Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saebvn (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 7 November 2010 (→Right! What's going on with RLevse?: adding link for convenience). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Man

    Unresolved
     – Topic Ban still under discussion for non-sock Editor and can probably be closed by an uninvolved admin by now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – A bunch of socks blocked plus an IP range. Let me or another admin or CU know if the disruption continues. –MuZemike 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.

    I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should just point out here that I haven't deleted the explicit photograph at any stage. SAT85 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, those in favour of explicit photographs have been edit-warring them in, sans consensus, for several months. SAT85 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly Outside Observation

    My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGalTalk 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:

    Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, I'm naked right now. That was too much information, wasn't it? HalfShadow 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these objections to deletion (or replacement with a diagram) have been discussed on the Talk:Man page. This is not about hypersensitivity or prudishness--it is about achieving an emphasis in the lead image that reflects the typically clothed state of men, and about the sort of standards expected of an encyclopaedia (hence see this policy). Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that sentence was a bit ambiguous--in the article. If it was in society as a whole I wouldn't bother with getting the image removed or replaced. SAT85 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm lazy to check the history but the article currently includes multiple images most men with clothes on. I presume it has always done that. I agree it would be silly to fill the article with pictures of nude men and nothing else but I see nothing wrong with include one or more appropriate images of what a man looks like without clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. There are three such images in the article already; this dispute is about the gratuitous photograph, and in particular its prominence at the top left of the collage. SAT85 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a minute here. This is really all about the penis, isn't it? Let's call a spade a spade, and discuss if the model had underpants on, would we be losing something important to describe Man? It seems like everything else is just dancing around the fact that we are talking about penises. The Eskimo (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course we are. Nobody would suggest that cat not have a picture of a cat, or that chimpanzee shouldn't have a picture of an engine (and they're naked all the time, genitals hanging out and everything). Ergo, man has a picture of a man, without clothing, to illustrate what a man looks like. I find it tedious in the extreme, and depressingly predictable, that the people most concerned with AHMAHGAWD TEH CHILLUNS invariably see sex everywhere. Gives a clue to what's going on in their heads. The rational rest of the world sees a naked human being. Ho hum. Yawn. The regressive paleocons see OH NO A NAKED SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. I see absolutely no reason why we should even pretend to entertain the notion that they have a valid viewpoint. Wikipedia is not fucking censored. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And, isn't there always Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the 3 above users have stated, agree. Especially Roux comments. Heiro 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used for encyclopedic purposes only--as all Wikipedia images should (i.e. used in accordance with Wikipedia policy), then its use in the article is justified. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason I hate situations like this: some guy visits one of those articles mentioned above (for example, boy) not expecting that there will be a nude picture (something other than an obvious anatomical diagram) there. He later takes his computer to another country and finds out they can search your hard drive as you enter. If he hasn't cleared his cache and otherwise scrubbed the image from his computer, he may now be in a legal mess over what may otherwise be an "innocent" image. Kcowolf (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Best reason ever for censorship. The secret police in another country might not understand why I have a picture on my computer. Heiro 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying to say, some of us have reasons other than "Protect the children!" to prefer removing the image. Obviously consensus is against my opinion, and I respect that. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest reducing protection level

    All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [1] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation, SAT85 has been well-behaved in mainspace -- he hasn't removed the photograph [2]. Since there's no reason to let multi-sock disruption lock everyone except admins out of editing, I suggest lowering the protection level to semi, and adding level two pending changes protection. Any almost-new accounts that suddenly appear to remove the image should be blocked per WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds good to me. The consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image and not allow it to be censored, and the Talk discussion seems to be moving on to how best to present the collage. The only really disruption (other than endless arguing on the Talk page) is indeed from SPAs and socks who unilaterally delete the image. I don't believe they will accede to the community consensus here and won't go away. So yes, I think level 2 PC would be the best longer term approach here. I also think it would be good for one of the admins here to summarize the developing consensus, in the Talk page ANI section, at a suitable point, so if the argument carries on, we can point to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What Zebedee said, Heiro 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that SAT85 is behaving in a serious way of tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again. It would be more helpful if you addressed the substance of the dispute instead of engaging in this sort of commentary. It seems to me that your first reaction to the image was the correct one, when you said, "I am not offended at all by the human body but I have to say that the image looks out of place in that collage. What is the need for it there? There is a statue down in the article. I just don't think the image is needed in the collage unless someone has a reason I missed in the above comments." Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. We can not forget Help:Options to not see an image. Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then its use in the article is justified, and thus, just becuase some people do not want to see it, does not mean that it should be removed from the article. Just choose the options necessary so that only you can not see the image, other people can still see it if they want to. I do agree with the proposed protection level changes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the protecting administrator, Bongworrior, refuses to reduce the protection level in the manner for which there is a clear consensus here, because he believes that it would be unfair to to the abusive sockpuppeteer creating an endless supply of accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti) to remove the image. I encourage editors to participate directly in the discussion on his user talk page to help clear this matter up. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the protection should be lowered to PC, but I also see a possible benefit in leaving as it is for a little while longer - I've commented at Bongwarrior's Talk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban?

    SAT85 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in tedious editing at Talk:Man with a month of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CPUSH. Frankly after multiple editors in ANI and there have communicated with him. Its a rather large farce to engage in any more Dialogue. I honestly almost could mistake this for deliberate trolling at the rate its going.

    Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. I wonder if, to avoid the impression of bias, you might also want to consider David Oakes, Boing! Said Zebedee, and others who have not only been doggedly engaged on the Talk:Man page longer than I have, but have been edit-warring over the photo as well (though I personally think that banning any editor here would be a silly case of censorship--and I have no issue with either of them besides a disagreement over content). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting the operator of some (now blocked) abusive sockpuppet accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti), and almost certainly the IPs as well, is not considered to be edit warring. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that sock puppet accounts have only been used recently, by a user exasperated at being banned for removing the controversial photo. If you follow the history back, I think you'll see that it has indeed been repeatedly edit-warred back in without consensus. SAT85 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ony if by "edit-warred back in without consensus" you mean that respected editors have repeatedly reversed the disruptive actions of We233ws (who was actually banned, for amongst other things, abusive sockpuppetry), his army of IP socks, and a one edit single purpose account (the situation since September 28 of this year [3].) This deplorable behaviour certainly detracts from any claim that there's a legitimate editorial dispute here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We233ws was just one of many users involved. Moreover, calling supporters of the explicit photo "respected editors" (when they were edit-warring--do have a look at the history) and then lashing a disillusioned user for "deplorable behaviour" suggests a fairly substantial bias on your part. I would once again respectfully encourage you to focus on policy and rationale--"ganging up" with six or seven supporters and attempting to muscle through is a poor way to approach genuine content disputes. SAT85 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, well, the suggestion that consensus is "ganging up" and "muscling through" when things don't go your way does, I think, say a lot here. Anyway, I have not been active in the discussion longer than SAT85 - I joined in the argument quite late to try to help it towards resolution. I have not been in breach of 3RR, and reverting the anti-consensus removal by a sockmaster and his socks in tandem with other editors seems like legitimate anti-vandal action to me. I have not refused to stop repeating the same arguments over and over again when there is clearly a consensus against me. Further, I have been happy to bring the issue here for help in resolution, to listen to the opinions offered by the people here who have been trying to help (and who have my thanks), and to shut my mouth for a bit and not approach it by trying to drown out everyone else. I have also made it clear that I am happy to abide by consensus whichever way it goes, and if the community decides to remove the image that's fine with me. All I want to do is get this argument stopped so people can move on constructively. I see nothing whatsoever in that which would call for a topic ban on me, but anyone is, of course, welcome to propose one and see how it goes. (As an involved party, I will not !vote on this proposal) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I had forgotten that you (unlike David Oakes) joined this discussion at the RfC. I actually joined quite late in the piece as well--a little after you (see the RfC). And by "ganging up" I am not referring to a genuine consensus--the consensus over time has been to remove the photo. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it at all concern you that a number of respected editors not only disagree with your claim that "the consensus over time has been to remove the photo", but are actually supporting topic banning you for endlessly and falsely asserting it? The human body has been considered an expression of beauty and the subject of art for millennia, such as this classical sculpture, and File:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. Is a photograph really more "indecent" than a statue or full color painting? If you disagree with WP:NOT#CENSORED, then the Citizendium and Conservapedia, both of which have "family friendly" policies prohibiting photographic nudity, may prove to be more hospitable editing environments. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't concern me in the least, or particularly surprise me--I have obviously stepped on some ideological toes. It is not clear to me why you think that I have been "endlessly and falsely repeating" the claim that the weight of opinion over time has been against the picture. As I recall I've made the observation once or twice, and if you consult the archives, you will see that it's true. For the rest, see the Talk:man page. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a censored David up on the page for a short time in September. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, my mistake, SAT85 and I did both start contributing at about the same time (Oct 2 and Sep 28 respectively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, the "Wikipedia is not censored" line has been repeated a lot more than the reasons for deletion (all quite straightforward, in my view). I accept that the recent consensus of six or seven chaps from AN/i--together with attempts to censor the rest of us--is making further efforts to improve the page pretty futile at this stage (though it does seem to be now generally recognised that the collage should represent men in natural costumes). Alas for policy, readership and professionalism. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, if a bit tedious at times, and I have found you cordial to deal with. Cheerio for now, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the claim about censorship to one side, this encapsulates the real motive behind banning: WP:IDONTIKEYOURVIEW. SAT85 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support SAT85 has just lost credibility in my eyes by connecting the non-sexualised picture of an adult male with child pornography. A stupid and inflammatory contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding on the other page, Hilo. I was not connecting the two, just trying to offer an example of something we all consider to be inappropriate on Wikipedia; the point was that WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. If you browse back through the Talk page, you'll see that others discussed child pornography before I did. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it should be noted that the editors who are against adding this image, there appears to be two now, with another who just showed up as a new account, is religious reasons. The quoting of the bible finally appeared when there was nothing left in policy to use. You can find the comments quoted in this section. I think the time has come to allow the article to be opened for editing and the editors arguing against the addition to be told to either stop or be removed from the discussions now. The arguements have also been that having an image of a naked man is the same as child porn to the taliban which shows how out of control this discussion has become. I don't want to have to remove anyone but the time has come for this to stop either by the editors doing so themselves or by force. I'm hoping for the editors to accept the consensus and stopping on their own. If they won't then I do support banning them from this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be a reasonable person, CrohnieGal, so I think it is worth clarifying here that in my view nothing has been advanced to counter the charge that WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE and wikipolicy on what professional encyclopaedias include are triggered by the insistence on the nude photograph in its current position when three other nude illustrations are already included. Moreover, if you have another look at Ben Dawid's citation of the Bible, I think you'll agree that he was candidly elaborating on his own convictions (something we could do with a bit more of here)--not in that instance trying to get the picture removed. As I said earlier, though, with policy and rationale a fading force, and no fair attempt to find a consensus among the readership of Man, I have little more to offer here--banning or no banning. But thanks for the more neutral tone. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appeals to a silent majority cannot be used to override consensus. A consensus in an RfC is determined by the analysis of the people who actually contribute to the RfC. However, I will say that if there were such a silent majority, I'm sure we'd have heard about it long before now. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (i) The majority has not been silent. All of this was dismissed with the red herring that consensus cannot trump WP:NOTCENSORED. Now that we have an editorial clique from AN/i stampeding over the policy-based, rationally-defensible concerns of the rest of us, "consensus" is back in the ball-park. (ii) If you are genuinely convinced that the readership of Man now supports your view of the matter, conduct the experiment: put a neutrally-worded template on the page itself, indicating that the dispute is over photographs, not images, remove the partisan disclaimer (since "standards of decency", not "censorship" is the key phrase here), and see what unfolds. This would not be bulletproof, since quite a lot of people who unsuspectingly bump into the photo at (e.g.) work or school are likely to click back without further ado, but if there was a very clear majority in favour I would consider the reasons for removal not worth persuing. No doubt this suggestion is unnecessary, superfluous, unfair or even perhaps "deplorable", but a guy who stands back and observes a no will, I think, suspiciously scratch his head. SAT85 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've altered your previous arguments somewhat, as the "many editors" in the current discussion, which you had previously invoked for support, have now been reduced to yourself, and maybe one other... and a sock farm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've spent a lot more time worrying about sock puppetry than focussing on the issues--you seem to have trouble with the idea that "IRL" there are a good many of us who find nude photography in commonplace areas ridiculous. A lot of the people from AN/i initially echoed this view about Man, but some of them apparently jettisoned common sense when they suspected that an ideological skirmish was underway. Anyway, you can have the last word. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a "commonplace area", it's the internet. If you don't like what you see on the internet, then don't use the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I have to agree. This editor refuses to follow consensus and keeps talking in circles. The last few comments prior to my posting here shows the frustrations of other editors of the comments made by SAT85. It's time to stop it and allow the article to begin normal editing now. I am really sorry but it is time. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Slightly regretfully, as SAT85 has been unfailingly civil. However, as long as he continues to repeat arguments that do not reflect policy or consensus, and to misrepresent consensus on the Man discussion, this debate will never end.--KorruskiTalk 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    whack a puppet?

    One just popped up on Talk:Man the number of SPA on this topic is quite annoying. sock or meat? dont know dont care The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Span id around image?

    Maybe I could wrap the image with a span Id to hopefully calm this down. That way the editors who REALLY don't want to see it could hide it through CSS code. Access Denied – talk to me 07:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that how the Muhammad images are handled? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Where did Keith Olbermann attend college?

    Perhaps an RFC or mediation will settle this matter. It isn't really a matter for admins, except insofar as some editors are skirting a block. --TS 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that again.

    BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have but a single interest in Wikipedia, ranting endlessly at Talk:Keith Olbermann about how wrong it is that the article doesn't mention which of the many colleges at Cornell University Olbermann attended. He also seems to think that MiszaBot (talk · contribs) is an Olbermann fan who's in on a conspiracy to hide this vitally important discussion because it archives old threads. This is getting rather tiresome and I was wondering if there's anything that can be done on an Administrative level to help BuboTitan understand that it may not be in his best interest to continue on his present course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh man ROFLCOPT award. Why not just cite which one and be done? This is obviously Good faith question (Though WP:STICK might apply). The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue seems to be that the college he attended is a state, not private one - but according to the Cornell article, the University consists of 9 private and 4 state colleges. So what? Why does it matter whether it's mentioned or not? is this some big class distinction thing in the US that the rest of us are not aware of? Fainites barleyscribs 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be political point-making thing. Conservative Ann Coulter said Olbermann didn't "really" go to the Ivy League Cornell,[4] leading to Olbermann showing his Cornell diploma on TV. [5]. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone asked the editor in question, "Why does it matter?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for anyone who doesn't know, this all started when some pundit mentioned the Ag School in an effort to denigrate Olbermann's education. Since then there have been periodic flurries of talk page disruption advocating to put this in, in spite of the fact that no other bio on Wikipedia contains similar information. Is there anything an admin can do to help Bubo get it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's pages of this stuff. See archive 5 as well. BuboTitan is involved from here onwards, (January '10).Fainites barleyscribs 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The fact that someone would be taking an implicit shot at the Ag School is fairly offensive in itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of any reliable source indicating that there is some significance in having attended this college rather than any other college in Cornell (not as yet produced) this insistence looks pointy and disruptive. Fainites barleyscribs 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree. The vast preponderance of reliable sources refer to him as a Cornell graduate. The Ag school RS mentions, and they are few, occur only in relation to Coulter's comments. I'd suggest making a FAQ section on the talkpage, with links to the key discussions in the archives, so that editors can be pointed to that. If it continues to be a problem, then having a new RFC is probably a good idea to show that consensus has not changed. It's been a while since the last one. --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, yes, we established at the talk page long ago, that this doesn't belong in the article. I wasn't asking to relitigate that here. I was just hoping for some kind of admin help in getting this through to Bubo. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely with Fainites. What Ann Coulter says has little bearing on how we choose to write our article on Mr. Olbermann. If these users are unwilling to follow the intent of WP:SOAPBOX/WP:BATTLEGROUND, they need to be asked to cease and desist, and should be blocked if they are unwilling to listen. NW (Talk) 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as a member of WikiProject Cornell, I can assure you that Mr. Obermann received a Cornell degree. See the article statutory college for further details. Each college at Cornell has a separate admission process and separate graduation requirements, but a single set of intercollegiate sports teams draw their players from all of the colleges, including the NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Hence, all of Cornell is a part of the Ivy League. Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoubtedly those kveching about Olbermann are not using "Ivy League" in the technical sense of the members of the sports conference, but more in the colloquial extended meaning of "old, elite East-coast private university". (You know, "Ivy-covered professors, in ivy-covered halls," as Tom Lehrer sang.) Why they think it matters is beyond me -- it's not like MSNBC is going to pull his show because his degree is from a state college within an old, elite East-coast university. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll jump in here for a moment since my position has been grossly misrepresented. I'm guessing that Steven J. Anderson came here first because he figured I was going to request admin help after he lost his temper on the page and resorted to ad hominems (look at his remarks there 02:08, 5 November 2010). Enough said! Now let me point out a few things:
    1. The official name of the school is actually the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and in spite of what "Baseball Bugs" thought above, I NEVER said that it was academically any different than the rest of Cornell.
    2. I also never insisted that the full name of the school be included in the article. In fact, I've never even edited the article!! EVER. I wanted to discuss it on the talk page before doing any editing. I did argue that the issue should be discussed in some manner in the article, since it is a controversy in and of itself and Mr. Olbermann himself has addressed this controversy on the air. I was looking for some kind of compromise. In spite of what Steven said, there is no consensus on this issue; the robust amount of discussion on it is proof of that. The issue for the previous RFC was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. It had nothing to do with mentioning the issue in the body of the article.
    3. Is this even important? Actually, my bigger objection here is the problem of Ownership of Articles. It's telling that I've been away from this article for 6 months and when I come back, the same three people are there within minutes if any comment is left on the talk page. You can also look at the old discussions, such as here, or here. The same users (usually Blaxthos) put "hats" on discussions in the archives and label them as "irrelevant" or "trolling" or whatever in order to hide discussion of this particular subject as much as possible. So it's obviously very important to someone. The point is that this small group will not allow any edits at all other than their own, and get outright hostile over any contrary opinions even on the talk page. That's not what Wikipedia is about.
    4. Bottom line is, the article could really use a new pair of eyes away from the usual editors. Not necessarily mine, but someone new. As of right now, the article could almost be described as a fan page, even considering the subject is a living person. Certain editors on the talk page there, such as Blaxthos or Steven Anderson could also be strongly reminded of Wikipedia policy regarding civility. Thanks. BuboTitan (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I mean? It never ends. I made some intemperate comments, which I have no intention of redacting because they're substantially accurate, and in all fairness, I came here looking for help before it got to that point. Somethings gotta be done to stop this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do other articles about Cornell graduates make a point of specifying whether they went to the Ag school or whatever? (I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking.) Also, everything Ann Coulter says is designed to cause controversy, so what's special about this? And why does her dissing of the agriculture industry have anything to do with Olberman's career? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs your first question that's been answered dozens of times and the answer is no. Check Category:Cornell University alumni and check the talk page archives. There are over 1700 articles there and not one of them contains that kind of information. Including it in the text would violate WP:UNDUE because we never mention that sort of thing and virtually no one except Coulter has considered it worth mentioning in any citable source. Bubo knows this. Now what he wants to do is create a surprise link so that when the user clinks on Cornell University he goes to the article on the ag school, thereby getting the information to the reader through subterfuge.Oops, I misunderstood what he meant by "compromise". I guess he has no real ideas for improving the article and is disrupting for it's own sake. A Can anyone here honestly say that they believe he's acting in good faith when he does this?
    What bothers me about the question, however, is that it's a question about a content dispute that was resolved a year and a half ago, which Bubo knows. What he calls ownership is what everyone else calls consensus. There's no ownership. A wide variety of editors have no trouble editing that page without any problem. There are a few disputes but they are generally handled in the normal course of things. But, every time one of the trolls and POV pushers gets started on the talk page it turns into a complete, fucking shambles with hundreds of thousands of bytes on this subject alone. We don't need any more discussion on whether that bit of trivia belongs in the article. That was handled long ago by consensus. What we do need is some kind of consensus on how to deal with the disruption on the talk page, which becomes unusable every time the trolls start in on it. Blaxthos has tried hatting these discussions from time to time, but then, guess what? the trolls start to piss and moan about that.
    Is there anything an administrator can do about this or do we need an Arbcom ruling that allows this shit to be deleted from the talk page on sight the way it is with similar idiocy is at the Obama-related talkpages? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So Steven Anderson, I guess the strategy here is to sling enough ad hominems at me and make stuff up until something will stick? Are you going to make a comment about my mother while you are at it? I probably shouldn't even bother to address you directly, but I would really like to know where did I ever try to put a surprise link to redirect the link to Cornell??? Where did I even suggest that?? Put up or shut up. If I'm going to try to assume good faith, then the most generous I can be is to assume that you have argued this issue with so many others that you are confusing me with other people. But that still doesn't excuse making false statements about me. If you are so confused, and there is still so much arguing over this, then that alone strongly suggests that: 1) Maybe it's time for some of the page "owners" to take a break and recuse themselves for awhile, and 2) The issue does not have a consensus (see my comment below). BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    POV Pushers who play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and keep rehashing old discussions by claiming they are not resolved are violating WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT and should be instructed to stop or they will be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. However, the RFC that is constantly being referring to here, was only over the issue of redirecting the Cornell link to the AG College. It didn't address including the controversy between Ann Coulter and Mr. Olbermann elsewhere in the article. There is no consensus on that anywhere. That might also solve a lot of the bellyaching over this issue - if anyone tries to change the Cornell link, just revert and point out that the issue is already addressed in the body of the article. Or another idea, as someone suggested above. Simply start a new RFC. BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pointy disruption that has been explained to BuboTitan multiple times. This is most certainly not a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Since he's a low-contribution editor who brings this up every few months, and refuses to acknowledge the points from the megabytes of discussion on the matter, can we please start moving towards a stern warning, potential topic ban, or some other form of injunctive relief? Good faith editors shouldn't have to repeat discussions ad infinitum because of a few determined POV trolls... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There plainly is consensus in wiki terms. No sensible argument or or suitable source has been put forward to justify including this pointy point in the article despite the many inches of discussion. BuboTitan, please desist this campaign and consider yourself warned, otherwise a topic ban or block will be seriously contemplated. Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Faintes, we can settle this right now. If you or anyone else can do this, then I will stop making any comments at all on the article. Simply give me one single link or a reference that shows consensus on the issue of including the controversy in the article. Can you do that? (*sound of crickets chirping*). And consider this a "warning" as well, from now on, anyone who insists on making untrue statements about me, assigning quotes to me which were not made by me, disrupting the talk pages to hide disagreement, or making personal attacks will be reported. Fair enough? I can't assume good faith if this still goes on after repeated requests to stop. BuboTitan (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Teach the controversy" is not a good argument here. There is no controversy. The original arguments made by editors and Coulter that Ag isn't part of Cornell proper are plainly wrong. Coulters view is not a controversy - just media posturing. Fainites barleyscribs 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, your statements are all empty air you can't produce this "consensus" for us. And you may think there is no "controversy", but Olbermann sure did (since he publicly addressed it on his show), and the article is about him, not you.BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent one is Talk:Keith Olbermann#Edit request from 98.201.172.146, 13 August 2010, preceded by Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive_6#Keith's real college..., Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 5#Cornell redux. Seems that there's been quite a bit of trolling over this topic over time, much the same way the Obama page gets attacked with birther/Muslim junk every so often. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there ought to be a sockpuppet investigation to find out if this is one person pushing the same POV and trying to make it appear as multiple people. Additionally, BuboTitan's particular brand of WP:TE bears more than a passing resemblance to Grundle2600 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Burpelson, first of all, since I've never even edited the article WP:TE doesn't apply. It's getting very tiring that users here are lumping me in with other people!!! The problem with ownership of articles is so bad on the Olbermann page that there are edit wars on the talk page. I'm not kidding. Moreover, this is the only Wiki account I have ever had, although I don't do a whole lot of editing with it. If you think I'm a "sock puppet", then give me a way to contact you, and I'll be glad to call you myself. I am only me. Additionally, I notice you just undid a small edit I made to an unrelated article. Coincidence? I hope this isn't leading to wikistalking. BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On the content issue itself, I find this all a bit mystifying. For UK universities that have a college system, it's totally standard to state which college at that university a person attended, if it's known; I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply. Apart from anything else, it is interesting that a sportscaster attended an agricultural college (Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). By contrast, controversy about the college's source of funding seems pointless and manufactured, and eminently ignorable. Rd232 talk 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Because there's not the same kind of relationship between colleges and universities here, with some rare exceptions in some of the oldest American universities, such as Harvard and Columbia. Rather than the university being a (for lack of a better word) confederation of semi-independent existing institutions, as I believe is the case for Oxford and Cambridge, colleges in American universities are, by and large, completely subsidiary to the university. It's most often the case that the college has, in fact, been created by the university as a sub-unit, rather than having had a pre-existing identity. (And, yes, it does indeed happen that a university and an existing institution will merge, in which case the new "college" or school will carry on having a somewhat separate reputation, but this is not the norm in American universities.) Bear in mind that even our oldest institutions are very much younger than the Oxbridge ones -- and I wonder, does the model of OXford and Cambridge carry over to newer UK universities, or are they more on the American line? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and rest assured that when Coulter and her ilk bring this up, it's not because they find it "interesting" that a newscaster (he hasn't been a sportscaster for a while) went to an agricultural college. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other university that is very much college based is London which is a conglomeration of different institutions of different ages, far more so than Oxbridge. To people who haven't been to Oxbridge they would just say someone went to Oxbridge. It's mainly only people who went there who would care whether it was Kings or Balliol or whatever. However, at London, if you go to UCL or Imperial College, that is where you go and probably have nothing to do with any other aspect of London University at all.Fainites barleyscribs 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should be as specific as possible. The other extreme would be that "Mr. Olbermann attended a university in the USA, but Wikipedia refuses to mention which one". பின்லாந்துF (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there's a degree of specificity which is appropriate, and "Cornell" is the answer to that question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Take another of the America's most prestigious universities for example, Washington University in St. Louis. It's a relatively new university, just over 150 years old. It includes a number of substituent schools: College of Arts & Sciences, the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, University College in Arts & Sciences, Olin Business School, Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts, School of Engineering, School of Law, School of Medicine, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, and a former School of Dental Medicine. However, any graduate of Wash U would refer to themselves as a graduate of Wash U, not of Wash U Arts & Sciences or of Wash U's Medical School. I understand that in Oxford, for sample, one would say say that they attended St Edmund Hall at Oxford rather than just Oxford University. Is that correct?

    I must confess, I don't see the big deal with adding something like this to the article, but that isn't a discussion for here. What is up for discussion is a persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NW (Talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect to Oxford (which may or may not be a good analogy for the Olberman issue), I describe myself as an Oxford graduate, but I am a member/alumnus of Wadham College, Oxford - the reason being that at Oxford and Cambridge students most closely associate themselves with their college, colleges are separate legal entities and all teaching is centred around the college, but degrees are awarded by the University. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposite is the case here (again, with rare exceptions) - identification would be with the university and not the college or school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here, if someone said where did you go to Uni and you said "Balliol" that would be fine if you were talking to an Oxford man but probably considered pretentious by anyone else. Fainites barleyscribs 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BuboTitan edit warring

    Please make edit warring reports to the appropriate page. --TS 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unresolved

    After several stern warnings by administrators in the thread above, and a direct warning on his talk page, user BuboTitan has resorted to edit warring to un-{{hat}} the closed discussion at Talk:Keith Olbermann. Evidence of 3RR violation:

    1. Revert at 08:43
    2. Revert at 09:44
    3. Revert at 09:48
    4. 3RR warning was issued by Burpelson AFB at 10:49
    5. Lengthy discussion/warning from Fainites
    6. Revert at 17:35

    Additionally, please note all the C&D's above. Administrative assistance appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If he has indeed broken the 3-revert rule, I suggest you post your findings on that page, since there seems to be no willingness to take care of it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of thing is taken care of much faster at WP:AN3.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I will be glad to discuss this in any forum, and let Blaxthos dig himself deeper in a hole, since I have never even edited the Keith Olbermann article. The only thing I am "guilty" of is removing "hats" that were placed on the talk page to hide the discussion, since certain user's own mudslinging had become embarrassing to them. These weren't "reverts" and didn't remove any information from the page. On the contrary, I merely unhid the discussion - a discussion that is currently an issue on this admin noticeboard, no less! BuboTitan (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the issue is not Olberman or what's-her-face or the college - it's YOU that's the issue. ¿Comprende? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, so you are admitting this is a personal vendetta? You are embarrassing yourself and wasting people's time on this admin board. I advise that you cease and desist this nonsense. BuboTitan (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, I brought it here because it's not a singular incident of 3RR violation, but rather a demonstration of this editor's willingness to violate Wikipedia policies with a pointy disruption after several admins told him to stop (and said continuing will result in topic ban discussions). I'm sure you don't speak for all the admins here when you say there is "no willingness to take care of it here". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well following the warnings BuboTitan has rather lost his cool and responded by edit-warring on the talk page about a hat, implying I have some personal issue in this matter (Maybe you had a traumatic experience arguing with other users), accusing Bugs above of having a personal vendetta (!) and implying bad faith all round. Whilst it is true that a number of editors are quite bemused as to why it should matter in the slightest whether the college is mentioned or not, the problem here is WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:TE. Fainites barleyscribs 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MSNBC Suspension

    Please discuss editorial matters on the talk page of the relevant article. The other remarks made in this do not help anybody. --TS 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If this story is accurate, it's about a thousand times more important than the question of which college he went to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's already in both Keith Olbermann and Countdown with Keith Olbermann... why is that at all relevant to starting a new subsection at WP:ANI? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To illustrate the magnitude of importance (or lack thereof) of the issue in question here, vs. the real-life situation he's gotten himself into. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the subject of your pronoun "he", I think you're confused (no offense) as to the purpose of this discussion at ANI. The issue at question here is the tendentious editor hell bent on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point after being warned by several administrators; the issue is not whatever you think about the underlying content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what the purpose of this discussion is - it's to decide what to do, if anything, about Abdul the Bubo. I'm simply trying to make the point that even if he stops harping and finds reliable sources who think it's a big deal that Olbermann went to an ivy league's ag school - it still doesn't belong, because it's too trivial. Getting suspended for donating to candidates is not trivial. I've always liked Olbermannn, but this was an incredibly stupid thing that he did. So what I'm saying is that if Bubu wants to edit something about Olbermann that's a criticism, he should drop this college nonsense and get some good sourcing on something that matters. And in the process he should also stop acting like a troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. What does "Abdul the Bubo" mean? Is that supposed to be a racial remark? And you guys still don't even understand the real issue. I'm not pushing a POV and am not out to "criticize" Mr. Olbermann or anyone else. You still have me confused with someone else. The only thing I want, is to be able to discuss the issue of including information in the article without being flamed, insulted, edited, or censored by having the conversation hidden under "hats" so that no one can discuss it. IMHO, this is the result of vested editors who believe they own the page, and can't stand any dissention. This is against wiki guidelines, and is not healthy for any article. You have already accused me of multiple sins, but none of them have stuck. But it's your life, so you can keep spinning your wheels in the ground if you want. Good luck with that. BuboTitan (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's just playing with your user ID, since I didn't remember the whole thing, just the "Bubo" part. Seems to me the issue already has been discussed and you did not persuade. So drop it already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, who is "Abdul the Bubo" ? Fainites barleyscribs 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of duelists in an old story or poem or something. The other guy was Ivan Skavinsky Skavar. I was just playing with the name. I could just as easily have invoked Harry Belafonte and his old song, "Mama Look a Bubo". Or Yogi Bear and Bubo. Or the famous expert on plagues, popularly known as Bubo Nick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Image question

    This has been uploaded by User:Chronos2010, an obvious Liberal Democrat activist, whose edits mostly consist of attacking Phil Woolas, a Labour Party politician. He claimed when uploading the poor-quality image that 'This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Joseph Fitzpatrick on behalf of Philip Woolas.'. I seriously doubt that this is true. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a point of information, there is an ongoing legal case involving Phil Woolas. The image uploaded appears identical to one shown on the Guardian website here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite possible they relied on the (presumably false) public domain tag on the image here. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is PD: see the gallery in the guardian, they won't just make that up, but will have checked. A similar case is this pic I uploaded previously. If you want to dispute it, nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Files for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of Googling confirms that a Joseph Fitzpatrick was Woolas's Election Agent, though that doesn't help much either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're telling me newspapers don't take false statements on Wikipedia at face value? This statement can be proven to be false. The Guardian image post-dates the Wikipedia upload; if it was the other way round I'd agree with you - clearly newspapers and other media sources use images found online, and the identical folding/crumpling on this suggests it was taken directly from here.
    Why would Woolas' agent release the image into the public domain? So his opponents can use it to smear him? Not a chance. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about the other images in the gallery? Where are you suggesting they got them from? More likely, is that they both got them from the same original source. I'm going to email The Guardian to seek clarification, over why they consider these to be PD. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was listed for speedy deletion but the tag was removed by someone who said that Chronos appeared to be claiming to be Joseph Fitzpatrick. Something which is 100% not the case, as can be seen from Chronos' numerous edits attacking Woolas and other Labour and Conservative figures. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Eugeneacurry requests unblock

    I note that User:Eugeneacurry, who was blocked for creating an article about an editor with whom he was in an edit-war on June 19, has posted a third request for unblock on his talk page. Once again, this is an unblock that might require a little consensus-forming, so I place it here: you may discuss amongst yourselves. I have put the unblock request on hold.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I emailed SV hours ago, right after Eugene posted the request. No idea when she'll see it, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock- It's been four months, and Eugeneacurry has agreed to not repeat the problematic behaviour. Indefinite blocks are not supposed to be the same as infinite blocks, and are only supposed to prevent disruption. If Eugeneacurry acts up again, he can be blocked again. Reyk YO! 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eugeneacurry made that identical commitment three days into his block. I agree that his actions in the short term will be under intense scrutiny, which is the main reason I'm not strenuously opposing unblock. However, harassment is a practice that must be suppressed with diligence. That's my main concern. Tiderolls 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's fair enough. I've never had anything to do with Eugene but per WP:AGF I'd prefer to believe that they were sincere three days into their block and sincere now. Reyk YO! 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel obliged to oppose an unblock. The actions of creating a nasty attack page (which had to be oversighted) making all sorts of allegations about an editor with whom he was in a minor dispute are not the actions of somebody well suited to a consensus-based project. Eugene is intelligent, he knew exactly what he was doing and, I believe, how egregious it was when he wrote that attack page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not and should not usually indef ban (which this essentially is) editors for one-off offenses. Yes, he made a mistake. A terrible one. But I think he understands how tight of a leash he would be on, and I would highly doubt that anything like this would happen again. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose unblock as well. This isn't the one-off event all the people above are claiming; besides the sheer nastiness of his attack page—which frankly AGF doesn't apply to, as it can't possibly be explained away as a misunderstanding—since then Eugene's also been using his talkpage to engage in some rather spiteful bitchiness, and to canvass for people to POV-war on his behalf. I see no good from allowing someone who thinks this is appropriate back to stir the pot again. – iridescent 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of those are from the end of July and the beginning of August. It has been over four months since then. Perhaps things would go better with a topic/interaction ban on top of everything else? NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still oppose; a topic ban would be effectively meaningless in his case. He only has one interest—more than 50% of all his mainspace edits are to Jesus myth theory, and the rest are almost all to related pages—and that's the one page he's certain to remain topic-banned from, given the way he behaved on it in the past. – iridescent 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't think anyone wants a repeat of that last kerfuffle, frankly this user's been given way too many chances and we can only WP:AGF so much... insulting a user is bad enough but creating a MAINSPACE attack page is just pushing it. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:06pm • 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No opinion, but the last thing the pages dealing with the historicity of Jesus needs is a disruptive editor. A topic-ban might be a good compromise. Let him prove he can edit other topics in a collaborative way, before going back to the extremely controversial topic that got him blocked previously. Noloop (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Per Noloop, what indeed are these editors intentions should they be unblocked? Apologising for the singular incident, and promising not to repeat it, is fine, but what do they intend to do were the block to be lifted? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- He didn't get blocked because of anything to do with historicity of Jesus pages, so that point is irrelevant. Since he has been strongly opposed to your POV, Noloop, as I have, your comment seems to me in all honesty to be self-serving and should consequently be rejected as not having any bearing on his matter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't he blocked for disputes arising from Jesus-related articles? I've never edited with him, so I don't actually know his POV in depth, or whether I oppose it, or the detailed history of the dispute. And since I gave no strong opinion on this question, but expressed weak support for unblocking, you're seeming a bit catty, Bill. Noloop (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the man is an unreconstructed POV warrior. MtD (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never Not just no, but no until after the heat death of the universe. What he did was absolutely unforgivable- you do NOT create an attack page about a fellow editor trying to out them. No, no, no. The only thing this behaviour merits is throwing away the key. Whenw e're done here, can we lock his talk page, please? Courcelles 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, get over yourself. The issue should never be that he was less than gentlemanly to SV. Seriously, she can chew through metal. A little old attack page is beside the point. The real question is can we trust this strong holder of odd beliefs to be a constructive editor? I think not. MtD (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "(redacted)"? Ok, let's see...in the past, he has been falsely accused of being an anti-Semite (in which case nothing was ever done; the person got a free pass), there has been an implication of him being ok with pedophilia, and now he's a "religious loony". Why do I get the feeling that Eugene is not going to get a fair hearing here? Hmmmmm.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supposed to say "Ack"! Remember? Doc talk 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, you made my day! (So few people are familiar with the user name I have chosen.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -I have great difficulty believing that there's been a sea-change in his view of the world, and that's what it would take. I see no reason that we should expose ourselves once again to the problems this editor caused, and is likely to cause again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His "view of the world"??? How about we put a condition on his unblock? If he just denies that there is a god (especially the "Christian God"), becomes a "faithful" militant atheist, or at the very least a quiet agnostic, then he can become "one with the body" again. Is that what you mean? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh, a little AGF, please: His "view of the world" is that a certain truth has to be told, and as long as he holds this view and sees Wikipedia as the medium through which he can promote his views, he should not be unblocked. All editors have to edit from a stance of NPOV, no matter what their views, and he has shown himself to be incapable of doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock with a full indefinite topic ban on issues relating to Christianity, broadly construed (to include article pages, talk pages, as well as userspace), as well as enhanced civility requirements (like those put on BI restriction). If the editor violates those restrictions, then xe will then be reblocked and directed to the WP:STANDARDOFFER. If xe is nothing but a POV warring SPA, than xe will obviously be unable to follow the restrictions and be rapidly re-blocked, with little likely harm done to the project. If the editor could show something like 6-12 months of productive work on areas outside of the topic ban, as well as no incivility anywhere, then the topic ban could be re-considered. But right now it seems like Eugenacurry got de facto banned without a full ban discussion taking place. If what xe did was so egregious that xe's never welcome back on the project, then we should hash that out at WP:AN and make the ban official. But it seems improper to me to essentially dangle the option of unblocking in front of the editor with no intention of ever actually unblocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one "dangled" anything. He asked to be reinstated almost immediately, and it's been clear since then that he hadn't done or said anything sufficient to convince the community that he had changed. It's called an indefinite block - there's no set length, and there's also no guarantee that it will necessarily end. Whether it does or not is up to the blocked user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By definition, an indefinite block implies the possibility of unblocking--that's the whole reason we distinguish between bans and indefinites, right? And so if it's up to the user, what is xe supposed to do to demonstrate xe belongs back in the project? If it's "go edit another project and prove you're capable of being nice," then we should say that. If it's "explain exactly what you did wrong and what you will do to ensure it doesn't happen again," then we should say that. But if it's just "do some more hard thinking, because you what you did was very very wrong..." well, it's hard for me to read that as punitive rather than preventative. Or if you/others have come to the opinion that "since xe requested unblocking too soon, xe's blown xs shot," then say that. Note that I'm expressing no opinion on whether or not xe should be banned, as no case has been made regarding that yet--perhaps this person deserves to be permanently shown the door. But my reaction comes in large part because a number of people posted above that they will never or probably never accept this editor returning. Well, that's not really leaving it in Eugeneacurry's hands, is it? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's not made any real effort to show that he understands what his problems were before -- not just the attack page, but his entire Wikicareer as a POV-pusher -- than how is anyone supposed to believe he's changed in order to believe it won't be harmful to the project to give him another chance? Wishful thinking isn't such a great criteria for a community to run by (AGF doesn't apply here, he's blown that already and needs to earn it back). No, things are definitely in his hands. He's got to work to convince the skeptics that he should be allowed to come back, and that's going to be difficult, because he's put himself into a deep deficit situation. Not impossible, though -- but it is true that it probably will never happen if all he does is ask again at intervals, so if that's his chosen course of action, he might as well give up. In the meantime, there's no reason to community ban him, as he's not a threat to the peace of the community. As far as I know there's no evidence of socking, or editing with an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems contrite in his comments. We need to hear from SV, the target of that page. But before considering unblocking any editor who goes way over the line, it's a good idea to watch this short feature (try to ignore the ads) and consider the question, Does this[6] fit the situation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • support unblock We spending time here discussing an Unblock. the beauty of Block are is there is no need to have a lengthy discussion. Any admin can block him the moment he steps out of line. Lets give him a chance. I am would be interested in hearing from Slim Virgin as her comment is much needed and will affect my position The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with the adamant "NEVER" of Courcelles and others is that it is not enforceable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Ultimately, if this editor decides he's not going to succeed working through accepted channels, he may very well just decide to sock-puppet. In that case, we've further alienated an editor and incentivized disruptive editing over collaborative editing. Giving 2nd, 3rd...8th chances isn't just a Wikipedia philosophy, it is mostly necessary due to the privacy policies. Noloop (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment On his talk page, Eugene has acknowledged the attack page was intended to destabilise SlimVirgin and expressed regret. If blocks were punitive or exemplary I'd recommend it not be lifted for 15 years. But they're meant to be preventative. He has also undertaken to treat other editors with respect in future, and agreed to submit to civility restrictions.

      I found him so difficult to work with in the past, and find it so difficult to forgive him for the attack page, that I cannot bring myself to support unblocking, but I won't oppose. However, if the block is lifted, and he continues ad hominem editing, I will take action to have him permanently banned from this site. Anthony (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support unblock - He has promised not to let us down. Let's give him a chance to keep his promise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock But if there is more bullshit it should result in an indefinite hardblock. Inka888 18:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Iridescent, but if we really must unblock then a topic ban as suggested by Qwyrxian would appear to be a prerequisite. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. Give it a year from the original block and I will swallow my misgivings, but for now I see no reason to consider this. Even Wikipedia:Standard offer suggests six months, which would be early next year. This is not a case where a generally sensible, respected, and productive editor made a particularly egregious mistake. This is a tendentious inveterate edit warrior who has engaged in extensive gaming of the system and shows long term disregard for the standards of civility and collaboration expected of editors here. Leaving aside religious myths and historicity, we have:
    • Comment. I was asked to comment here. I can't see an unblock working at this time. The attack page was just the tip of the iceberg, though it was illustrative of Eugene's desire to use WP as a battleground. Before that there was serial reverting, strong religious views that brooked no contradiction; an attempt to transport those ideas to at least one physics article; and regular personal attacks against other editors and living sources. I could perhaps support an unblock in future with mentorship and a topic ban (at least for a time) on anything related to Christianity. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No particular reason to believe this user can change. He was only here to push a POV. --B (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock: As the old saying goes on/per WP:ROPE: "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." Let's make this his last chance, if he screws it up then he has only himself to blame... nuff said~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock As per Dave's suggestion above WP:ROPE and watch the naysayers be proven right or watch the user flower into a productive member of the editing community Hasteur (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Might support unblock after a year with topic ban. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on SlimVirgin's comments, until and unless the party agrees to mentorship and/or a topic ban as proposed by Slim. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock with topic ban User appears to want to return in good faith, and blocks are preventative. If he steps out of line he can be blocked. However, it's probably a good idea to avoid Christianity articles for now. --NYKevin @787, i.e. 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - comment - I have had a little chat with Eugeneacurry on his talkpage here where he states his intensions for editing if his privilages are returned and his willingness to accept a possible interaction restriction as regards the user he wrote the article about and the areas she edits. If something could be arranged as regards some kind of restriction acceptable to all, then I could be moved to support an unblock as there is a chance of a decent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comments further above, the only restriction I think would be acceptable would be a restriction from Christianity-related topics (broadly construed); the root cause of all the problems with Eugene was his relentless "sources that agree with me are reliable and neutral, sources that disagree with me are fringe and should be ignored" POV-pushing in that field. Since almost all his history up to now has been in Christianity related material, I'm not sure he'd want that, but if he's willing to accept that—and possibly an "any attacks on anyone and you're out permanently" provision, I don't see why he can't be allowed to come back. – iridescent 18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The user objects to being called a "fundamentalist" and a "religious loonie", but apparently has not understood how he has attracted these labels. If I am reading the discussion on his talk page correctly, this is all still about editing religious topics, although he has now understood that a broader approach might increase his overall credibility and thus make things easier for him in that area. I doubt very strongly that the user would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He has earned himself an indefinite block, and I don't see why we should let him back after only 4 months of piece in that area. Hans Adler 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was thinking of a three month restriction to - Religion, broadly construed. This would allow the editor to grow into a better editor without editing the area he has a very strong opinion about and that caused him the previous issues, and as Iridesant says, a very short civility rope. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see practically zero chance of reform and expect disruption wherever that user decides to edit. Under the standard offer we can have users returning, trying to behave and getting reblocked twice a year. I don't see why we shouldn't enjoy at least these full 6-month intervals between any two attempts. Hans Adler 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need consensus before mass-reverting TigreTiger's edits

    Resolved
    Under control. This is starting to do nothing but attract sockpuppets. Access Denied – talk to me 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Note:Original discussion in a recent AN/I incident-archive

    I started reverting his edits then stopped after realising the master account (Schwyz) is indeffed but not banned, so I'm hoping to gain consensus here. Of course, if anyone found anything construcative that would get reverted, you would be free to restore it. Access Denied – talk to me 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just grab the "rollback all" script out of my monobook.js, go to his contribs and click the button if the ratio of unconstructive to constructive edits is so high that the constructive are so negligible as to be worth sacrificing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That;s the script I started to use. I also have a revert moves script. Access Denied – talk to me 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if nobody objects within the next hour, I'll get started. Access Denied – talk to me 05:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the negative to positive ratio is essentially 1/0. Please, just deal with it so we don't have the train wreck he left behind. I'll be watching on NPP to see if/when someone starts mass creating on similar topics; I'll tag them as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll do it now. Complaints go to my talk page. Access Denied – talk to me 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin please make this 100x faster by using Special:Nuke? Thanks. Access Denied – talk to me 05:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone has done it before me, there's nothing to nuke. Nuke only removes new pages created by a user, not their edits. Courcelles 05:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I undid a few moves, but doing it by hand is very slow. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure, especially since his latest sleeper sock, TurkChan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did some more of them before being indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contributors who are indefinitely blocked are not welcome to edit Wikipedia under other accounts. If you are interested in making positive contributions, negotiate an unblock under your primary account by convincing the community that you will no longer disrupt. If the account is unblocked, nobody will mass revert you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Schwyz was not blocked. Nevertheless TigreTiger got blocked. Lift the block undelete Tuma River etc and things are much better. It's up to you to end this. Huelva (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Holy frijoles", another calcetín títere. He's got a million of 'em, folks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He gawn. The next one that turns up, instead of the "duck test", we could say, el calcetín títere huele a tigre. I translate that as "smells like a sock". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you found 200 you may have all. Definitely I have not a million old accounts. But future accounts - why not. It's easy to create them. Use other IPs, even other ranges ... Huelva (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many of us, and just one of you. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And the thing is, you cannot prevent me from editing. Yes, you can make it harder. But you cannot prevent. The latest stuff was easy to detect for you, I was aware of that fact, so no surprise to me. But the thing is, life is easier for you too, if you just let it go. No actual harm is done. There was a vandal allegation attached to the block of the TurkChan account. I never did vandalize. And I also did not use accounts to have more votes somewhere. I had different account for unrelated fields, or in those cases where the fields were related I used the account one after the other. So no abuse according to the WP policies.

    I would like if we could all work normal. Everything was ok with the TigreTiger account. But someone opened a SPI case related to an abandoned account - one that never was blocked. The TigreTiger creates a stub on Tuma River, this gets deleted, he re-creates, deleted again and so forth, he makes it longer to address a concern by the deleting admin - BOOM. He gets blocked for 24h. And less then 15min later he is indefinitely blocked. And then Schwyz gets indefinitely blocked. And since then, all accounts that the user behind TigreTiger uses get blocked. But not for vandalism, only for the sake of it. And only for the sake of it, edits of TT get reverted, errors re-introduced etc etc. And the real vandals are happy, that people that want to improve Wikipedia are occupied by investigating on TT accounts and by blocking these accounts. And are also happy that TT accounts have a hard time to work, since TT accounts also revert vandalism.

    Why not work together? White flag and lets sit together? Huelva (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW: These all are not socks of User:Schwyz. Huelva (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Could be. You're sounding more and more like Elsie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be all socks of Schwyz. Since Schwyz account is younger than some of the others. They are wrongly grouped right now already. Huelva (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter. It's the first one found, so it will do fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice, there are certain unwritten criteria for choosing the name of a SPI case:
    • first discovered sock is usually chosen as the sockmaster name
    • sometimes the account with more edits is chosen, instead of choosing the older account
    • if the sockmaster name is very difficult to spell, then people might "forget" to rename the case, for the sake of having an easy name to remember
    • sometimes the sockmaster uses a younger account as its main identity, and that account is chosen as the SPI name
    --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwyz, you said above "But the thing is, life is easier for you too, if you just let it go". How about we revert you, block you, and ignore you.
    Or, as an alternative. How about you stop making the massive moves that everybody opposes (like moving "Lake X" to "X Lake"), and instead you concentrate on doing stuff that people thinks that it's contructive (like creating the disambiguation page for Nueva Colombia). Then we wouldn't to clean up after you, and the encyclopedia would still be improved. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And citing at least one reliable source when creating stubs of geographical places. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've had a feeling for a while that this may be someone else from a long way back although I've not been around long enough to have any ideas who. As more and more socks come to light it becomes obvious this has been going on for a long time (latest account is nearly two years old) and by this edit it looks like we may have a lot more to discover yet. Huelva's right when he says that, technically at least, they're not all socks of Schwyz as that's not the oldest account but it makes sense to group them that way until we discover an older sockmaster we already have reports on as Schwyz was the user that started all this. Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it reminds me of LC is that it's taking the same tack: "Stop blocking me for disruption, and I'll stop disrupting." Which is a lie, of course. As with the mouse in that video I posted earlier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Done reverting moves (I think)

    And since the "rollback all" script is acting up on me, let's each choose one sockpuppet and revert a few hundred edits by hand. Ok? Access Denied – talk to me 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    G5

    Should we just G5 all of his unreferenced stubs? Access Denied – talk to me 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds reasonable to me. This guy has more socks than a goddamn Hanes factory, and zapping these articles (the unreferenced ones, at least) wouldn't be a bad idea as long as there aren't substantial contributions from other people. It might discourage him, and it'll give us something to watch for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC) BTW, I changed the header to G5, which is what I think you meant.[reply]

    Personal Attack

    Resolved
     – No personal attacks here. This is a personal attack-free zone. Onay ersonalpay attackay appenedhay. Okay, I'll stop now. HalfShadow 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Turco 85 obviously abused Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed him. But he abused again. Takabeg (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest you develop a thicker skin. He vehemently disagrees but I am not so sure that it qualifies as a personal attack. Someone else might disagree and that's fine. JodyB talk 16:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely not a personal attack. Not even uncivil. Just a disagreement. Access Denied – talk to me 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we use such expressions in English Wikipedia ? If possıble, I'll use them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored. Just don't go over the top. Access Denied – talk to me 16:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    100% not a personal attack. Vodello (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are things like this Inka888 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of NPOV-title and NPOV-section tags

    An involved editor/administrator believed that a NPOV-title tag was not needed and has removed it [12]. There was also a NPOV-section tag for a different dispute, which he removed it twice [13][14]. As attempts to resolve the NPOV-tile dispute, a compromise was proposed [15] without success and mediation and other solutions were suggested [16][17][18][19][20], but editors deny the need for it. I can provide diffs for the NPOV-section dispute as well (the section is the Intro). Despite long discussions these disputes are still not resolved. See [21].

    Notice sent to the concerned editor/administrator: [22]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute, no abuse of tools or anything else to do here. Discussion at Talk:Transcendental Meditation#NPOV-Title and NPOV-section (intro) Dispute. Editing seems to have been light over the past few days, but consider requesting page protection if normal discussion is insufficient. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad you noticed the dispute, but this is not about the content dispute itself, but about the systematic removal of the NPOV tags. I only refer to the dispute to explain the need for these tags. Page protection is not a solution since there is no edit warring. However, no edit warring does not mean that the dispute is small. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was away the last few days. It is interesting as Edith just replaced the tags herself here [23]. There continues to be no support for her concerns from editors outside a group of WP:SPAs who admit to the practice of Transcendental Meditation. Outside editors who have commented are all okay with how the topic is currently dealt with [24]

    Further more Edith was warned regarding harassment here [25]. This appears to simply be a continuation of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor continuing slow edit war at date articles

    After an incident that was discussed at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Editor repeatedly inserting entry at 2012 despite being reverted and led to a block later [26] Das Baz (talk · contribs) is continuing a slow edit war at September 18 adding this [27] yesterday and today. This will be about 19 times now over the past 14 months and despite being reverted that many times he not only continues to add it, he continues not to use edit summaries or the talk page for this, despite the ANI discussion we had and his block. I'm not sure whether a longer block or a topic ban is most appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Doug, my suggestion would be to use escalating blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks. I should note that as I've reverted him and have been involved with him before on other issues such as OR, it would be inappropriate for me to block him. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AN3 filed.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible victim named, may need revision deleted

    I brought this up on the BLP noticeboard with no response, figured I'd try here instead. I earlier reverted an edit by an anonymous editor in the article John Todd (occultist) that claimed to name a victim of one of his crimes, and I'm wondering if we can get that IP editor's revision deleted, as naming this person (especially without a source as far as I can tell) seems to be against WP:BLP. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed it, and another admin can review it. It looks a bit like plain vandalism, but either way.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, BLP violation on the alleged victim - good use of that function. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring and POV by موريسكو / Morisco

    Hi,

    I'm reporting here a contributor who, since he joined the English WP [28], started edit-warring, justifying his actions by the fact that "it has been discussed on the French WP" [29][30] , and editing articles by removing any reference to French Algeria, which are, in my opinion, POV edits [31][32].

    I think that what is happening on English WP shouldn't be linked to French WP and that this kind of POV edits shouldn't be tolerated (I can even mention that this user had already been blocked many times on the Fr.WP for POV, personal attacks and references tinkering, but as I said before, what happened there shouldn't interfere with the Eng.WP) ; this user's contributions are meaning that, in my opinion, he's not here to contribute to the WP, but to "act on other user's contributions".

    Thanks.

    Omar-Toons (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I will issue a warning, per your correct understanding of the relation between different language wikipedia's. If they ignore it, we determine whether the English language wikipedia sanction function differs from that of the French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, if Omar-toons reported here, it does not mean he is right. I initiated an arbitration against him on Wikipedia in French, so he began to introduce informations on Wikipedia in english because he could not did it in french.
    Algeria has been used during the french colonisation to qualify it, this is not a POV at all. Regards--موريسكو (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, and thanks for the note on my talkpage. Whatever issues you might have with the reporter on the French language Wikipedia, the concern here is that the English language Wikipedia may differ in naming conventions from the French Wikipedia and decisions from that project do not apply to this one - if there is any doubt, ask the question on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok,thank you.--موريسكو (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that he didn't understand at all [33][34]
    Omar-Toons (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user returns

    Balubz (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for copyvios on 21 February 2010. Their almost sole area of editing was Phillipine shopping malls operated by SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

    • They appear to have returned on 1 May 2010 as Balubz123 (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and still making cut/paste copyvios. See this edit diff where the text (word for word) originates from www.smsupermalls.com
      Note: they have not edited since 21 October 2010.
    • These articles on SM operated malls read like adverts and are poorly or not referenced.

    Regards, - 220.101 talk\Contribs 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Balubz123 has been informed of this discussion diff - 220.101 talk\Contribs 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the blatant copyvio shown in the diff. To think that this person actually added the website that he cut-and-pasted from to the article is... mind-boggling. Doc talk 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked indefinitely for block/ban evasion, and noted the original account accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Doc, I have also made a post at wp:Copyright problems/2010 November 6 as there is a pattern of similar copyvios on SM Prime Holdings shopping malls. There seem to be several editors who have a disturbing interest is shopping malls! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, LessHeard vanU too!- 220.101 talk\Contribs 20:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Xander134 (talk · contribs) seems to be one of these "interested" editors for sure[35]. What a mess... Doc talk 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - Xander134 has thrice restored copyrighted material after its removal, apparently thinking better of his second reversion, but doing it again today after being warned. He fails to communicate: if fact his only communication ever has been these two edit summaries[36][37]. This is a SPA copyright violator, and maybe a fourth time restoring blatant copyvios shouldn't be waited for. The site he cut-and-pasted from is in the article infobox - it's absurd... Doc talk 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy paste move 10GPON, 10G-PON

    Resolved

    Self descriptive, this edit changed the page into a redirect, this edit pasted it in the new article. --Muhandes (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repairing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, editor notified of WP:MOVE. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    possible suicide threat

    see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Dying. I just thought it should be brought up here. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this could probably use the attention of WMF staff, they generally handle contacting the relevant authorities in cases like this. They're probably just trolling, but generally it's best to be on the safe side. It's a little disappointing that it seems to be generating some rather poor-humour replies on the reference desk. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there's an e-mail like emergency@wikimedia.org to contact to inform WMF, but I'm not sure if that's the correct e-mail. I'm sure someone else will know, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is that email. I fired off a message. Better safe than sorry, and it's not like I'm calling 911 or something. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone, we're on it. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attack

    I've been equated to being a racist, and the owner of the talk page is attempting to retain the remark even after redaction. Can this be RevDel? Statement was applied here, redacted here and restored here. I believe there are also a few other revisions in the page history where the comment is edited, I can dig those up if necessary. Will notify users of this AN/I after submitting. Akerans (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If an admin has any questions, please let me know on my talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, as long as they do not violate policy the "owner" of a talkpage pretty much decides what is kept and what is removed from it - the question is whether you said those words, and if so are they being so taken out of context as to change the meaning and disparage your reputation. You may need to make that case here if you want admin intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a plenty, but I definitely won't sweat this one, and have gotten adverse to wiki litigation even when I have cause. Unless there is a persistent pattern of abuse, such as block evasion, or disruption, I'm cool with letting anomalies slide. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • LessHeard vanU, the comment in which 82.135.29.209 considers an "unfortunate and baseless smear" was in reference to a disparaging remark against single purpose accounts. 82.135.29.209 notes that I would "defend" such a comment, even if racially worded. She/he is more than welcome to say I would defend remarks against single purpose accounts, but race has absolutely nothing to do with this. Akerans (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I proudly claim credit, and was properly quoted by IP209, for saying"unfortunate and baseless smear." I gotta go and fight terrorism now that WP is safe from another instance of silly litigation.
    Okay I understand the context, now. No, it is not a personal attack - because you are not being represented as a racist, but as someone who would find a reason under which a comment, possibly harsh, could be construed as uncivil; in fact, if my understanding is correct, further than being equated to a racist you are possibly being compared to someone who is overly "politically correct" and taking umbrage accordingly... You might politely request that the editor finds a less sensitive metaphor for their opinion, but I don't think it necessary to remove the edit if they do not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we're understanding the comment differently. To me, s/he's saying I would "defend" a racist remark by another editor. So, no, I'm not being equated to being racist. Rather, I'm being equated to someone who condones racism. Akerans (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be a stretch if you need to explain it, regardless of my limitations, and it is possible that your perception of the comment is not that which was intended (and in fact may be the point the editor is trying to make). I don't think this is going anywhere, so my suggesting you make a request to have that wording changed seems the best route. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe IP209 poorly and clumsily tried to argue that Arzel and Akerans did not understand that SPAs are not all automatically bad. I never studied logic, but Arzel's argument could be seen as A is a B because he did C. But IP209 failed analogy seems to go along the lines of This (A) is coming from a black person (B) because I can prove that the black person (B) is a black person (B). I know, it doesn't make any sense to me either.
    It would be impossible for Akerans to understand, let alone defend, the statement, and his confusion leading to frustration is understandable. Is it possible for the parties to agree to have IP209 concede that the statement was inartful and should not have included race? And could presumptions of good faith allow the benefit of the doubt to grant that IP209 would never intend to smear Akerans as a racist or a defender of racists? And if IP209 agreed to remove the statement (with no objection from me), and not try to update with another analogy, would that be a better resolution of this dispute? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:86.154.83.210

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

    At 12:55 today, I was sent this lovely message from an IP:

    Don't worry Kthnxbye, he and Tbhotch are cut from the same cloth, they're a pair of wankers, who have threatened the entire Wikipedia community going back to the beginning of this year. You can be horrible to them as often as you want- hope this is a consolation for you! So Chasewc91, fuck off. 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Not sure why this was posted to my talk page as it was directed at another editor, but I responded with a 4im warning as these were some pretty nasty comments and the IP likely knew better. Surely enough, they revert at 21:51. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 31 hours. This was pretty straightforward, and might have been dealt faster at WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Wasn't sure if AIV was the appropriate venue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Swearword username

    Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RFCUN

    User:Jebacz (apparently a Serbian user by his contribs) has used a swearword for a username. "Jebacz" or "jebač" means "fucker" in Serbo-Croatian. I have notified the person of this being a problem [38], but he has since only adopted the practice of continuously blanking his talkpage (probably thinking people would not notice the name or something). In short: its a swearword and he knows it. Its really quite vulgar indeed, at best he should change the name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The best thing to do, if the editor is not responding properly to inquiries about the username is to bring it up on WP:RFCUN. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, my mistake :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolyn Baker III

    This discussion is now taking place at WP:WQA; closed as it would be considered forum-shopping if both happened simultaneously.

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

    It seem that this editor want want to be uncivil by using the F bomb as seen here and previous instance here. Sarujo (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the big deal? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:Bunkerdiver. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's me. I admit it. I already explained that and I'm not using that account anymore. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't see that you had already been warned about alternate accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not excuse you incivility. Sarujo (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found two more instances of your incivility here and here. And you don't see a problem? Sarujo (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The four linked diffs above use swearwords, but are not otherwise especially uncivil. Our civility policy is somewhat silent about the use of swearwords, other than to say that "gross profanity" can "contribute to an uncivil environment" without defining the term. Is it just the swearing you're bothered about, or is there some other gross incivility I'm not seeing here? And what sort of administrator intervention are you expecting? When you next reply, please include links to diffs prior to this ANI report where you have raised this issue directly with the editor, and explain why their response was unsatisfactory. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is thataway. Please try to resolve this at WQA before coming straight to the admins. Thanks. --Jayron32 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I to take it that anybody can say any four letter word in the book and get a pat on the back? Manly most of the instances that their language was called out was from regular editors. I personally have refrained from responding to the editor directly as I felt that any attempts to properly educate the editor would prove fruitless as the editor has made it clear that it's who they are and that they will continue to use foul language in the future - which they have. I brought this to this board as I don't believe that the people on Wikiquette alerts would help. I had a simular situation with the editor Divebomb over the F word and after a week with no admin assessment it was deemed a stick discussion and was thrown out. So what's the point of going to someone when they'll just throw it out? So I felt that this was the only place left to handle this. But if everybody here insists that go the WQA, then so be it. Sarujo (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to speak to what others have said here. My concern is not that the user's behavior isn't problematic (in my opinion, it IS problematic) but rather that the proper attempts were not made to get the user to correct their own behavior before coming straight to the admins. Asking admins to intervene is NOT step 1 in the dispute resolution process. So, let me clarify: Yes, this user's behavior was unacceptable, but as all admins can do is block them, we should at least try less extreme measures of stopping the problem. In my opinion, all pre-blocking options have not been exhausted in this case. --Jayron32 06:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see. It had been my belief that when an editor didn't take any advice from another editor to improve their Wikiquette, case in point this comment by another editor on their talk page, then that was when the admins had to step in. But anyway, I'll go to WQA. Sarujo (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikihounding by User Whwya

    After a dispute over the Hamersley & Robe River railway, which I considered resolved, User:Whwya has taken to wikihound me now, only editing articles I've recently crated. He has now also gone and nominated and tagged 12 articles on mines which I created in the last 24 hour for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines. It seems, the users sole motiviation is to disrubt my editing and force me out of Wikipedia. Calistemon (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have twice [40][41] warned Whwya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over personal attacks and twice had the warnings removed. He/she seems to have a misunderstanding of basic civility codes. –Moondyne 06:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He/she also appears to be a former editor recently returned with an axe to grind. –Moondyne 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth nothing that in this comment/edit [42], as well as describing another editor as "an incompetent 2003 admin" (I think accusing someone of incompetence is a personal attack too), they mention "other victims, like (name redacted) and me". So presumably there is some history before their 31st October 2010 account creation date. Perhaps an SPI is called for?
    In any case, in this new account, they do not appear willing to abide by Wikipedia's fundamental principles; [43] "As for civility, what is the point of that again?"
    --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked the editor indefinitely, since it is obvious that they are not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia but to be rather WP:POINTy about something or other - possibly regarding plagiarism, but more likely civility. I have advised them that if they are to stop acting like a silly billy then they may be unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help, it really is much appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The now-indef'd editor is obviously a sock, and don't rule out that he might be trying to impeach a couple of outspoken editors by "association" - a not-uncommon tack used by banned editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <groan> OK, can someone check whether his or her edits to an RFC need to be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The AFD he posted was rejected, anyway. We'll see what else he was up to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any RFC's reference in his edit summaries. Do you have an example? I be blind as a bat. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly an RFC in his contribs; don't make me forum shop or canvass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty then, I'll look at his individual contribs and see if anything looks like an RFC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, duh, must be this one. Given that his voice is just one of a number, and that he is currently trying to negotiate an unblock, probably best off leaving it alone for the time being. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His initial unblock was declined. His argument for socking is, "I was an established editor, but when people started railing on me all the time, I had no choice but to leave." So he came back with a self-styled "fresh start" and managed to get himself run out on a "rail" within a week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Somehow, I will find time to read FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irfaankhanabadosh

    User: Irfaankhanabadosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Call it a coincidence or the pages on my watchlist show this particular user constantly violating the WP:IUP. He has a very poor history of image uploads on the commons. His account is currently serving a 1 week block on commons. Instead of updating himself of the image use policy or the topic of copyrights, he has repeatedly continued violations despite several warnings on his commons talk page. In the past two days, I see another trail of image violations here on en-wiki - three of which I have Ffd'ed for speedy deletion and tagged one with possibly unfree a few minutes back. Can somebody help? Mspraveen (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irfaankhanabadosh has been informed of this ANI. Mspraveen (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the editor has never responded to warnings, I've given them a 3 day block with a warning that it will be made indefinite if they don't start communicating and responding. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious edits

    There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Dollar Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer to the question the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

    Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eretz Yisrael Shelanu

    This article has been the focus of two separate disputes over the orientation of the party. The first (in April 2009) was a 2 vs 1 situation, which only ended when the article was protected for a week. It was reopened at the end of October this year, and continued again till the page was protected for a week, which was requested after the dispute attracted some sockpuppets and IPs.

    Currently there is deadlock; on the talk page; three editors have stated a preference for one description and one in favour of another (there are also two other comments, one by one of the sockpuppeteers and one mocking the arguments of the sole dissenter, but I'm not sure these really count either way). Despite the (small) majority in favour of the current version, I have no doubt that the edit war will resume as soon as the protection ends. I have requested input from WP Political Parties and WP Politics, but there has been no response. I'm sure many people will recommend an RFC, but having tried this many times before, it simply doesn't work in the Israel-Palestinian sphere - as soon as the RFC is advertised, the same set of editors will arrive and !vote in a predictable way, drowing out the responses of the uninvolved parties and leading to further deadlock - I would much rather input from editors without a history of edit warring on either side. Hence a request here for some input on the talk page, or some other action. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In spite of your reluctance, I would still suggest opening an WP:RFC to see if outside input can help resolve the problems you're having. One of the things that somewhat helped in another contentious area that I've been involved in is to separate involved and non-involved editors responses. Other than that, there is always informal mediation or formal mediation. Other than full protection to prevent edit warring, I'm not sure there's a lot administrators can do the help. -Atmoz (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Horst Mahler

    For the last few days, a German Anonymous editing from the Deutsche Telekom AG range 62.226... is being making the case for Horst Mahler with increasingly obnoxious arguments. Horst Mahler, it should be reminded, is a Holocaust denier and former left-wing terrorist with a long criminal record. The arguments made by the German Anonymous, derisive of Mahler's condemnations for Holocaust denial and Volksverhetzung appear to be those, of the very least, of one of the man's spiritual fellows and could be made by the man himself. I know that it is not illegal and not even against Wikipedia policy, but it certainly is problematic. German Holocaust deniers take advantage from the freedom Wikipedia, a a foreign-based media, offers them to argue their case quite openly. Maybe that range should be blocked to make sure this is not stretched even further? --Insert coins (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that this rises to the level of need for admin attention. I have made a small edit that should be sufficient to shut them up, addressing the tiniest core of their concern. If the article is subsequently edited to distort NPOV, then perhaps request semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand that second quote. Is he saying that if Hitler had actually conducted the Holocast, then he would be forgiven? Or is he saying that if Hitler's only violent act had been the Holocaust, then he would be forgiven? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The German version is slightly ambiguous but more likely to mean something like the latter. Unless the last sentence is taken out of context (there is an ellipsis before it), that must be the intended meaning. As soon as I find a complete version to verify this I will correct it. Hans Adler 17:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually it was taken out of context. What he really said: "Milliarden von Menschen wären bereit, Hitler und dem Deutschen Volk den Völkermord an den Juden zu verzeihen, wenn er ihn denn begangen hätte, nur weil sie sich keine andere Lösung der Judenfrage vorstellen können, als die Ermordung der Juden." In English: "Billions of people would be ready to forgive Hitler and the German people the murder of the Jews, if only he had committed it, because they cannot imagine any other solution of the Jew question then murdering the Jews." IIRC he argued that there is a "Jew question" (even today), and proposed a non-violent "solution" or something like that. Hans Adler 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I understand the quote now. And he's really talking out of both sides of his mouth with that one. Sounds like O.J. Simpson saying, "IF I did it... Not that I did it... but IF I did it..." Yah, sure, you betcha. It also presupposes that the world agrees with his own hatred of Jews. It's a good quote for the article, if used in its entirety, because it leaves no doubt how he feels about Jews. It also vaguely echoes something a Nazi, maybe Speer, said in justification: "They had the chance to leave, and they wouldn't leave." So maybe this character's "non-violent" solution is to ship them someplace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unwilling to read all that dross again (I did years ago), but I think the idea was that the Jews only exist because the Germans need them in some absurd way (something like God needs Satan, or some other stupid metaphor). If the Germans go back to the early Middle Ages, which apparently involves barter trade instead of money and splitting the country into many little states with borders between them, then they don't need them any longer. I would like to see a South Park episode about that. Hans Adler 18:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Return Germany to a collection of little fiefdoms with a barter system? There's an idea. Should be good for tourism. Though I would hate to have to run a chicken or a goat through a credit-card machine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing a quote from a user page

    In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    :::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Wikipedia in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Wikipedia. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page,[44] but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Right! What's going on with RLevse?

    As requested by email I have backed off! However, it now seems Rlevse[45][46] is not "retired" but just on "wikibreak" who is pulling the strings here and why? He's seriously broken all the rules and I agreed to let the matter drop because he was apparently upset and not returning. However, if he's just on a wikibreak then we need to investigate his behaviour, I'm not swallowing all these excuses. He's either with us or he is not, at the moment he seems to be controling by proxy?  Giacomo  18:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I'd add to that, why is his talk page protected? I can't see any possible legitimate justification for that, especially if he's "on Wikibreak" rather than retired. Since there's an obligation in certain circumstances to notify people (if a file he uploaded is tagged for deletion, say) this seems extremely dubious. – iridescent 18:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's his ghost (and his own talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GiacomoReturned, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions:

    "It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all."

    I understand from your contributions that you have concerns about Rlevse's editing. However, in the light of the aforementioned finding, continuing to voice them in this manner, without citing relevant evidence and by making broad allegations, is disruptive. Please use the appropriate dispute resolution procedure to resolve any current concerns. I do not think that this discussion is useful.  Sandstein  18:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like it was unprotected for a very short time so he could put up a new break template (so short a time, he made a typo which someone else later fixed for him). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So he is far from "dead" and in a land where his failures can be kindly ignored - is he?  Giacomo  18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no point in seeking to address any alleged failure unless or until he returns. Rd232 talk 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Did this get hatted and then unhatted? Saebvn (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it did; by me. The matter needs to be aired and discussed not swept under Wikipedia's already filthy carpet.  Giacomo  19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It was twice closed by an admin and twice reverted by GiacomoReturned ([48], [49].) This is beginning to become disruptive. This board is for requesting administrative intervention. Since no admin intervention is being requested or looks possible here, the thread should be and remain closed.  Sandstein  19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering to clarify. I've got it displaying 2 ways, and my "refresh" button wasn't doing the job, apparenly. Sorry to intrude into the discussion; just trying to follow and track the comments properly. Thanks for the clarification. Saebvn (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah Administrator Sandstein, suddenly not so ignorant are you [50]?  Giacomo  19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Giano has a legitimate complaint here. When Rlevse left, he had SirFozzie post this on his behalf, in which he says he's scrambled his passwords, and (by implication) saying that he won't be coming back. A week later, he makes this edit. So either Rlevse didn't really scramble his passwords, or he did but left the email-me-a-new-password intact (which makes his first statement a lie of omission). Either way, the issue of whether or not he's coming back is clearly in doubt. Raul654 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it matter? He cocked up. That makes him human, not a criminal. Who does that remind you of? Surely not every single Wikipedian? Leave the guy alone and if there are matters beyond a desire for a pound of flesh if or when he returns, we can deal with them then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A lie of omission? Huh? Raul that makes very little sense. Nothing in what SirFozzie posted made any suggestion that email-me-a-new-password had been disabled for the Rlevse account, and indeed someone pointed that out publicly very quickly. No great secrecy or confusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we can't. It needs dealing with now, while it is fresh on everyones mind and before he comes back with all powers restored. We have gone from retired and never coming back to back within a few hours.With both Admins and Arbs all complicit in playing this deal in and off wikipedia. Let's deal with it here and now.  Giacomo  19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deal with what? Your need to get back at a user you very clearly have issues with? Given you are not asking for any kind of adminstrative function here, give me one good reason why this shouldn't be hatted again? Resolute 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK! Rlevse needs to be banned from editing until his edits can be trusted, mentored and approved. As per the many recomendation where this matter has been debated eslewhere, Now he's back and able to edit - we have to deal with his editor.  Giacomo  20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this such a big deal? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. This has got something to do with plagerism stuff. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest hatting. There is nothing any admin can do here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is; he can be banned pending an enquiry for the reputation and good of the project.  Giacomo  20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are preventative; not punitive, not pour encourager les autres, not to make WP:POINTs in defence of reputations or anything else. Since Rlevse is clearly not currently making any edits that need preventing, your suggestion is ridiculous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    His page is protected by an admin, it is perfectly in order to raise on the admin's notice board the question of whether that is appropriate. It looks to me like it isn't. If Rleverse is exercising a RTV, then fair do. We talk about the issue and not the person. But a RTV is not an "indefinite wikibreak". Further, if he's posting statement on his talk page (or Fozzie is for him) which address the community and raise issues, it is the right of the community to question and discuss those statements. I am minded to unprotect his talk page. What say you? (Please no hatting till the issue is really resolved).--Scott Mac 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it does not. we have a former Arb editing by proxy, claiming not to be able to edit, but well able to edit, we have Admins edting clearly on a timescale to allow him to edit protected pages and we have Arbs lying in emails. What is going on?  Giacomo  20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that there cabal I keep hearing about, I'm sure of it. I could tell you things about them that wou*BANG!* Arrrrh... HalfShadow
    This is all part of a great conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.. --Conti|✉ 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one struggling to find the actual disruption here, save for what appears to be Giacomo's persistence on the matter?    Thorncrag  20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Posting hurriedly, so as to resist the temptation to remove HalfShadow's silly babble. Are you posting under the influence again, HS?)
    "[This thread] was twice closed by an admin and twice reverted by GiacomoReturned. This is beginning to become disruptive." (Sandstein, above.) "Disruptive.." that word again. So, by saying that, are you implicitly warning somebody you're getting ready to block them, Sandstein? Who? Threads should not be closed until they're all talked out. The purpose of closure isn't (supposed to be) to gag other people. User:Rschen7754 closed this thread, I think, I presume per WP:BOLD, and Giano reverted him. Then you closed it yourself, and Giano reverted again. The disruptive action here, if any, was IMO your re-closure. Your edit summary with it was interesting, running in part: "Please respect the decisions of the administrators curating this board."[51] Certain specific admins are curating ANI, really? Who are they? Are they listed somewhere? Why haven't I heard of them? Are you one? Can I be one? Or does your edit summary simply mean "Please respect the decisions of administrators when contributing to this board, because they, not you, have power over what may be discussed"? [/me makes note of "curate". Useful word!] Do the people who want ANI off limits to this discussion, and Rlevse's talkpage protected, have any suggestion for where discussion could appropriately take place? For me, I agree with Scott: unprotect user talk:Rlevse. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    It would also be helpful if those administrators instituting page protection on User Talk:Rlevse and the associated user page would put the page protection icon in the corner or a notice on the page, for the convenience of those of us trying to follow what's going on here. Since this has gotten Signpost coverage, interest may increase. Recommend something similar to the notice Uncle G posted at Darius Dhlomo's user and talk pages after that incident got Signpost coverage. Saebvn (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For convenience, here is Uncle G's notice:
    Saebvn (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really sure what the big campaign is here. Let's say Rlevse had not quit after this incident; would there have been anything to "deal" with? No, of course not. He made a mistake and he knows it (it has been emphasised in the strongest possible terms by those on his talk page and those commenting here). After years of dedication to the project, it would displease anyone to come under fire as he has. Can I please suggest we leave this alone now? Constantly throwing it back into the public arena is only going to keep Rlevse away from the project for longer, which would obviously not be a good thing. This sort of discussion isn't doing anyone any favours. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No we cannot leave it, we left it when he annopunced he had retired. He is no longer retired. The matter was hushed and swept under the carpet on the advice of the arbcom because he was not coming back. He is now back. It needs to be dealt with - block the acount until the matter is dealt with. Or do former Arbs have special treatment?  Giacomo  20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)There is plainly an issue here, and it's not really to do with protecting pages. Rlevse apparently either fell on his sword or left in a snit (depending on your POV) because he wrote part of an article by plagiarising a copyright source. According to some, this was not the first time there had been an issue of this kind. If Rlevse was not a hugely experienced editor, admin, arb etc etc, someone would have opened a copyright investigation, and the editor would normally be blocked unless they persuade the community that it was a mistake, and they offer to clear up the mess. That didn't happen, the whole process was stalled by the editor apparently and dramatically leaving forever. Therefore the "what should we do with an editor who regularly plagiarises" discussion remains to be had, and such discussion would not normally wait for an editor to come back from wikibreak, where the matter involves plagiarism and copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he'd be more willing to come back and have this discussion if everybody put their pitchforks down. Just sayin'. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax, FAC, who knows what else

    Could someone deal with this mess? I've got to go dig back in my archives to recover past similar incidents-- I suspect the article is a hoax, but haven't yet checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    More pieces as I find them (since I'm not an admin, I can't see deletions):

    There were other "Pumpkin" FAC submissions, but since I can't see deletions, I can't find them. I also can't find the evidence that seems to link the "Pumpkin" accounts to User:Hadrianos1990 (talk · contribs), who had nine archived FACs for Real Madrid C.F.. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) may have that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like a hoax, it has pertinent references to mainstream media.  Sandstein  19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NPR doesn't seem to consider the group a hoax. The nomination for featured article is pretty much a hoax though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks-- I just hadn't had time to check, and a ctrl-f on the first source didn't turn up the text I queried. The Rambling Man took over the "Pumpkin" accounts for me a while ago, so I've pinged him to peek in here. We have repeat, ill-prepared noms from "Pumpkins", and I suspect an SPI is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have deleted the next ill-advised FAC. I can't SPI things, so suggest a comprehensive report is collated, or else just sniff out a duck and be damned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't even find all the pieces-- I can't recall how or when I linked the Pumpkins to Hadrianos; perhaps if you have time, you can find our first discussion? I have not yet read FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't look at the refs, I went into google and entered the name of the group. Sean Lennon's presence would seem to make the subject notable. The article itself... well, let's just say it could stand some improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I found my mistake-- I queried "Sabre" instead of "Saber" (misspelling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, all (I just spent an hour and a half dealing with two disruptive issues, instead of reading FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandy, I'm on my way to bed, but if I can drag up some more detail, I'll see if I can instigate an SPI tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Now get back to real work...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – Blocked for block evasion GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex "Coyle" Latham (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of the banned puppetmaster 10alatham (talk · contribs); other accounts that have been banned but not formally linked include 2012alatham (talk · contribs) and 2014alatham (talk · contribs); can an admin intervene please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Procedural note: the above named accounts have been blocked, not banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am apparently reporting myself.

    With respect to this thread on the ref desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#what_is_fat_people.27s_psychology.3F. I tagged this thread with a 'please be calm and focused' alert template, because it seemed to me that the OP was trying to sidle into some ref-desk trolling about fat people (which looks to be true as the thread plays out). The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) seems to have taken offense to the template, we've been going back and forth on it a bit, and I may have gone one step over 3rr on it. I'll tell you frankly that I'm inclined to wp:IAR 3rr on this particular issue - the template is harmless and functional, and I can't get TFM to talk to me about it in any meaningful way, and I'd prefer to keep the template there in order to keep the tone of the discussion low-key. But I will bow to your collective judgement on the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag needs to stay, since the question looks like a trolling question. It also has a vaguely familiar ring to it, but I can't think of the particular troll (probably not LC). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Image deletion request reverted repeatedly

    Resolved
     – Larger image deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I downsized File:Carne de tu carne.jpg a month or so ago, as it didn't conform with WP:NFCC#3b. Over a week passed, as is the threshold required for deleting old versions of an oversized image. A user who seemed to disagree with it removed the template,[53] so I (hopefully politely) reverted, explaining why I thought it was necessary.[54] Now an IP (no idea if it's the same user) has decided to take it upon his or herself to repeatedly remove the tag: [55][56][57] and has twice escalated to personally attacking me for re-adding the template.[58][59] Each time they remove the tag it takes another week before it's eligible for deletion, and has never actually made it that far since the IP got involved.

    As it did last the minimum requirement to delete the image on one occasion (it would have been eligible on October 24; tag was removed on November 3), could an admin go back and delete it now? As far as I'm aware it's a pretty open-and-shut case. As is, it's just gonna go back and forth, which is a little frustrating, tbh. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=395416975"