  No disputes here about the revert itself, but I'd remind you that it was a content dispute, not vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. Please be careful which rollback button you use in Twinkle - if you had used the custom "rollback" button and entered a cogent reason for the revert then we wouldn't be here. ~ mazca ^talk 11:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorik, edit warring in my past is not the subject of this AN/I; you are. Your Twinkle vandalism revert was a gross violation of Twinkle guidelines, and your argument rings hollow that the latest marking of your revert as minor was a mistake. In your edit history in the last week there are only two edits marked as minor and both are content dispute reversions of my work. This has every appearance of intention.

Your incorrect take on my supposed "vested interest" throws light back upon yourself. My only wish for that article is that it be as clear and intelligible to the reader as possible—I could give a freakin' flip about what it says politically, as long as the references are good ones, with an emphasis on mainstream thought, whatever that thought is. The only reason you and I have been at cross purposes there is because of your making it opaque and inaccessible via writing style, buttressed with refs in quantity, not quality. I thought we were moving forward past all that. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too. But do you honestly believe that the article's content is not grossly slanted to accommodate a certain position? You've spent hours erasing specifically leftist remarks, much of them from peer-reviewed sources -- from the lead & the body. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• All rollbacks, whether using the rollback tool or using twinkle, are automatically marked as "minor"; Gregorik didn't make the decision to mark them minor, so that part of the issue can be dropped. He did, however, make the decision to roll them back rather than undo them with an edit summary. Gregorik, please don't do that, not so much because it violates rollback policy, but because there is no short term or long term benefit to you, to Binksternet, or to the article. The 5 seconds you save in not writing an edit summary, or the satisfaction you feel in yanking someone else's chain a little bit by calling them a vandal, is always lost by the time you spend defending the edit in places like ANI/WQA/etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, will do. I don't get any pleasure from labeling anyone a vandal though (quite the contrary). ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorik, I responded to your note on my talk page, but let me add that "point taken" suffices for me (I obviously can't speak for Binksternet; I hope they feel the same way). May I add that strong terms like "vested interest" and "gross violation" are probably not conducive to settling this, so both sides would be advised to tone it down some. If this ever gets out of hand we will all get much less pleasure out of hanging around the wiki. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle allows edit summaries, so you could have done a rollback using Twinkle and provided an appropriate edit summary. In this particular example, you were reverting only one change, so an undo, rather than a rollback, would have been easy to do. My practice is to undo single changes and rollback multiple changes by one user. Either way, I always provide an edit summary unless it's a rollback of clear vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright; as a sign of good faith, I apologize for labeling Binksternet's edit an act of vandalism. For the 5.5 years I've been on WP, I've never been reported on ANI even though I have thousands of edits. As an aside, I just wish more people would be interested in the content of the article which I think is flawed and slanted. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not a place to discuss content, so i'm afraid that we are not allowed to be interested in the content while commenting here. And your apology, when tampered with a statement much like a "but" (Your "I've never been reported on ANI even though I have thousands of edits"), doesn't really constitute a real apology. Just to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights, folks. I will "tone it down" in my interactions with Gregorik and keep it collegial. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and legal threats at Cyprus

Andreas2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps removing text and pictures of Cypriot mosques from the Cyprus article and has now issued a legal threat in their latest edit summary. Admin attention is required. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for the legal threat, even if it is a ridiculous threat.  Sandstein  15:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the legal threat is legally implausible. Still, despite the doubtful legal validity, such comments and any associated edit-warring cause disruption. Hopefully, since "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite" this user may eventually get unblocked if they show that they understand the underlying issues. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert

I note with disappointment and regret that recent developments are leaving me with no other choice but to draw attention to the behavior of the above editors.

The facts of the case are as follows.

(1) On 5 October 2010, at 12:57 (UTC), I included in the article “Communist terrorism” the following passage with a quote by Marx (that apparently no one here had been able to trace since 1996 when it was mentioned by Edvard Radzinsky), under the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders”:

“In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, ‘’Neue Rheinische Zeitung’’, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.””

To which I provided the following references:

“Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me05/me_05_455.htm; for English translation see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm”

On 6 October, at 03:54 (UTC), AndyTheGrump (in his own words) “amended Marx to full version.”

On 6 October, at 03:56 (UTC), AndyTheGrump posted the following statement on the talk page:

“I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning.”

What I felt to be particularly discourteous and offensive was the fact that AndyTheGrump made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence as to (a) what the intended meaning was, (b) why the quote as initially provided by me was “distorting” that meaning, and (c) why he thought it had been my intention to “distort” anything.

(2) On 6 October, at 10:53 (UTC), I included the following passage in the above-mentioned article, under the same section:

“Thus, in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.””

It was my intention at a later point, when I had the time to do so, to include an observation made by Robert Service in his work A History of Twentieth-Century Russia to the effect that Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky advocated dictatorship and terror, as well as provide the following quote from Engels’ On Authority (which Lenin uses to support his own position on dictatorship and revolutionary violence, including state terror):

““To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.””

It was (and still is) my sincere belief that the above quotes would have served to illustrate the views on the matter held by leading Marxists. Nor can there be any doubt that the quotes were relevant to the section entitled “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.”

On 6 October, at 16:41 (UTC), Paul Siebert (in his own words) “Removed the quote form [sic] “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky””, adding that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all.”

As I pointed out, Lenin must have used the word “terror” in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky at the very least in the Engels quote he is using in that work for the simple reason that (a) Engels’ original text (and English translation) has the word “terror” and (b) the English translation of The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky itself has the word “terror”.

Paul Siebert unreasonably dismissed as “irrelevant” not only the Lenin quote I had included in the article and the Lenin quote I suggested on the talk page, but the entire The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky.

On 6 October, at 16:51 (UTC), without adducing any evidence to substantiate his statements, Paul Siebert posted the following on the talk page:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it”.

Without providing any explanation as to what the footnotes were about, Paul Siebert insisted that the Russian original which he is able to read does not have the word “terror” (except, as already stated, “in the footnotes”), but that it has the word strakh which means “fear” and cannot mean “terror.”

Apart from the fact that his own interpretation or translation of the Russian text clearly constitutes original research, Paul Siebert continues to insist that the word strakh does not mean terror despite the fact that it does so:

(a) as is evident from the context;

(b) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(c) as is evident from the English translation (online version available at www.marxists.org: [22]);

and

(d) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In addition, Lenin’s endorsement of terror has been confirmed by a number of respected historians, e.g., Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p 108:

“Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror”

and Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39:

“He [Lenin] was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

It is evident from this that the words “This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there” constitute a false statement.

In light of the evidence, Paul Siebert must have been, or subsequently become, aware of the fact that his statement is false.

On 8 October, at 17:06 (UTC), Paul Siebert posted the following statement on the talk page:

“it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn’t start terror immediately after coming to power, which can be demonstrated by the fact that death penalty was completely abolished by them in 1917.”

The fact is that the Bolshevik government did not abolish the death penalty. It confirmed the abolition thereof enacted on 12 March 1917 by Kerensky’s Provisional government. Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 and had expressly ordered his followers not to support the Kerensky government (Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 15). In addition, after coming to power, the Bolshevik government actually restored the death penalty in respect of certain crimes (e.g., Fanny Kaplan was executed on 4 September, 1918) and the CHEKA (the secret police established by Lenin in December 1917, i.e., immediately after Bolshevik takeover of power) was granted discretionary death-penalty powers by Lenin 1921 (Figes, 1998; Volkogonov, 1994). Lenin himself declared that it was “not possible to make a revolution without executions”; ordered the Red Terror campaign in September 1918 (Pipes, p. 56); and “the transformation of the war [WWI] from a conflict between nations to one between classes had been a central plank in the Bolshevik platform long before 1917” (Richard Pipes, Communism, 2001, p. 41).

It follows that it is legitimate to question Paul Siebert’s good faith.

It also follows that it is legitimate to ask (a) why Paul Siebert is making false statements and (b) why he is using such statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

It must be noted that both my initial contributions and subsequent observations were in response to the call to help improve the article; were relevant to the section under discussion; and were clearly made in good faith.

By contrast, not only have Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump displayed discourteous and offensive behavior from the very start, but they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda, impose their own biased views on others, and preclude any balanced and objective discussion from taking place.

Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump have repeatedly attempted to conceal or deny historical facts linking prominent Marxists with terrorism, such as, that Marx was known as “The Red Terror Doctor” on account of his endorsement of terror as a policy; that both Marx and his associate Engels made statements in support of terror/terrorism; that Marx wrote, “there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism” (and that this quote in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is annotated approvingly by Stalin); that Engels defines revolution in general “as rule imposed by means of the terror that the arms of the victorious party inspire in the reactionaries” (and that this definition is quoted with approval by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky); that they were personally involved in armed insurrections (amounting to terrorism on account of their intention to establish a dictatorship based on terror); that they are discussed in scholarly publications on terrorism (e.g., Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism), etc.

In summation, it appears that the above-mentioned editors have effectively hijacked the article for their own purposes and are doing as they please with total impunity. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I have requested the editor Snowded to advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority but I received no reply. Being new to Wikipedia, I hope this is the correct place for lodging the above complaint. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the request Justus, best to place on my talk page as your article talk pages are very very long and its easy to miss things. If I had seen it I would have advised you against the above--Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See this previous thread from ANI a week ago, where JM's editing was discussed. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message about this request on the user talk pages of AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, thank you for informing me about this discussion. To make it more productive, can we ask Justus Maximus to do the following:

1. To try to separate a content dispute between them and a number of other editors from behavioural issues, because the former is not supposed to be a subject of the current thread.
2. To provide at least one example when they tried to seriously comment on the quotes from the reliable scholarly sources provided by me. This sources contradicted to the edits proposed by them, however, they rejected them under a pretext that these sources were "Marxist apologist".
3. To answer if they consider themselves a novice or experienced editor. This answer is important, because, if they believe they've already became an experienced editors, they are supposed to be responsible for violations of civility norms on WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus yet again chooses to label me as 'pro-terrorist'. Since this is clearly libellous, I will take no further part in this discussion until he withdraws this. Should he fail to do so, I will then consider what course of action I will take. I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[23] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the comment you just quoted a legal threat. If they had said "I'm going to report you to law enforcement for spreading terrorist propaganda, maybe, but I see no real accusation of terrorist propaganda, let alone a threat of reporting it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations in propaganda of terrorism are perceived legal threat per WP:LEGAL--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Justus Maximus comment, "...they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda...." is totally unacceptable and he should be blocked for incivility. Otherwise, his comments are long and rambling, and he does not clearly point out what his dispute is other than a content dispute. TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, "strakh" means a "state of fear" or just fear in general, though for the purposes of Marx and Lenin, it is quite clear that they were speaking and advocating a form of terrorism. In this, the original poster is correct. I just wanted to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, Justus, what Paul meant from this is that your quote “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence” doesn't even have the word terror in it anywhere. And Snowded asked for you to be involved in the talk here. Other than those two edits, you have not been involved in directly editing the article, though I notice there is an expansive amount of discussion on the talk page. Is there really anything that has to do with ANI here? Silverseren^C 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell User:Paul Siebert that forum shopping is frowned upon, he has posted here on this thread the Justus is making perceived legal threats (I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked) But he has also posted the same thing Here thinking Access Denied was an admin and he posted the same again Here on Toddst1 talk page. This strikes me as someone shopping around looking for the right result and Paul ought to be told to quit it mark (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that, from what i've seen from the talk page of the article in question, all three, Justus Maximus, Paul Siebert, and AndyTheGrump, have all been editing in a manner that expresses POV editing and/or possessiveness of the article. In terms of this and what Mark has shown above, I believe something definitely needs to be done in terms of these three users together, as they have all exibited editing that is frowned upon or not allowed on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked". Had I wanted him to get blocked, I would be able to report him many times, because his behaviour is highly insulting and violates many WP rules. Regarding possessiveness, I admit that the talk page is a mess and that it is hard for a newcomer to follow the course of the discussion, however, before throwing accusations in "possessiveness", one has to read the discussion in full. I proposed to discuss a way to reconcile what Justus' and my sources say, whereas he simply ignored my arguments calling my sources "Marxist apologist". My proposal to edit a dubious section on the talk page and to re-insert it into the article after a consensus is achieved, a tactics that worked fine for, e.g. WWII article, was simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the section were you were Bold and removed it, then yourself, Igny and snowed Snowed edit warred to keep it out? With all three of you hitting 3r along with a couple of ip`s which lead to the article being locked out? mark (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the section which I temporarily moved to the talk page section to re-write and re-introduce into the article. Since this section contained obvious nonsense, it would be incorrect to let it to stay in the article during possibly endless dispute. In addition, I proposed some concrete way to reconcile both points of view and make it neutral. All of that has been ignored by the editors belonging to another party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: that page is a mess. Large sections of it use the rhetorical style of FOX news pundits (illegitimate associations between unrelated ideas designed to promote a particular anti-communist viewpoint - effectively a form of right-wing Mad Libs), much of it is aimed at attacking Marxist theory by leveraging revolutionary practices, and the general behavior of all involved parties is (shall I say politely) less than optimal. If the page weren't locked I'd simply go after it with garden shears and a trowel; right now I'm just hoping that we can settle the issues with some straw polls. if you all want to go and drop your votes on the straw polls I opened, and if we can get a reasonable consensus that way, it might just put a stop (either way) to some of the shenanigans. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is a promising new editor who we would like to keep—funnily enough I was just admiring an edit of his (this one), which turned up on my watchlist. His "legal threat" was so vague as to be meaningless; plus he's a newbie, presumably not familiar with the labyrinthine ways of Wikipedia. I think it's appallingly bitey to immediately block him indefinitely for saying "I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." If *I* said that, it would be appropriate to block me, but a newbie? Come on, what's wrong with having a word with him and explaining that talk about legal measures isn't merely discouraged on Wikipedia. Unless there is general objection, I'm going to unblock him in a while, and advise him to withdraw the offending statement. Toddst1, I'm aware that you have already advised him what to do, but I don't think starting with an indefinite block is a good way to get people to listen receptively. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

• Please give your opinion below about my intention to unblock:

An undertaking to retract the legal threat is all that is required for a legal threat block to be lifted. I don't think that consensus is required, since it says that in WP:LEGAL. Get the undertaking first, then press the button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously, this legal threat was just an inadequate response of a newbie on continuous insults and perceived legal threats from Justus Maximus' side (repeated accusation in such a crime as propaganda of terrorism are the perceived legal threat). Obviously, the Andy's response was highly emotional, however, taking into account that both these editors are novices, and taking into account that Justus Maximus has been warned many time about his unacceptable behaviour, this reaction is understandable (although not excusable). In addition, we all are partially guilty in that, because we where too tolerant to a newbie Justus Maximus. I do not understand why another newbie has to suffer from that our mistake. In my opinion, the block can be lifted immediately after Andy will agree to retract this threat.

Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him[24]--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement.[25] I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you should unblock. This is a good new editor and even experienced editors would be driven to distraction by the situation on that talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus

Shall we return to User:Justus Maximus and that wall of text again.He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists. Justus must somehow be persuaded that people are allowed to disagree with him, and further that he must not accuse the people who disagree with him of being closet Marxist terrorists. Snowded has been very patient, but I don't think he's got anywhere, Andy has been blocked after an unwise remark about legal action, and is waiting to see what we do. Paul Seibert is I believe correct that in the US at least, advocating or publicising terrorism is a criminal offence, so JM's unreasonable accusation of Andy goes beyond your average ad hominem. I don't see him warned for it, and I think a forceful warning from someone who can follow up an 'if you do this again you will be blocked' threat is the very minimum that must be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say that accusing someone of being a terrorism advocate warrants a warning plus a short block, but given the time since the comment the block would end up being not so much preventative as punitive. So, I agree that a "final warning" of sorts where any further personal attacks or general incivility warrant a good 2-3 day block, especially if they are along the lines of accusing people of terrorism related things. I'll deliver a templated final warning, but anyone else should feel free to expand on it (or replace it) with their own composition. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Elen and Ks0stm on forceful warning. Accusing other editors of criminal activity is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps [26] from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When I posted about this issue I noted that, since Justus Maximus is a newbie, the immediate sanctions against him are premature. I believed -Snowded ^TALK's voluntary mentorship would resolve the situation. However, our tolerance towards this newbie resulted in a block of another newbie (Andy), who faced the situation which, according to his limited WP experience, seemed unresolvable by him, and, as a result, resorted to legal threats.

However, the issue is not only in accusations in criminal activity. Justus Maximus seems to deeply misunderstand the policy: he believes that based solely on his vision of the subject he can accept of reject sources, which he arbitrarily calls "reliable" or "apologist"; he believes that based on the sources available for him he can reject what other sources say; he does not understand that commenting on a contributor is not acceptable; he does not understand that drawing own conclusion based on few quotes from historical documents taken out of historical contest is absolutely incorrect, etc. Someone, who is not considered by him as a personification of the devil (in other words, not I) should explain that to him. Any help is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would really be very helpful if a few other editors would explain OR and SYNTH to Justus, he either does not understand or is not listening. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Wikipedia article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor translating an article to another Wikipedia

I noticed Rapsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also tr:User:Rapsar) has translated WP's article La Massana into Turkish Wikipedia here and here. WP's policy on translations is Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate; it says editors who are doing translations of English Wikipedia articles must include an edit summary in the translated article on the destination Wikipedia as well as making a talk page notice there, saying where on English Wikipedia they obtained their source material. At the moment, trwiki's La Massana has no such acknowledgement in an edit summary on the article or on the talk page.

I asked User:Rapsar to remedy this oversight on Turkish Wikipedia. He replied, "I didn't just translate it. I found some extra sources to write the article. BTW, we don't have any policy like this in tr. Wiki. So, I can't do this."

Although User:Rapsar is one of the most active and experienced editors on Turkish Wikipedia, I think his position is out of line with WP's copyright licence. As for Wikimedia Foundation's policy, I think the terms of use require editors on all Wikipedias to acknowledge their sources when doing translations of articles from other Wikipedias. If it is correct that Turkish Wikipedia does not have any relevant policies about translations, it seems there is potential to encourage widespread copyright non-compliance. For all I know this may have been happening for some time in other articles on Turkish Wikipedia, not necessarily translated by User:Rapsar. It needs further research by somebody fluent in Turkish; I am not, so I cannot check. Apart from Turkish, what is the current position on other language Wikipedias?

Are there any administrators here who could provide policy-based advice to User:Rapsar, and are there any Turkish-English bilingual administrators here who may be in a position to help Turkish Wikipedia come into copyright compliance? I have informed User:Rapsar of this thread. I hope this is the right forum to raise this issue; please say if it is not. Thanks. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what the English Wikipedia can do about this other than advice the proper procedure...what goes on at the Turkish Wikipedia is outside our jurisdiction...however, I will admit in this case the lines are a bit blurrier since it involves cross-wiki activity. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So, are we essentially just toothless dogs who can bark but not bite? What's the point of having a copyright in Wikimedia Foundation's projects? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll let other people weigh in; I'm just not sure as to what to do. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the way other projects are dealing with copyright issues, in particular the attribution requirements for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, you should take it up with the wikimedia foundation or on meta. We at the English wikipedia are indeed toothless dogs. (Some people here may not be toothless, but that's something they got outside the English wikipedia.) Alternatively, I would suggest a good faith effort to communicate with the Turkish wikipedia (rather then one member if you believe the issue is widespread) in a first instance would be advisable. Most wikipedias do have embassies I believe (tr:Vikipedi:Büyükelçilik appears to be the Turkish one) and there is also Wikipedia:Translation which may help you find people who can help you comminicate if necessary. P.S. Well technically I guess English wikipedia contributors to the article in question may have grounds to sue people who have violated their license which is something they gained from here but that's obviously a dumb road to go down. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question might be better posed at Meta? Just a thought.    Thorncrag  19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the Turkish Wikipedia embassy pointing out this discussion and asking for someone who knows Turkish to bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place on that wiki. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to also bring it up on Meta. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will ask on Meta. Thanks Ks0stm, Nil Einne, Thorncrag for your thoughts. Meanwhile, since there are many admins on WP with experience of copyright issues, I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts too, although some of them tend not to edit much on Sundays. Please leave this thread open. I think it would be useful to have further input here once Meta have had a chance to consider the issue. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for a generic question on copyrights (I don't really know where to ask since it isn't really an issue for us per se but perhaps Wikipedia talk:Copyrights) but if your question is about the whether the Turkish wikipedia practice is okay, I would agree it's not. If they're using content from some under wikipedia with a CC-BY-SA license, even if they're adding additional info, they need to attribute the original source (which will have the edit history) in some way whether a link in the edit summary or in the talk page (precisely what is necessary I don't have enough experience to say). Even when copying within the English wikipedia, you are supposed to link to the original source article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppets

Sean Staunnery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Conor O'Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of banned editor Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22 and the history of the Dave Snowden article and it will become very obvious very quickly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)|

I've looked into and caught one other accounts as well. TNXMan 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can the ability to create pages be removed from BLP violators?

I raised this at AIV, but was referred here, instead. Is this possible to do? Should this be the DEFAULT action to someone who creates 2 or 3 or "n" unreferenced BLPs? We are banging our heads against brick walls otherwise, with a BLPPROD the only available response, but that is a treatment, lets cure this at the source... we shouldn't allow unreferenced BLPs to ever be created, let alone one user making lots of them.The-Pope (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ace16 sk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Can the ability to create pages be removed from this user until he/she understands that BLPs require references? I think the talk page notices show that he/she has been warned enough times. The-Pope (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the consensus has been to block users outright as opposed to revoking their "confirmed" status. –MuZemike 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And revoking their confirmed status wouldn't make any difference. Graham87 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide notice

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

Parasect (talk · contribs) posted on his user page that he is committing suicide today. What is the proper procedure for things like this? ~NerdyScienceDude 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) WP:SUICIDE provides a guideline. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I have requested that MuZemike (talk · contribs) run a CheckUser so we can contact the proper authorities. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh good, it looks like I found the right venue. Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) We have user essays, but no official procedures. I for one think it's high-time we change that, post-haste.    Thorncrag  23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you guys. The Foundation is looking into it right now and will take responsibility to contact the local authorities Jalexander (talk) -WMF 23:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Reporting

Does anyone want to vote to change Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm to official policy? I'm not sure where to post this, but it seems it is the consensus right now, so why not make it policy?--TalkToMe_c^intelati 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with doing that. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that isn't/shouldn't be subject to community consensus; the policy needs to come down from the Foundation, though probably with community collaboration.    Thorncrag  00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I can't state how strongly I support this idea. Wonderful idea. I suspect Godwin will have something to say about it. He should be notified of this. However, there is nothing that states such a policy can only come from the foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 8)No, it should not be policy, only a guideline. We cannot force people to carry out those actions, and we are certainly not going to sanction people for failing to do so. Further, it is ridiculously involved and sets out expectations that are unrealistic. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a threat protocol internally right now, and consulting with similar organizations. I think it's likely that we'll emerge with some sort of guidelines, but I'm not comfortable mandating a particular course of action. In the meantime, the FIRST thing that anyone does should probably be to email emergencywikimedia.org, which notifies us. Then, continue with the steps at WP:SUICIDE. That way, we can get involved as soon as we are notified. Thanks for your concern, everyone. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a person blocked for making a comment like this (for example Parasect, who is apparently a teenager, is now blocked from everywhere including his own talk page, and currently only has the standard ANI notification on his talk page) wishes to inform the WMF that there is no need to pursue discussions with the authorities further, what is the best way for that person to achieve that? And, should that be briefly explained on the person's talk page? Just thinking that, although we should assume suicide threats are genuine, we also should make it simple to avoid taking up more police time than strictly necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

instructions have been updated per your above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it policy at this time. First, although the current threat appears to be serious (or at least, to be a sincere cry for help), the majority of such threats are from attention-seeking teens: an official policy requiring us to give them attention might lead to an increase in threats, which might cause us to miss the real ones. Second, we traditionally don't require action from users or admins. And third, because this is an area likely to lead to real-world moral and legal consequences, I think that any policies regarding it should only be made with ample help from Mr. Godwin and the Foundation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A policy that says report the incident to [emergency staff contact] should by no means be deemed controversial and it absolves users of any other obligations. It's then up to staff to decide what to do, as it should.    Thorncrag  00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Risker and FisherQueen. No to policy at this time; many of these "threats" are merely trolling -- an anon scribbling on your talk page, "I'm going to kill myself" is not anything anyone should be obligated to report to authorities. This particular case is different because it's an editor with a history here. Beware hasty actions that have the aroma of a moral panic, which this one does. Individuals may report these things in accordance with their individual judgement. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... Rod, could you clarify whether you're planning to log off for the evening, to retire from Wikipedia, or to commit suicide? This comment is a bit unclear for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's report Rod. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm let's see. A teenager and established editor who makes a suicide threat is almost immediately blocked (including from his own talk page), doesn't even receive the courtesy of the standard talk page template for such things, and is reported to the police. An admin and established editor makes a rather more vague threat but of a similar nature, and it's a subject for levity. If my name started with M, I'd make some cynical but pithy comments about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* another Malleus reference? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my first! Ever! I'll stick with "he who must not be named" in future, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would be appropriate, would someone from the foundation please let us know how this situation turned out in the end? I think it would help alleviate some editors concerns if we know what the end result is, as I think we're all hoping for this to be resolved for the better. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, should we really drop an AN/I notice on possible suicide user talk? For one, as has been pointed out already, if the user is just a troll it would seem to only serve their jollies, and for two, I see no reason to risk mis-interpretation of the message that the user is in trouble, particularly if they really are in a suicidal mind frame.    Thorncrag  03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the appropriate place to raise it, although emergency@ might've been even better - which is now in the guidelines (it wasn't before). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

School project

I was alerted to the existence of an ongoing school project by this unreferenced addition, including a fair amount of POV, to an article. (Admittedly, the article had no explicit references to begin with, but this isn't helping the situation.) Could someone inform Saurette (talk · contribs), the teacher, about the relevant guidelines and such, as I'm feeling too crabby to take care of it and I can't even recall where the WP-space page about such projects resides. I'll inform both JKeedwel and Saurette about the existence of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:School and university projects. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

possible Zsfgseg sock

71.249.61.177 (talk · contribs) was caught by the Zsfgseg filter. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

User:AndyTheGrump seems to have retracted his legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I noted such in the thread a way up the noticeboard. He has now posted an unblock request. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderlip / Alexander outrageous personal attack

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alexander Liptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
173.24.117.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I can take a lot of grief from users, but I won't have my integrity questioned. Xander has now gone too far. On wikipedia, in the second part of his new comments shown here,[27] he accuses me of having stolen an image and uploaded it to commons. His statement is an absolute lie, and I want something done about it. I have notified him, on both wikipedia and commons, although he may have signed off for the night. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh look, Xander's RfC/U was just certified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And, a mere 6 hours in, the meta-discussion on the RFC's talk page has already reached two levels of nesting, with people discussing the edits made to the discussion of the response to the RFC statement about the original dispute. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see a big problem here. You seem to be both engaging in bordeline uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. By stealing he obviously just means that there are possible copyright problems with the image - whether that is true or not should be easy to prove. I don't see grounds for a civilty issue here as you are both over the line. I also don't think there are grounds for a legal threat accusation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't claim Xander made a legal threat, I claimed he made a bare-faced lie. Until 45 minutes ago, I had NEVER uploaded anything to commons, so it's unlikely that "a group of editors" would have said I did at some point in the past. In fact, there has never been any such claim. Furthermore, Xander made his comment an hour before I uploaded my very first image at commons. Xander made it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops, one correction. Nearly 3 years ago, when I got my commons account, I uploaded 1 file, as a test, that was a photo I had taken.[28] I got some friendly advice on how to label it properly, and dat was dat. If that's the basis of Xander's accusation, he should be banned for incompetency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• What is the something that you'd like done? Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I mixed him up with another user, he is taking this out of context. The other user already made it clear to him that it was a mix up on Commons, where he also took this issue. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)