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 Nate2357 (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 10 November 2010 (→‎Nate2357 and Nate5713). 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

    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]

    There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Pound Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which was directly relevant to the question because it made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer 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) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As said above by Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the "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". Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Owns the TV channel in Cardiff"? what does that mean. Cardiff has more than one TV channel available. The channel the program is broadcast on is Channel 4, which isn't owned by Virgin Media, nor is Endemol the producer of the show. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what happened. Basically some bored teenager was watching the TV show while on their laptop. They decided it'd be a "lolz" to edit the article that the quiz show was asking questions about so that it seemed that the producers had got the answer wrong, tehehe! No big media conspiracy, just mindless vandalism. GiantSnowman 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Threads conglomerated because they are obviously about the same thing.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Virgin Media is also an ISP. Do you have any reason to believe the IP is from their corporate offices rather than just a random broadband customer? Bovlb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's true that the Naomi Campbell edit was made before the question was broadcast - and bearing in mind that the edit was reverted by the same user just afterwards - is it possible that these edits were made by a member of the production staff in order to prevent people from cheating (by e.g. looking up the subject of the article on Wikipedia, and quickly texting the contestant?). The producers would pragmatically assume that most people quickly looking up a subject would go to Wikipedia's page and not do any further research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:25, 9 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,[1] 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]
    Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important".
    Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him :
    His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning.
    With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community.

    Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year [2], we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Right! What's going on with RLevse?

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

    These discussions have no useful purpose here except enabling more vitrol to be thrown over the walls. The last few sections appear to have useful purpose in dealing with the heart of the matter, please try and continue a civil discussion on topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As requested by email I have backed off! However, it now seems Rlevse[3][4] 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 ([6], [7].) 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 [8]?  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]

    Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1

    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."[9] 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]
    And, for anyone interested in historical context, why was this diff RevDel'd or Oversighted?
    Here's the Signpost article:
    Actions like this make it hard for other non-Admin members of the community to follow the trail of individual actions, spread out over multiple pages (as Iridescent recounts below), that are somehow related to this incident. If an editor reads the Signpost article, and tries to follow its links there to gain a better, more well-rounded understanding of this, what conclusions will s/he draw (or even a non-editor member of the public at large) when things are removed from the record or invisible to non-Admin editors? I'm still trying to get a handle on this so I can even begin to form an opinion by reading the relevant elements of the record. Saebvn (talk) 21:39, 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]

    The only process discussion related to Rlevse I know of is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. If you have anything relevant to say on that topic please say it there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing DYK, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Plagiarism issue, Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Problem article, and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Copyrights and plagiarism. It's hardly as if the FAR is the only issue here. – iridescent 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing these out. I thought the AN/I discussion had been archived, but now I see that it has been moved to its own subpage. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't this supposed to be the ArbCom that would be out in the open, honest and restore the confidence of wikipedians? VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that Elen makes the most thoughtful, on point, and actionable observation in this string. As she says, "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."--Epeefleche (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullying and tag teaming at ANI

    Several administrators have tag teamed against Giano in order to get a very necessary discussion suppressed. Claiming to disappear completely and then reappearing a few days later is not an acceptable form of crisis management, especially not for an ex-Arb. Rlevse's copyvios appear to stretch back over many years, and checking and fixing everything is going to be a lot of work. He should not be allowed back if he doesn't help with this work to the best of his ability, the standard condition for such cases. I am going to reopen the discussion, but first I want to start the inevitable discussion about admin abuse.

    Also: Saebvn asked about a diff that is linked from the Signpost but no longer visible. The thread was closed before the question was answered. As a result I bothered the functionaries list with an unnecessary question. For anybody else who missed the obvious: It is because the user page itself is deleted. Hans Adler 23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopening the discussion is reasonable. I appreciate the ability to participate in it, whether here or in another appropriate forum. In specific response to Hans Adler, thank you for the explanation about the deleted comment. I really appreciate it, and I'm sorry I missed the obvious. Thank you. Saebvn (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrator or not, why can't we let the guy come off his wiki-break first, before unprotecting his userpage? GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hans, I suggest you not accuse people of tag teaming unless you have evidence. This appears to simply be a case where many administrators felt this thread needed to be closed (myself included). There was no admin abuse here, this thread was clearly not useful. I suggest a better course of action would be to go to WP:AN, and start a community proposal for a ban, to be reviewed upon Rlevse's return. That way time wasted on this is minimised (in that the community won't be pointless addressing the issue of an editor who is never coming back anyway), but Rlevse won't be able to rejoin the community, should he decide to, without community acceptance. That seems to be the only real concern: Rlevse returning without this being cleared up. However, do not reopen this thread, as it's not properly focused on that topic, and is more of a Rlevse bashing thread. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience tells that Rlevse is very likely going to be back, as this was not his first "retirement" and a lot of uncritical fans have implored him to return. And in fact he has already restored access to his account. Hans Adler 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) There is a difference between bullying & tag teaming and multiple people coming to the same conclusion independently of each other. --Conti|✉ 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hans, just so you're aware of the current situation, Giano has been blocked for 48 hours. I'm obviously not going to take any admin action here, but my advice would be not go over 3RR, even if you consider the discussion to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "tag-teaming"? Improper coordination of edits? Please refer to my comment about casting aspersions, above, before making such claims without evidence. For my part, for the record, I undid GiacomoReturned's unarchiving of the above thread, in my capacity as administrator using this board, because while the underlying concern may well be real, this is not the way and not the forum in which to address it: no admin action is being requested here. We have a WP:DR process for such issues, and ANI is not a part of it. I recommend that this subthread be likewise closed.  Sandstein  23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) This is not Wikipedia's finest moment. Giacomo Returns goes down on a TKO for having the temerity to want to discuss something that is actually worth discussing.  pablo 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone mentioned above, this stuff should be taken to AN. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag team:

    By tag teaming I mean working together to avoid breaking 3RR in an attempt to enforce an edit that cannot be enforced by arguments. It was very obvious that this needs discussion, and a small number of admins who felt uncomfortable with that tried to suppress the discussion. That is not acceptable at all. Hans Adler 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) Hans, do you have any proof that they were deliberately working together to a common aim and with a common scheme, as opposed to independently agreeing with each other and carrying out the same action? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I explained what I mean by tag teaming. I am using this handy metaphor in a loose way that covers any situation in which several people work together to win by force rather than argument. It would be absurd to suspect any secret communication in this case. We have more than enough admins who can independently have the same bad idea. Hans Adler 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      "Working together" (your phrase, not mine) by definition requires conscious effort and co-ordination. The definition of "tag-teaming" also specifies that it is a situation where "editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." So I repeat my question: Do you have any evidence for your claim that tag-teaming and co-ordination of actions has taken place? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You asked a question and I have given you an honest answer. It is not my fault if you don't like it. I used a different definition. The outraged reactions have shown me that it is an idiosyncratic definition, so I will try not to use it in the future. Perhaps you would like to ask your question once more now? Working together does not require coordination. That's why wikis are so efficient. Hans Adler 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Your definition of tag-teaming is clearly nonsense if it does not require co-ordination: if you can't see how this is obvious, then I can only yet again refer you to the standard definition which you clearly eschewed in favour of your own one with a lower standard of proof. Since your "honest answer" to my question was essentially "no" I feel no need to engage in further discussion with someone who makes such ludicrous attacks on their fellow editors (those you accuse of tag-teaming, not me, before you ask). ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You are continuing your WP:IDHT. People can reasonably disagree about the way words are used. In this case the spirit of WP:Tag team applies. It often does, even in situations in which the tag team is doing nothing wrong at all, such as several established editors taking turns reverting the NPOV or BLP violations of a sockpuppet. That's precisely why that essay is so contentious. In this case the tag team was wrong, and its members should have known it. You can't keep such a discussion under a lid, and if you try there is an explosion. Everybody must know this by now. Instead of keeping the discussion open and steering it into constructive waters, several admins jumped on the chance of getting Giano blocked on a technicality. He had already announced that he was willing to become a martyr. There was no need to humour him. It was the perfect crime. No need for collusion. This pattern is being replayed all the time, especially in relation to Giano. We can't cure Giano of his apparent martyr complex, and we can't cure the admin class of their fixation on blocking Giano. But we can call a spade a spade. Hans Adler 09:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If you consider that a group of editors independently reaching the same conclusion and editing to that effect constitutes a tag-team, then any form of consensus-building is open to attack. It is quite normal at an AfD discussion, for instance, for six or seven admins to all argue for Keep – under your so-called definition, that would constitute an illegitimate tag-team. That is the problem I have with it: I did hear you, loud and clear, but what you say is simply impossible to work with. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 10:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You are still not listening. I think I have made it abundantly clear that under my definition of the term there can also be legitimate tag teams. I am often part of one, in fact. And for the hard of hearing: Collusion was not involved in any of these tag teams. It was simply obvious for everybody what to do. Hans Adler 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I guess I may be hard of hearing, because I didn't notice any explanation of any distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" tag-teams as defined by your good self. Perhaps you could run over that part again? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Facepalm Facepalm Colour-coded for your convenience. One more talk-back-like message on my talk page and you will be reported for harassment. This discussion is over. Hans Adler 11:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You have said that "the spirit of WP:TAGTEAM often applies even in situations in which the tag team is doing nothing wrong at all." Your colour-coding is very pretty, but you clearly have no coherent idea of what it is you are talking about, nor of precisely what behaviour from whom you are complaining about. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 12:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems coherent to me; editors can effectively act as a tag-team without actually forming a collusive WP:TAGTEAM.  pablo 12:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe TreasuryTag meant the question literally, after all, and is interested in my criteria for the distinction between legitimate tag teams and others. They are of course the same as for every use of a powerful technique: Whether you use it to a legitimate end. A majority of numbers must not be exploited to suppress legitimate concerns. It's unfair, and ultimately it doesn't work anyway. Thus it's pure disruption If anyone else has further concerns I am open to discuss them, of course. Hans Adler 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a martyr; a martyr stays dead and they have yet to silence me for ever. It was imperative that the thread remain open as so many wished to comment, the matter has stil not been properly dealt with, but as I have said elsewhere, that was a testing of the water on Levse's behalf and they now know that the water is very hot indeed. He's not some kind of hero who has fallen on his sword and invoked RTC; he is a common fugitive from his responsibilities, and that is making a lot of people who have lauded him look pretty silly. They need to cut the cackle and start to concentrate on clearing up the mess he had fled.  Giacomo  10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TreasuryTag, this redefines "tag teams" as "any number of admins who disagree with a loud editor." No actual communication or agreement would be required. By that logic, if Giano wants something in an article changed, and consensus is against him, well, that consensus is illegitimate, it's just a tag team. So convenient for ICANTHEARYOU editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us know plagiarism is rampant on en.WP. What admin action would you like, Hans? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's run with this statement. Whatever it's called - variously copyright violation, plagiarism and close paraphrasing, all currently being used interchangeably to describe more or less the same phenomenon, it is not only rampant, it is a standard editorial practice throughout the project. In a recent case, I read over 500 articles, checking histories and sources in many of them. Deviation from what exactly the sources said was penalized, regularly, with blocks, reverts, and kilobytes of discussion on talk pages. Editors, including those with extensive writing experience, administrators, RC patrollers, and editors who just happened to be interested in a particular article almost invariably brought articles closer to the original sources and penalized original expression. This area is not out of the ordinary; it is far closer to the project-wide editing standard than anything else that I've seen expressed in the past week. Indeed, at the same time as we are commenting favourably on the number of BLPs that have recently been sourced, it seems nobody's noticed how a few thousand of them got sourced: look for the key phrase in the article, use it as a google search string, and then use the non-WP-mirror link that comes up to source the article - because that's probably where the information came from in the first place.

    Many people who have commented here are embarrassed that an article with (very) close paraphrasing made it to the main page. Perhaps you should all go back and look at the articles to which you have made any contributions over the years, and see how many of them have unattributed information in their histories, and how many were built on what was unattributed information from their earliest edits. Only after everyone who wants blood here has done that should any of you cast the first stone. And yes, I mean those articles in which you've simply done "vandalism reverts" too, particularly if you've readded material removed by another editor. How do you know you weren't reverting to a copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing state? Risker (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it ANI is not just for requesting specific admin actions, it is also for discussing incidents. The Rlevse copyvio incident was not properly discussed because Rlevse claimed to leave forever. A few days later he suddenly edits his talk page to announce a "wikibreak". The poor judgement shown in this action is almost worse than that exhibited by his copyvios.
    A minor incident is that an admin (I think OlEnglish) unprotected and then protected the page to enable this inappropriate edit.
    But since you were asking for possible admin action: How about blocking the Rlevse account indefinitely to avoid further disruption? How about unprotecting Rlevse's talk page to enable discussions with Rlevse about possible unblock conditions such as his cooperation in the cleanup? I would have thought that things can be handled with more dignity than this, but after this thorough mishandling it seems impossible. Hans Adler 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are meant to be preventative and Rlevse has straightforwardly stopped editing articles, on his own so there's no need to block and no policy support for a block, for now. As for the userspace protection, why should any other editor need to post to his userspace if he's no longer editing? Truly meaningful notices, say from arbcom, can be relayed to the page through an admin, bot notices aren't very meaningful to someone either retired or on indefinite wikibreak. There is truly nothing an admin can do here and hence, ANI isn't the page to talk about worries as to Rlevse's bygone behaviour. I'd say take it to arbcom, but he's already given up all his bits. There are highly meaningful worries about how content is built here, but it goes far, far beyond anything Rlevse may have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, just wait a few weeks (if that; Rlevse seems to be very impatient) until everybody has moved on to other matters, and when Rlevse quietly starts editing again without cleaning up his mess first, his fans will be in a better position to avoid any consequences. Excellent plan.
    One of the "highly meaningful worries about how content is built here" is that apparently you can even make it into Arbcom by plagiarising, and once there, the bootlicking admins will protect you from criticism. I don't think that should ultimately be the lesson learned from this episode. Hans Adler 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I closed the above thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. I found it a relatively good way of closing the thread. But there is no way to enforce that kind of thing. The wiki forgets quickly. Hans Adler 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should unblock Giacomo and Rlevse should get his ass back here and discuss and see the music and work it out, his leaving like this is just not on. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC
    Was that supposed to be a serious and/or helpful comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hans Adler, I have no particular opinion about the situation involving Rlevse. People can discuss that all they want as far as I'm concerned. But I have an opinion about what our administrative noticeboards are for, and evidence-less accusations against unspecified people and requests for banning are not it. If there is a concern that needs admin action now, it should be clearly stated, with the requisite evidence, not just a handwaving "He's seriously broken all the rules" and a lot of hot air. If a longterm contributor needs sanctioning for copyvios or similar problems, there is a WP:DR process for that, including a WP:RFC/U and culminating in a WP:RFAR if necessary. Please help us stop this pointless drama and bring any real concern to the proper forum in the proper form.  Sandstein  23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Re Sandstein) I did have a point, which somehow got lost in the heat and light above; that restricting Rlevse's talk page to sysop-only goes against countless principles. There are any number of reasons (completely unrelated to the current mess) why someone might want to leave a message, even in cases where there's for more certainty that the user's not coming back, as otherwise it opens up all kinds of "you failed to notify me!" potential issues in future (even Poetlister's talk page gets the occasional message). While someone will probably correct me, AFAIK the only non-RTV'd user whose talk page is full-protected is User talk:Essjay, and that's a truly exceptional circumstance. – iridescent 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That does sound like a valid concern. But that particular issue was not what this thread was started about. Wouldn't WP:RPP be the forum in which to request unprotection, and if it is declined there, open a thread here for community discussion about the narrow issue of protection?  Sandstein  00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So your excuse for your part in the edit war is that you slept over the entire story and have no idea what it is about? Great. Hans Adler 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein - Where would be the proper place to discuss this. We have a member of ArbCom who has several copyright violations. He has retired and scrambled his password (but not really), and any attempt to discuss this on his user talk page has been described as grave dancing. The talk page is now protected. Should we file an RfC/U on a user who has retired and scrambled his password (but not really)? Where do you suggest interested parties discuss this? AniMate 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A good start would be a clear exposition what the actual problem is, with relevant evidence in the form of diffs. You cannot all assume everybody here follows your private drama in obscure venues. If copyright is the problem, the proper forum for acting on it would be Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If longterm user conduct is the problem, then RFC/U is the correct venue. That RFC may then need to be suspended until Rlevse returns to editing.  Sandstein  00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer is that Sandstein doesn't want it to be discussed, he wants it to be swept under the carpet. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest directing these inquiries directly to ArbCom. Little that admins can do, and little that admins are willing to do given the touchiness of this situation. --Rschen7754 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's a good place for Giacomo to discuss Rlvese? GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't any place to discuss what actions should we do with Rlevse that isn't attacking the user. We are setting fuel to the fire, and if Rlevse comes back then we could discuss it. No Giano shouldn't be unblocked for this as his editing was disruptive. I also did a revert to close the page, all of this has been unhelpful. If anything we should focus an RFC on Rlevse contributions, if he had any copyvio in the tons of FAs he had. I don't see one. This discussion should be closed. Secret account 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are obviously inappropriate ways of carrying on this conversation, but the notion that "it isn't acceptable to discuss Rlevse" because it's an attack, followed by ridiculous attempts to silence the thread with forced archiving an blocks is utterly counter-productive. As long as a user chooses to participate, his action are a legitimate subject of debate. The thread gets archived only when users are finished.--Scott Mac 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "if Rlevse comes back"? Are you joking? Rlevse has come back to announce his return. That's the incident we are discussing here. In future please acquaint yourself with the subject of a discussion before closing it. Hans Adler 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This clip[10] might fit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also happily editing away on Commons, so it's hardly as if he's sworn off Wikimedia and all its ways. – iridescent 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the only place where Giano can discuss Rlevse is his own talk page, but under Carcharoth's (and a few others') novel totalitarian policy interpretation he could then be blocked for "canvassing". Hans Adler 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlevse has every right to return form a wikibreak. There is no rule on wikipedia that retirement statements are binding, also not for ex-arbitrators. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His wiki-break timing stinks. It sure would be nice if he returns sooner, rather then latter. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but "retirement", followed by a "wikibreak", is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. He had the choice: Suffer a discussion of his copyvios or escape from it by disappearing for a long time. He is trying to avoid both. That's a problem. Hans Adler 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is free to discuss his alleged copyvios whether he is here or not and the community can impose sanctions with or without his participation. If someone thinks that he has committed a bannable offense and is likely to repeat it unless sanctions are imposed then that should be the topic - not whether or not he has a right to edit now. He has that right untill the community takes it away, and we haven't.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard reaction is to block such an editor until he has promised to help with the cleanup work, and then unblock him under the condition that most of his edits go into that. We never discussed whether we treat him in the same way or whether he gets preferential Arb treatment – because he ran away. Now he is back, and quite a few people are filibustering the discussion after the attempt to simply close it failed. Hans Adler 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of anyone being blocked for one (possibly two) instances of close paraphrasing/copyvio. Block is not punitive and would have to be grounded in fear of repetition.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither have I. We tried to sweep things under the carpet, but with so many idiots who defend someone as if he was innocent without looking at the facts first, it turned out to be impossible. At this point it seems most efficient to create the WP:CCI subpage, after all. Hans Adler 01:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody wants consideration of some action against Rlevse, I can't imagine that process occurring unless/until he returns. The only alternative would be asking for a trial in absentia. Or decide to give him an immediate 7 day block?  :-) The latter brings up a second point, unless WP wants to expand it's sentencing powers (e.g. to decide to send somebody over to break his windows), any decision would be a moot point unless / until he was back. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is completely beyond the pale. Rlevse ran away and didn't have the decency (or the strength [11][12]) to stay away. This has given him a few days in which everybody could calm down, but it's not OK to give him enough time so that everybody has lost interest when he is discussed. If he wants to participate, fine. If he doesn't, also fine. I would imagine that he is informed of this thread. Hans Adler 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (added later) My points were really just 2 observations: 1. That there is currently nothing to ask for except a trial in absentia and 2. All of the normal Wiki punishments are moot against someone who is not in Wikipedia. Is either observation even disputed, much less "beyond the pale"? North8000 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Participate in what? You've already been directed to the proper location depending on what it is you actually want to discuss. Or is it just more fun to haul your pitch fork out and act indignant for no real benefit to anyone? Resolute 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, great. The old "We can't continue the discussion at ANI because it really belongs at AN" gambit. Well, there is still an incident that requires admin action. As of this writing Rlevse's talk page is still protected without any policy-based reason, and I can't see a firm consensus to IAR in this case. As a result, he has not been formally notified of this discussion even now, hours after it started. Hans Adler 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear: I am not personally interested in drastic action. I am currently in reactance mode due to totally inappropriate attempts to stifle discussion. Once sane discussion has started I will argue for a solution that minimises stress for Rlevse and the potential negative publicity. Hans Adler 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumping my thought on you: I often see people here rushing to demonstrate how something is not an issue for this board. Come on, we're not that kind of bureaucracy, are we? If there is a need that something be discussed elsewhere (because that's where the interested and affected people might look for it) then please post the request at that locus, and leave a link here. If there is no clear locus where this should be discussed, then what is the harm in letting a discussion take its course and eventually result in some action or change, or peter out... ? Seeing the same discussion bubble up at several places only to be stifled in order to bubble up anew somewhere else is frustrating to me, and I don't even understand what the hell is going on. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific to this case, WP:CCI if there is a credible concern that we need to look over many of Rvlese's contributions for plagiarism/close paraphrasing. WP:RFCU if there is a user conduct issue that needs to be looked at. WP:RFPP to request unprotection - though it is worth noting that Maunus has already unprotected. WP:ANI if there is a desire simply to create drama. Resolute 01:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See, I don't understand all these distinctions. I'd hope that an administrator (or other savvy editor) would assist me with finding the right venue and form to deposit my concern. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANI when there are several different concerns at the same time and it is not clear which of the other places are appropriate and how to coordinate them. As I wrote above, we tried to spare Rlevse the CCI although it should have been opened. According to the admin who has looked at Rlevse's articles, almost every one of them is problematic. I am just reporting what he wrote discreetly by email, I didn't check myself, but only verified that the examples he sent me were indeed problematic. See this blog post for a (different) example [13]. Hans Adler 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aw, ,thanks Maunus, excuse me for spelling your name wrong. Manaus is a city in Amazonia - Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest anyone who attempts to close this thread again be blocked. This matter needs discussing. We'd pretty much left it behind because Rlevse was believed to be gone; that's clearly in doubt now. How dare anyone try to say we may not discuss this? I don't agree with the solutions Giano proposes, but this matter needs to be settled by the community. Giano's been blocked 48 hours for edit warring because he was unwise enough to not wait for someone else to be the one to reopen this discussion, but he was spot on in his edits to do so, and those people edit warring with him should be judged equally guilty. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Wouldn't it be better for someone to convince Rlevse to return to the project to face the angry mob? It looks to me like the pitchforks started coming out because a group of editors (several of whom are admins) have decided that Rlevse deserves a room in an impenetrable fortress. Protecting Rlevse's talk page, hatting and rehatting an ongoing ANI discussion without community consensus, and baiting and blocking an outraged member of the peasantry look exactly like the reasons why people are getting more and more perturbed and less and less willing to let it all go. What are the chances that Rlevse will do the right thing and participate in a discussion about his actions when this anger keeps on escalating because of the actions of his body guards?Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly the chances are zero if we're to believe what we're being told this time. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this issue is still being discussed, wouldn't it be appropriate to unblock Giano? Or perhaps block/censure the admins who inappropriately attempted to close this thread before discussion was ended? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Threads that generate more heat than light are routinely closed. No reason to block or censure those who were simply trying to keep a drama fest from getting out of control unless they, you know, actually broke a policy. Edit warring, for instance. Resolute 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The five admins Hans pointed out, and several others, myself included, who share the same opinion. The point being, there was nothing unusual in a desire to not let a thread that initially was incredibly unproductive blow up into something even less productive. Choosing to disagree with that opinion is fine, but unless there is an actual reason put forth as to why blocking or censuring anyone else would prevent damage to the project, such calls are simply punitive. Resolute 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Punitive ... much like the way that a growing number of people are seeing the block of Giano. Mistakes are made all the time, and it really isn't a big deal, but when they are brought to light people ought to make them right. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The matter seems to be resolved [14]. I personally have no further objections to closing this thread. Hans Adler 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Peace everyone — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey,thank you, welcome. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on Giano block

    • I was personally a bit disturbed by the suggestion made in this comment on Giano's talk page. According to the comment Giano made it clear that he would continue to keep the conversation alive and admins took turns reverting him and then in the end sent him to the chopping block. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy to get him blocked, but it's hard to imagine that those participating didn't know how it would end and weren't desirous of that solution.Griswaldo (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - I support unblocking Giacomo his block was silly and unneeded, the discussion should not have been closed down, we are able to discuss it like adults without closing it down and leaving people hanging and unresolved. The blocking of contributors should be a last resort, we are short enough of acual content contributors as it is, the idea to keep in mind is to avoid blocking editors if possible. Also as it was the locked talkpage that Giacomo was wanting to discuss and it is now unlocked the issue of contension is now resolved and the continuation of his block is punitive only. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support unblocking Giano. The admins who were trying to shutdown this thread prematurely were clearly in the wrong. Raul654 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - I think Giacomo's behaviour was fairly disruptive, in that it was loud and hysteric, but with no actual substance, It was probably not necessary to block him for it though and I would not oppose and unblock.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) We have now had an administrative action directly consequent to a request arising from this thread. This is some two and a half hours after Giano was blocked to prevent him from reopening this thread again after multiple closures. Isn't about time that we accept that his judgement was correct? The block is now preventing nothing. I'm happy to accept that block was originally made in good faith to prevent edit-warring, but I think it would be best if some consideration were made to what purpose it is now serving. If it's no longer a preventative block, what is it? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uphold block The rules apply to Giano. He violated 3RR, and then some, and has not indicated he has learned anything from the block. If he is properly regretful, perhaps an independent admin can evaluate then. I hope I will not see a cowboy admin act to unblock him. As for Rexxs's comment, Giano clearly believed he was right. Do we block many people who think they were wrong? Plainly, RexxS, that's no excuse!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Wikipedia:Edit warring - "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it." Now that it is clear that Giano's reversions weren't disruptive at all the current block can only be seen as punitive and as such against policy as I read it.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with Wehwalt. Giano knows the rules, he knows that edit warring is a quick route to a block, and he went there anyway. If he wants to play at being a martyr, that is his decision. Resolute 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose an unblock for the reasons I set out here. The block was issued independently of any reason why Giano made the reverts. Even if he was right, even if consensus was behind him (and I see no evidence of either), 3RR is a bright line. The block will only stop being preventative if there is a credible indication from the user concerned that it is no longer necessary to prevent edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? What credible indication is that that he will continue to edit war. The very suggestion is illogical since his version was restored. I don't understand.Griswaldo (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we don't go around insisting that editors have to humble themselves and agree with a blocking admin's view. It's demeaning to demand that in any adult area. Once the purpose of the block has expired, then the block needs to be removed. It's only common courtesy.

    --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has a system of governance?    Thorncrag  02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess that was a bit of blind leap of faith. Another problem that arises now is that any admin with the balls to do the right thing has been pre-labelled a "cowboy" by Wehwalt, piling corruption upon corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, in some places in the world, being a cowboy admin would probably be considered a compliment. B-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are your usual cowboys?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be right here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The thing is - he was right. Do we want to be blocking editors for being right? The thread was open over two hours after he was blocked. Administrative action was requested and happened. Consensus is clear that editors wanted to discuss and request admin assistance. The admins attempting to close the thread had misjudged the consensus, that's all. Are you really going to go on record as supporting a punitive block? --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Being right" is not a defence against edit warring. Resolute 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it is. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Hmm, I agree with RexxS here. At the most extreme, we shouldn't block people for "3RR" for removing unsourced and incorrect info from articles. I can see the application to policy or incident pages, where encyclopedic accuracy doesn't matter, might be a little less clear to some, but Giacomo's view prevailed (and is likely to prevail for the duration of the block), so there is nothing "preventative" about the block now. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue the fact that he routinely gets off easy for his disruptive nature represents even more damning evidence of Wikipedia's corrupt system of governance. Resolute 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you want to punish him now because you think he wasn't sufficiently punished in the past? Does that really make sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like you, I wish only that he be treated in the same fashion as anyone else. Given it is very, very rare for a 3RR block to be truncated, logic argues that if we were to treat Giano fairly, his block would last until its expiry. This, of course, is the problem with Giano. Any time he crosses the line, his friends come along to wikilawyer his way out of it. The truth is, until we begin to treat Giano's disruption the way we treat that of others, he will continue to believe the rules do not apply to him. Unblocking him early serves only to encourage future disruption. Resolute 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You see "disruption" in the strangest places. The disruption has actually been caused by the tag-teaming admins who colluded in this block to silence criticism of their caste, but they will escape without censure. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can easily show Giano crossed 3RR. All you have is an unsubstantiated claim. As noted above, casting aspersions isn't going to get you far. Resolute 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikilawyering is "asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". I'm not quoting policy at you, I'm just asking for common sense to prevail. I do understand that you feel an unblock now would "encourage future disruption", but punitive blocks don't modify behaviour; they merely cause resentment. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Resolute's point is, I think, why we are not seeing cowboys appearing. If he were blocked for incivility, they could argue interpretation of the rules, and say what he said wasn't uncivil (the fact that it implied that the other editor was all sort of nasty things being quite beside the point). Cowboys are a little less likely to act for 3RR, a brightline test where the block is rarely reduced.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I've got no comments atm on other aspects of this whole mess, but freakin' a, undo this ridiculous block of Giano already. And I say that as someone who's butted heads with the guy before. If nothing else, this LOOKS like a huge Conflict of Interest. Even if Giano broke the letter of some rule, surely this constitutes an exceptional situation and he was perfectly within his rights to continue the discussion. Or wait ... maybe Giano can retire for... say, 6 hours, the block is removed, and then he comes back as if nothing happened. Problem solved, ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (eyes boggle) Conflict of interest? Would you mind sharing with the rest of the class?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Giano brings up legitimate issues with regard to an admin's (and also an arb's) behavior. Other admin's flock to beat him down and one of them eventually blocks him under a flimsy pretext. Sorry, but this looks very much like the "rule police" is protecting one of their own, or at least smacking down an uppity content creator who generally has problems with the way this place is run. I can't see how one can avoid the interpretation that this is a "must silence non-admin complainers" kind of block. So, if you'd like, it's a "class" conflict of interest though maybe not a "personal" one. The whole thing also illustrates clearly the deep polarization on Wikipedia between content creators and those who police/smack them around (I'd actually exclude you personally from that Wehwalt). Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yes, I do have a foot in both camps, don't I? :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rare but it happens and more power to you. The general point still stands. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock, or at least reduce to time served. Giano technically breached 3RR - bad. But it wouldn't have happened if people hadn't insisted on repeatedly closing down discussion on an incident. Blocking here goes with the letter of the law, but I don't think anyone's covered themselves in glory here. Rd232 talk 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other things Giano could have done. He chose to violate 3RR. He Just Didn't Care. To unblock him without him even asking would be a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other things the admins involved could've done as well, rather than tag team on Giano. I'm getting a sense that for the first time a few of these admins are getting an idea of what it is like to edit a controversial topic. The difference is that there's nobody to block and bully them around. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose an unblock he was clearly edit warring on a thread that should have been closed because it was bashing another editor whose not here to defend themselves. (Note I did one of the reverts, and I don't consider it disruptive unlike several people, block me if you want I still stand by it). Secret account 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of course you do, since you were one of the people tag teaming Giano. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't tag teaming, I did what was right for the project and Rlevse, that discussion didn't serve any purpose but to attack Rlevse. The only thing is that he did stop edit warring after I did the final revert, and did some edits after my warning, so if he's unblocked it's for a reason. Secret account 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giano should be unblocked right now. Neither the block (nor the belated report at WP:AN3) served any preventative purpose. Edit warriors may be blocked, not must be blocked. Moreover the way I read it, the edit-warring policy mainly reflects practice regarding article space, not this noticeboard. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He shouldn't just be unblocked, since there's always the "scar" of the block in his block log. The unblocking description should indicate that this was a "stupid block". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Giano has a thick enough skin not to bothered about such scars. The block was made in good faith, even though it is well past its "sell-by date" now, and we don't need to be making demands of any unblocking admin. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to you to decide the thickness of Giano's skin. If it was some no-name editor who did the same things as Giano and got blocked in the same way, it's still be a bad block. Of course then we'd not be having this discussion but that's a reflection of the problem withno how Wikipedia is run not with this particular issue. Volunteer Marek (talk)
    I agree with all four of your points, and stand by all four of mine. --RexxS (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a serious accusation. Would you care to detail the admins you feel behaved poorly, and the manner in which they breached WIkipolicies?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, there is deep polarization. But there's no reason why the default of "no consensus" should be to screw an editor over by keeping him blocked. Unlike article space edits, "no consensus" in terms of a block should lead to an overturning of the block. If enough people object then chances are the block was bad, and since blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive unblock him already. There's no "tyranny of the status quo" here. The threshold for overturning bad blocks is a lot lower than for changing some edit on some article somewhere since a block is alot more serious. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


          • Status quo. WP:3RR is usually a non-negotiable, bright line rule around here. He broke it, and the fact that the discussion continued without him anyway shows that it was not necessary to do so in the first place. Giano indicated he was willing to cross that line anyway, and he knew the consequences of doing so. The only question now is whether we actually show the rules apply to him or not. Resolute 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly do you get the idea that "WP:3RR is usually a non-negotiable, bright line rule around here"? It depends on the circumstances. Policies like NPOV or NOR or no plagiarism and copyvios are bad are "non-negotiable". 3RR is totally negotiable. You've been spending too much time on the social-network aspect of this site, but this is after all an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You very clearly have little understanding of my history at Wikipedia. Not to mention of how 3RR is routinely applied. Resolute 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you very clearly have little understanding of my history at Wikipedia, or of which part of Wikipedia's policies are "negotiable" and which ones are not. To spell it out for you, content-related policies, such as no-plagiarism, no-copyvio, NPOV and NOR are non-negotiable. Behavioral policies such as 3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and all the rest ARE in fact "negotiable" since they represent only a "means towards an end" of writing a decent encyclopedia, and they are not an end in and of themselves. Please read up on these policies again and look for which ones actually say "non-negotiable" in their respective pages. I don't care how 3RR is "routinely applied" - I have no idea either, but if it's applied badly then that's no fault of mine, or Giano's. The fact that many of Wikipedia's admins have their priorities topsy-turvy is not an sound argument for "topsy turvy is good". Freakin'a you're an admin and I'm not and I seem to have read actual Wikipedia policies way more than you have or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock Seems a tad hasty to me to shut down a discussion that is attracting comment a couple of hours after it has been opened. To do so repeatedly is poor judgement. Giano is in the right here, 3RR or no 3RR.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock Irresponsible action at best. Vodello (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo this bad block. Resolute, above: "He routinely gets off easy for his disruptive nature" ? His disruptive nature?[15] Kindly think for a few seconds before you hit save. Are you kidding? Are you an admin? Yes indeed, I see you're an admin of five years' standing. And you make such a blatant personal attack—attack on somebody's personality—in a public forum? Have you ever heard the phrase "Comment on the content, not on the contributor"? (FYI, it's the nutshell version of WP:NPA.) I hardly ever make personal attack blocks, but say something like that again, about anybody, and I'll block you. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    You do realize we are discussing Giano here, right? G-i-a-n-o? Who is wont to make statements about other editors which imply negative things about their intelligence, understanding, competence, and integrity?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd never impugn your intelligence, understanding, competence, or integrity, Wehwalt. They're fine as far as I know. And I admire your articles. But the intelligence and integrity of that particular post of yours stinks. S-t-i-... oh, never mind. Bishonen | talk 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Well, there's room to argue on the intelligence. Saddened that you'd question my integrity, though. Thank you for the praise on the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with a personal attack made by another editor, who ironically is arguing for a "letter of the law" application when it comes to Giano. Maybe Resolute should block themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano's block log and history speaks for itself. Resolute 02:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, as some missed my point, it is not his nature that has led to sanctions, it is his actions. And those were, and are, his actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please bear my warning in mind, Resolute. Bishonen | talk 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Please continue to talk down to your opposition. It will surely make you seem like the most mature and competent admin in this discussion. Vodello (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock Everything here has been blown way out of proportion. Copyright violations and plagiarism are big deals, but they're not the end of the world. As I recall, User:Steve Smith, also on ArbCom, brought to the community's attention that some articles he had worked on contained copyright vios. He didn't retire, he fixed them. I don't recall his talk page being protected or threads discussing the articles being prematurely archived. Rather than dealing with this head on, we've had admins and others going above and beyond in an attempt to protect someone who has broken the rules. That's not acceptable and Giano was unfortunately right in undoing some poorly thought out actions. Yes this discussion is about Giano, but perhaps it should be about the wagon circling that occurred here. AniMate 02:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve's alleged copyvios were an instance where he didn't paraphrase a couple of sentences enough for somebody's likings. Roger Davis had same allegations leveled against him but there it was mostly an interpretation of whether or not he adequately translated a passage or two from French. Neither one of them copy-pasted stuff from sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No wonder Wehwalt believes that "good" admins will be lost if there would be term limits for Admins after which they would have to stand for re-election  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No wonder indeed, as he's quite right; many of them would be shown the door. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be interesting if all the admins agreed to take no admin action of any kind for a day or two. Then see how much "better" things get under total anarchy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was my thought, but it needed a non-admin to actually say it ...--Wehwalt (talk)
    • Yes, I would enjoy acting like they do, to them. And if one of them blocks one of us, all our friends come out of the woodwork and attack them, calling them idiots in barely civil language.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    but wouldn't the writing part be a bit of a problem for you all?  Giacomo  10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother with writing, when they could spend all day attacking admins? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I could easily get addicted to rubbishing others all day instead of writing FAs. It astonishes me that a few find time for both. Do you think they are actually committees? Perhaps in a home for brilliant, wayward youth or some such?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, that could be construed as a personal attack (by the guilty, at least). :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, they might prove to be excellent admins. Never know until you try. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (reply to Giano) Because there is some technical complexity in each role, the event would best organised as pairings of admin and content creator. Each partner would mentor the other in the technical details of the tasks which they customarily perform. This would help ensure that they are done properly and both partners might profit from the instruction. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunate outcome

    We could have used this situation to everyone's benefit. The issue of inadvertently plagiarizing needed a higher profile (that's the one good thing to emerge from this). The FAC and TFA review processes could use a bit of tightening, because what happened was part of a systemic failure. Rlevse could have stayed around and taken responsibility for his role in it, and helped to identify any articles that might have the same issues, but could otherwise have continued as a valued Wikipedian. I think he wanted to do that, but it's hard in the face of such hostility. Now instead he's exercised his right to vanish, throwing away years of work. I'm wondering whether there's still time to turn things around. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed entirely. That's why I tried to close the vitriol-filled discussion above. There is probably a real issue here that needs discussing, but in the structured environment of an RFC, not the sort of wiki-lynching that some seem to be intent on.  Sandstein  07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's time. Not necessarily for Rlevse.. trust me folks, considering the things he said (in public and private) about RTV as used by others, I don't think there's any way he'd feel comfortable coming back. However, I think rather than finding someone who has inadvertently slipped over the line, and piling on to them to the point where they felt that they wouldn't or couldn't fix the issue, what we can take from this is find a way to improve everyone's editing habits.
    To use myself as an example, I asked a user I was friendly with to go over two articles I was the primary person who expanded the articles to make sure I hadn't stepped over the line myself, and the response was positive (The two articles, if anyone else wants to take a whack at them to make sure I haven't stepped over the line, are Art Heyman and Connie Hawkins.) I'd suggest that's a good way to try to move on from this massively unfortunate situation, and to improve the encyclopedia, which is what we're here for. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a section to WP:PLAGIARISM explaining some different ways of inadvertently doing it, and advising all editors to be on the look out for it in their own writing; see here. But what I meant about Rlevse was: is it too late for him to rethink his RtV? Not return as a different person, but just undo it? Because to move within one day from wanting to return to disappearing forever is a drastic step for a long-term editor. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having worked with him, I'd have to say the chances of him undoing this are slim to none (no pun intended). We all have various stages of burnout at various times, this... incident or series of incidents comes at the worst possible time. I honestly think the best way to move on from this is to let him deal with it. If he comes back, we can deal with any remaining issues with his editing at this time, however, repeatedly trying to drag someone back who wants nothing more to disassociate themselves from Wikipedia (ESPECIALLY in an attempt to get a pound of flesh), doesn't do anyone any good. SirFozzie (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well whether he chooses to return or not, I think somebody still needs to go through his old articles to check for plagiarism - it's not clear to me that that has been done yet. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PLAGIARISM needs looking at. If, as Risker said above, standard editing practice is in breach of it, then either standard editing practice has to change (which will require a major effort to achieve any semblance of success), or the guideline has to change, or a bit of both. There are ongoing discussions at WT:Plagiarism. For the record, the last messages Rlevse received on his talk page, before it was deleted, were all friendly ones encouraging him to stay. --JN466 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to extend an invitation to Rlevse to undo his RtV, help us sort out any remaining problems in particular articles, help to develop a useful plagiarism guideline, and ways of spotting it in future. It isn't easy to straddle the line between OR and too-close paraphrasing. We place a big burden on editors, some of whom are not used to writing, some of whom are very young. Then there are the wikicups, and bronze stars, and the insistence that we all be content contributors with the baubles on our user pages. I often wonder what Wikipedia would be like if there was an insistence that we all be technically minded first and foremost—to get through an RfA you were grilled about how many bots you'd created. I'm not making light of what he did. I just think the best way forward (for him and the rest of us) is for him to be part of the solution. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's a nice thought and would be a much more healthy and positive outcome all round. --JN466 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with your proposal. Something like this has been my desired outcome from the start, but as far as I can tell it was mostly Rlevse himself who has made it impossible so far, as well as his uncritical supporters who didn't bother to actually check a few articles of his before trying to defend him.
    Wikipedia is an attractive social environment, very similar to a MMORPG. This attracts users who are not fully qualified for working on our primary goal, and in fact it even attracts users who are not interested in our goal. As a result we have a system in which a lot of users pay lip service to the encyclopedia building and engage in perfunctory actions to keep up appearances in order to become admins and enhance their reputation. This is not healthy at all.
    IMO we must employ carrots and sticks if we want to fix this.
    • We must make it clear that if you see your role on the social side, then that's fine. There are plenty of technical things you can do in main space, plenty of RfCs to be replied to, plenty of AfDs that need people who look for sources, etc. These are all legitimate roles that should be valued as much as content creation. The attacks against admins who don't create content must stop. (I have sometimes made that mistake myself, but I will try to stop.)
    • We must also make it clear that copyvios and large-scale plagiarising are worse than not creating any content at all, and that if you do it the odds are you will be caught. Given how widespread the problem is, I guess we need a conditional amnesty: Actions done before the new rules come into effect don't count, so long as the editor credibly undertakes not to repeat the behaviour. We must also simplify our copvio/plagiarism rules so that everybody can understand them, and become proactive about educating every active user about them. Hans Adler 09:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also been guilty of insisting that new admins be content contributors, but I'm not going to do it anymore, because it leads to forcing people to do things they can't do well (I can only imagine the chaos I'd cause if I tried doing technical stuff; even editing an infobox is a fraught occasion). This is a huge site and we need people of all talents. The only thing that can't be allowed is that admins look down on content contributors; that's the thing that really gets people's goats. It's partly because of that that editors insist admins should know what content looks like from the contributor perspective—to make sure no entirely separate management tier develops. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a subtley different point from the one that Hans Adler made. What he said was that "The attacks against admins who don't create content must stop", which is of course a perfectly reasonable position. Attacks in general ought to stop, against anyone. What you are suggesting though is that it is improper to oppose an admin candidate because (s)he lacks content building experience, which is an entirely unreasonable proposition. Somewhat akin to saying "well, you're a crap teacher, so why don't you try running the school instead?" Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question, is there a noticeboard where one can ask for their work to be reviewed for potential plagiarism? I'd like to think I know the rules and have been careful, but a few extra set of eyes would be reassurring. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is WP:CCI what you're looking for? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No; I don't think I am in violation; I'd just like another pair of eyes because I may be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How did things get this bad?

    How did things get this bad? How did plagiarism vs OR (sometimes a tricky balance for any editor, if very little information on an issue is available) get so out of hand, how did dealing with it lead to such an experienced editor leaving (and then kinda perhaps-not leaving and then leaving again), how did attempts to discuss the issue get repeatedly closed down, etc. We have problems every day, but collectively we rarely handle them this badly. Think on it. Rd232 talk 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A little bit of hyperbole there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, things got so bad because the editor in qiestion's friends do not wish to discuss it, and wrongly used their considerable powers to attempt supresion. That's not hyperbole its corruption.  Giacomo  10:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things got so bad because other editors did not feel a lynching was appropriate. And I wasn't aware that throwing a hatnote on a discussion section required any powers beyond what the standard autoconfirmed editor already has? Resolute 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, I guess that's an answer of sorts, illuminating in its own way. Rd232 talk 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Grrr, this is a good place to acquire a massive headache. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A word from the trenches

    My goodness, some people have yet to learn the lessons to be learned from Usenet!

    Whilst you lot have collaboratively managed to put together 104KiB of text here, I've been putting together some 36KiB of text of my own. It's User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood, a rewrite that I'm hoping to hand off to Secret (talk · contribs) and drop in place of Grace Sherwood, revision deleting the content that we keep finding problems with.

    All of the detailed exegesis over the difference between "retirement" and "wikibreak" is an attention-diverting irrelevance. The problem to work on here is the articles, and they are where the attention is needed. I actually asked for help with the Sherwood article, from people whom I thought might be interested in rescuing a featured article from having to go back to this state because of foundational copyright problems. As you can see, even there the discussion rapidly lost the focus on the task.

    Yes, Secret and Iridescent are right, above. If you want to discuss this, there are plenty of on-going discussions of the many things that have fallen out of this affair, that are the proper venues to talk about it. There's even a whole sub-page of this very noticeboard devoted to it. Here's your roadmap:

    There are also, of course, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, and … well … all.

    If you want to help, rather than go the Usenet route, you can help with finding Syer1959, mentioned at Talk:Grace Sherwood#Source query. Kudos to Slimvirgin, Secret, and the others who have decided that this isn't about "governance" or Giano in any way, and who have mucked in with the content work with respect to finding and evaluating sources. Examples to all, I suggest. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, I assume you mean "finding Syer (1959)". From the way you wrote it, Uncle G, it would appear that a now-missing contributor with the user name of "Syer1959" has some information needed to fix the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, that's exactly how I read it. Knew I was spending too much time here, this proves it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    CCI

    I think at this point that a WP:CCI is necessary. (I have just blanked Wat Pasantidhamma for revision or permission after this was pointed out to me.) I have to admit that I'm not anxious to add another CCI to our massive list, but the whole point of CCI is to permit coordinated, systematic review. Generally, I would not open a CCI without five examples of current issues (to avoid wasting community resources), but there is a cloud of suspicion that will persist unless content is evaluated for additional concerns. Given that and the ongoing uproar, I think we should just go ahead. I want to be clear, though, that CCI is not a disciplinary process. We have CCIs open on contributors who are still editing and are very good content contributors. When contributors persist in violations repeatedly after warnings, then there may evidence of intention or inability to comply, but I have many times encountered contributors who were simply unaware that they were creating problems. WP:AGFC is our guidance here, and it's a good one. The purpose of a CCI is to make sure that content is clear of concerns. That's all. I've considered just going ahead and opening this one, but the situation is so fraught with tension already that I decided it better to announce it first. (Which I hope will be the better choice, because for all I know the announcement may cause more tension than the fait accompli would have done. :/) Are there any reasonable objections to a coordinated, systematic review? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as it's best to clear things up. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection, it seems necessary. --JN466 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. There is evidence by now that material was copied over in good faith but without understanding the underlying issues, or too closely paraphrased. Due diligence requires that we investigate issues we're aware of, and that's the short and the long of it. MLauba (Talk) 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. There's nowhere to put 500k of threaded commentary in a CCI (thank G-d), but it does provide a mechanism for checking a user's contributions in an orderly manner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanishing act

    Seeing as Rlevse has vanished, how are we to know what his 'new' account will be if/when he returns? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason not to trust that he meant what he said? Why all the assumptions of malfeasance prior to it happening? -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Without trust (all the way through to letting IPs edit most pages as they please), little here can work anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We trusted hin with all his award winning pages. Remember? You are not a person to be relied upon here Gwen, with your blatent bias and disreputable tag teaming behaviour.  Giacomo  17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought RTV was exactly that, you are supposed to be going and not coming back. If you are found editing it is basically sockpuppetry, or that was what happened to ChrisO. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob, can you expand on your comment about vanished user User:ChrisO? Their user page was deleted by Avraham and remains deleted as of now.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - User:ChrisO or rather Vanished user 03 was check usered and indefinitely blocked as L'ecrivant_ Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea it's hard to fight off addiction to this website, vanished users do comeback, with my private email conversations with Rlevse I don't think he's one of them. Secret account 17:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are saying ChrisO, who was already under sanctions, invoked his right to vanish when he was very likely to be placed under further sanctions in the then-open ArbCom proceeding about climate change? The sockpuppet was blocked by Avraham who noted it was checkuser block, so Avraham was aware that this was ChrisO. It seems odd that Avraham would not have alerted ArbCom of this. Surely if one of the Arbs knew that ChrisO was using sockpuppets they would not have written this: "Because ChrisO retired from the project and exercised his right to vanish while sanctions were being actively considered against him in this arbitration case, should he wish to resume editing under any account name at a future date, he is instructed to contact this Committee before doing so". Fortunately, they were wise enough to include a note about abusing the right to vanish and states in part "their previous identity will be fully restored". I don't know how the Arbs could have missed this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also said this yesterday, Wikipedia is not a police state, we should assume that all volunteers are doing their best for the project. I see that more as a simple hiccup or a burp at the end of a good meal. I can be hard for users to let go of editing here. We are all volunteers and we need to attempt to get on as well as possible and let old disputes go. As more than one user has commented, if Rlevse had felt a more calm environment he may well have stayed around to help with any needed clean up. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom knew all about it, DC. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it strange, then, that ChrisO's vanishing has not been reversed. Can that be done now, or does this need to go back to ArbCom for enforcement of something they overlooked when they added that clause about right to vanish? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a look at this link mentioned above. Really, if a source states simple facts or basic sequences of events, there are only so many ways to paraphrase that thought. Plagiarism is verbatim reproduction of full sentences/ paragraphs. And I must mention the manner Rlevse is being pilloried here by editors some of whom who have no notion of decency and fairness themselves or are here because they have appear to have mistaken gutter-sniping for constructive commentary is stomach-turning at best. No wonder Wiki-participation has taken a dive. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a cage match. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or a MUD. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again?

    Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now. - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    Once again, I have to ask: is there any direct action to be taken by admins here? Or is this just more saber rattling by those who want to rail against the powers that be? If the former is "no," can we close this and open a proper RfC to discuss the real issue of plagiarism on Wikipedia? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've archived the earlier discussions (whether that sticks is another question.) I don't believe that admin attention is needed at this time, especially since flow seems to be moving towards CCI which is a more appropriate venue. The question of R. vanishing might have some worth, if discussed in the more strict terms above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the only thing I can see which concerns Admins is that some thread, no matter how bitter & contentious, are better & more quickly handled by letting them run on. (And no, I'm not expressing an opinion for or against anything that had been said. The thread had some entertainment value, but I support Der Fuchs' archiving of this thread. The horse is dead, folks, & we now know what everyone thinks about the matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said it before and I say it again: Stop warring over discussion closures and just move this entire section, which I see you've all collaboratively expanded to 122KiB now (Where's all of this collaborative text-generation capability when it comes to rescuing a featured article, eh?), to /Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, a subsection of this very noticeboard for the lengthy and on-going discussion of this incident. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow down

    Would everybody please table all complaints and questions for a few days and let the participants in this (whatever it is) have a chance to think about what they are doing, and make calm decisions? The rapid changes in status only seem to exacerbate problems. These matters can be discussed in a few days just as effectively as they can be discussed now. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible User:Bambifan101 sock

    Resolved
     – SPI filed, Rangeblock initiated. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been some suspicious IP edits by Special:Contributions/98.85.78.64 and Special:Contributions/98.85.10.44 altering running times and dates and other various film credits which fits the MO of User:Bambifan101. Furthermore it's from a suspected Bambifan101 IP range as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#03_October_2010_2. Can an admin look into this case please, and a possible range block? Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another IP from the same range corrupting film information since the sock investigation was filed: Special:Contributions/98.85.7.221. This is affecting dozens of articles, so a range block is seriously needed here guys. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh fuck, not him again... HalfShadow 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    what the hell I thought we were done with this idiot a long time ago, PS the range block would be 98.85.0.0/17Access Denied – talk to me 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello anyone here??? Access Denied – talk to me 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous, he continued doing it for an hour or so after this report was filed, and no doubt will be back on tonight. I'm not going to bother reverting the damage if there isn't going to be some effort to prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed an SPI on Bambifan and the IPs but the SPI Bot seems to be down (or maybe I just need to be patient). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sockpuppet

    The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Someone resolved the thread above but its obvious User:Bad edits r dumb and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back are the same VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, who's the same? The original poster and blocked account or the two blocked accounts? TNXMan 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Soryy, Fat Man and Bad edits. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The same person as in you CU'd them? If so, shouldn't the sock's block be upped back to indef?— Dædαlus Contribs 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    VoteJagoff is not the one who linked the two, although it is indeed interesting that the user started posting to ANI a mere 4 days after creation.    Thorncrag  01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Fat Man has been trolling, not only with his main account but with a sock even (which is now blocked), why is he allowed to continue editing? This is what I find interesting and I think it's a legitimate question. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I find Thorncrag's point more interesting Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should user talk pages be deleted under the right to vanish?

    Page was undeleted and courtesy blanked. Further discussion should be centralized at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is an issue that's raised time and again, with inconsistent application by admins, so it would be good to get it sorted out so that admins know how to proceed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've contributed there, but I thought WP:RTV already stated clearly that talk pages are normally not deleted. If you refer to the recent deletion and apparent partial oversighting (?) of the talk page of Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for which I see no apparent reason, I've asked the admin who deleted the user page about it here.  Sandstein  06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, RTV does say that talk pages are rarely deleted, but I think we need to make the guideline clearer one way or the other. Currently, some admins do it, and other don't, which leads to unfairness and people not knowing what best practice is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Avi changed [the] user name [redacted] to [redacted per RTV,  Sandstein  07:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)] and perma banned the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Commented at the RfC; thanks for the heads-up, Sandstein :) -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck the oversighting part above. For some apparently technical reasons, some deleted revisions of the talk page did not appear for some time, but now they do.  Sandstein  07:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I'll comment here because my comment is about the specific case and not the general RfC: Rlevse's page should stay, because it contains historically important Arbcom-related discussions, which people may need to refer to in the future. By the way, what the heck actually happened to that page, technically? It currently has 11,000 deleted edits in its history, but they are not viewable, and there is also no log entry documenting its deletion. Huh? – That said, I don't know why everybody is so bizarrely overreacting to this affair, on all sides of the issue. Bans? Indef-blocks? Deletions? Renamings? Seriously, what the fuck? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with respect to the WTF?, but according to Avraham, he deleted the talk page to protect the real-life privacy of the vanished user, which IMHO outweighs the interest to read old Arbcom discussions.  Sandstein  07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Privacy? If something was said that needs to be oversighted then fix that edit, don't delete the whole thing. Are we supposed to pretend that Rlevse never existed? With neither a clear reason, a discussion, nor a consensus someone has deleted years of discussions about content, policies and procedures that have occurred on that talk page over the years. There are likely mirrors of many of its pages elsewhere on the web, and the user is referred to on countless project and talk pages across Wikipedia. Must we delete all of those too? This is a bad precedent.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for an ex-Arbitrator whose decisions in Arbcom matters are still in force and whose participation in them must therefore still be discussable, it is plain unacceptable to have his account renamed without an identifying redirect. If a user clicks on his signature on an Arbcom decision, they must be able to recover his edit history. This is not negotiable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, does this matter for any practical purpose? If a judge retires in real life, do his judgments become invalid because he's no longer working at the court and has no listed address?  Sandstein  07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It very much matters. Arbitrator actors are not detachable from the arbitrator's editing outside the Arbcom page, in the same way a judge's actions in court are detachable from his private life. Rlevse used to discuss his arbcom cases on user talk pages; and there are multiple other ways an arbitrator's actions may be related to interactions of his with other users elsewhere in his editing. All of this needs to be accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I suppose that's one way to look at it. That's why all process interactions should be limited to process pages... But wouldn't the correct forum in which to discuss the deletion be WP:DRV?  Sandstein  07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FPAS:

    1. Anyone can look at the rename log and see who the user is now.
    2. Arbcom should have a record of all their discussions; if they don't, shame on them.
    3. Users have the right to retire, regardless of the positions they have held prior
    4. There is no need for an identifying redirect. What would its purpose be, he is not returning. Period.

    -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Not every user is wiki-savvy enough to find the rename log, and even for the rest it's a hassle. Of course he has a right to retire, but that doesn't mean his participation in Arbcom may be obscured. As for "should have a record of all their discussions", that's beside the point I made. If I see Rlevse's signature in an Arbcom page, I must be able to figure out how and where he was interacting with (for instance) the other participants of the case outside that page. This is an essential part of the case. That's the purpose of the redirect. And, by the way, if by "period" you think you can just decide this by fiat and be done with it, you'd be mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and something else, somebody needs to re-register the account name or prevent it from being re-created in some other way, to avoid recreation by impersonators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to, but it is not possible since the username Rlevse is not available for recreation due to their unified login. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, FPAS.

    1. Have you tried going to the old userpage? The rename is right there at the top, at least it is for me.
    2. His participation in arbcom is not obscured, and if anyone has any questions, I am sure there will be plenty of people who can say, "oh that was so-and-so".
    3. If you see his signature, you will be taken to the userpage with the rename at top. If you se "Vanished xxxxxxx" you'll be taken there; and you can ask.
    4. You can always ask the other people and read the comments. His comments on ArbCom cases and workshop pages will remain; it is solely the user talk that was deleted. AND if you have a good reason, I am sure you can get an admin to read the appropriate diff and get you its contents.
    5. Yes, I am trusting that he will keep his word.

    -- Avi (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, when I click on User:Rlevse or User talk:Rlevse, I don't currently find any link to the new account. It's merely a redlink. If you agree to have a redirect there, then I'm covered as far as that is concerned. The deletion of the talk page history is another matter though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny, I see it in a red box at the top. You are an admin, you see nothing at the top of User:Rlevse? As for a redirect, that defeats the purpose of the right to vanish. You may be interested in making your opinion known at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a red box too, but it contains only the deletion log, not the renaming log. BTW, about the argument of "you could just ask": if you don't have access to his edit history and/or his talk page history, you might not be able to guess that there is anything to ask about in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no reason to guess, then why do you care? Anyopne specifically looking for Rlevse will know where to look or whom to ask (even if you don't see the renames, you see the deletion log). Anyone not looking should not find it; that is the point of RtV. -- Avi (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I don't remember the specifics, I know that Rlevse's talk page contained several important postings related to an arbcase. Therefore, it should be undeleted, and all future and current arbs should be forced to sign an agreement to prevent the deletion of their talk pages. Deletions like this are completely unacceptable. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that strongly, please comment at the RfC. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That RfC concerns the general issue of deleting user talk pages. For the specific issue of undeleting Rlevse's talk page do we need to open to DRV?   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been a controversial editor, and if he comes back under a different name and edits the same way, his presence will be obvious, yes? And if he doesn't come back, then it's moot, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find you all completely rivetting, how you can argue on RLevse's behalf. This [16] is totally unacceptable - I can only assume those who left their "lovey" messages are ashamed of them and want them hidden.  Giacomo  08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    11,000+ edits removed in one foul swoop. Crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Erasing all evidence of the user's existence does not strike me as being appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much support Rlevse and his desire to leave Wikipedia but the thought of thousands of broken links makes me want to pull my hair out. -- Ϫ 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would normally like to contact the deleting admin (or whoever did this) before reverting, but since the deletion log looks like this:

    (collapsed 'cos it widens the page loads – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
       * (del/undel) 18:42, 3 November 2010 Bencherlite (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (more...)
   * (del/undel) 11:05, 5 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:46, 14 May 2009 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse ‎ (removed content for 1 revision: gaveout IP) (diff | more...)

    I am unable to determine who did this deletion. Since it goes against policy, and is not supported by consensus here either, I would have undone it, were I able to. However, it seems as if no mere admin can undelete this, and that a steward may be needed. Any revisions that contain problematic (personal) info can be individually deleted or oversighted if needed. Fram (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need for this page ot be deleted. It need to be undeleted fast. What has happened here is against policy and protocol. Support Undelete.  Giacomo  12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. I really don't see the point in either deleting or restoring that page at this point. Can we at least avoid a steward wheel war about this? Hans Adler 12:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, FPAS' argument makes sense, and it seems to be fixed now anyway. Hans Adler 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, who is this long standing sock [17] who even seems to have admin powers on Rlevse's page [18]. I am getitng very confided here. I think we need some proper explanations.  Giacomo  12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply his account, after being renamed, with all of his old contribs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yerse, I gather that, but how was the account able to have admin powers after we are told Rlevs handed in the tools?  Giacomo  12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't have the admin bit, but it took a few seconds of staring for me to follow what had happened there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wish you would explain because I see Rlevse using admin powers yesterday, days after he supposedly surrenedered them (11:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP)) Giacomo  12:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do recall yesterday evening that I briefly thought I'd seen the same thing, until I understood from the log that an admin had unprotected his talk and user pages for him so he could put up his wikibreak tags, after which the admin snapped them shut again. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am starting t have a spinning head, I think you have all been so underhand in this, admins, arbs, opening pages, revising pages, blocking editors, changing names, posting by proxy and supressing discussion. I am begining to think you are all so crooked you would not know yourselves if you met yourselves coming backwards.  Giacomo  12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the page in question has now been restored. David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the vanishing editor is leaving under a negative cloud (such as the case of Rlevse)? then deletion shouldn't occur. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently my undeletion worked after all, it only took some time, because of the number of revisions. Anyway, I can see my undeletion in the log, but not who ever deleted it in the first pace, which is a lack of transparency I don't like. If whoever deleted it has a problem with my action, they are free to contact me at my talk page or here: as stated above, I was unable to do the reverse. Fram (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the reason you can't see it is because the user was renamed and it took the deletion log with it to the new name. -- Ϫ 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that seemed logical, but the history of the page, and the protection, revdeletion, ... are still at the one I undeleted. Only the full deletion wasn't logged (or at least isn't visible to me or Gwen Gale). The talk page of the new name of Rlevse also doesn't have a deletion log anyway. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I wasn't thrilled when I couldn't see who had done the deletion, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ask who did so then?  Giacomo  12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read what you posted above, do you think I'm being underhanded? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having seen all that has been going on and the recent behaviour of Arbs and Admins, I have not a clue what to think anymore.  Giacomo  12:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Anyway, it looks to me as though someone with a meta-wiki bit did the TP deletion. I'd guess it's likely to be found in a public meta log somewhere. Maybe someone in arbcom knows who did it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this comment,[19] Avraham would seem to be the one to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he may know. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the talk page had more than 5,000 edits, I think Avraham likely used his steward bit to delete it. I can't find the deletion in any of his logs, but I've seen unlogged steward actions now and then before. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlevse is very clever at finding people on other projects to do his bidding here. I remebber when he imagined he was being outed as Randy in Boisse he found some oversighter who could barely speak English, perhaps the same thing happened again.  Giacomo  13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said before, I did the deletion as part of the RtV. Likely the logs are messed up b/c of the need for largedelete, which I have as a wikimedia steward. I searched for another steward to do the deletion, but none were available. While my personal opinions are contrary, as I posted at the RfC, I will not contest the undeletion by Fram while this discussion is ongoing. The last thing we need is to wheelwar. The Rlevse saga has caused enough hurt in the project, we should not be adding to it. However, I have courtesy blanked the page and I will protect it; I don't think anyone has issues with that while the discussion is ongoing. -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there is no special interface, it's just that the delete button works for >5K edits if you are a steward on meta. As to why the logs get messed up, you'd have to ask a developer like Werdna, I don't know. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi, courtesy blanking and oversight of specific diffs has long been allowed. Deletion has long been discouraged,, and should be done via MfD. I do appreciate that as a 'Crat you are not expected to have as much knowledge of policies and procedures as non-admins like me, but you could, and should, have checked. Your behaviour was disruptive, contrary to policy, and served only to attract more atention to Rlevse. I do think you should refrain from acting in RTV cases until you can shew a better understanding of policy in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The RtV process at current does not prohibit the deletion of talk pages, Duncan, and sometimes bureaucrats have to make decisions. I appreciate and respect that you disagreed with mine (which was already overturned above by Fram) but being that you were not the one to speak with Rlevse, and I was, I think I have a somewhat better idea as to how much pain he was in. I'm human and will continue to make mistakes, but erring on the side of a human being in my opinion is not a mistake. Also, I have full faith that the wikipedia project can proceed and flourish even if we lose some information; we are too robust for that. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi, Rlevse has my sympathy - he's one of the nicest people I've encountered here, as well as one of the very few sensible ones. I don't think he is helped by having you draw attention to him by ignoring policy. Courtesy blanking and protection are the best way to let things die down naturally for him. I am sure you acted with a kind heart, but unfortunately you just made things worse. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I obviously did make it worse, much to my chagrin, but he specifically asked for a talk page deletion, and I made the decision it was warranted. I will maintain, though, that while policy indicates that it is rarely done, it does NOT indicate that it is forbidden. Regardless, I've been reversed and I'm not going to wheelwar, so so be it. I daresay that if there was less vitriol and more compassion by all, even if one felt that Rlevse was undeserving of said compassion, the entire fiasco would have never happened (RtV, deletion, you name it). -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The way it was handled today, blanking the page but leaving the history, was the right way to do it. If there are any individual entries that could compromise the user's privacy or whatever, those could be individually oversighted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, the "right to vanish" does not mean "the right to obliterate everything I ever did". Unless there are extremely specific and justifiable concerns of privacy, what anyone puts into this place should remain for good. The "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." line isn't just there for show. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No IMO, they should not be deleted. A user talk page is a centralized location for figuring out what a user is all about. The reasons for leaving, the kind of editor a person was, though they are available in other locations (ANI, Arb pages, etc.), are most easily examined on the user talk page. Courtesy blanking is fine but leave a viewable history for anyone who wishes to see it. RegentsPark (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let's not duplicate the RFC at WT:RTV. And please let's not rehash the Rlevse issue at ANI any further, it serves no visible purpose. If any issues associated with it are to be pursued, it should be elsewhere, (re)formulated in a way that may actually lead to a concrete action. Rd232 talk 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting aid with an article that has continuously been page protected to preserve Libel

    Not a libel issue. Further discussion should take place at Talk:MonaVie or WP:RSN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Main page: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard § Requesting help with sources being misrepresented in an article

    DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There is quite a bit of Libel posted in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

    Many users have attempted to remove the libel and it has only resulted in the page being protected for long periods of time. I think something is going on as their seems to be a group of users attempting to control the article for the purpose of Defamation of the company.

    I have looked over the sources and found very little evidence to support the claims made in the lead. Could we have something done about the Slander Please? Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to be more specific. What do you allege is libelous? Also, what is your connection to that MonaVie company? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is surely the same user who has posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism of Article as an IP, and furthermore this is surely the indefinitely blocked User:Ott jeff, whose whole Wikipedia career consisted of promoting and defending MonaVie. Any chance for a duck block? — Gavia immer (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ott jeff itself is not currently blocked. He was at one time, but was unblocked upon promising to follow the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any current connection to the company I only noticed problems with the article. If people would just see the points I am making instead of attacking me I think you would see the facts. I looked through the sources and The FDA never warned MonaVie directly and yet thats how the article reads.

    The sources don't provide any details on how Dallin Larsen was involved with any false health claims they just say he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Is there not policies on wikipedia on information about living persons and what to do if they are improperly sourced?

    There is no mention in the sources of the MonaVie company making any claims at all its just not there in the sources there is only mention of another guys website making claims and being warned.

    If it is similar to a pyramid scheme would that not mean that everything on wikipedia with a pyramid shape such as countries and companies to be fair need to be called that? The source of the pyramid scheme allegations here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html is really a review of another organization called TEAM and not of the company of MonaVie.

    And the 1% of people make a profit part is contested in two of the other sources provided. One source has numbers like 45% and 37% and another source disputes the 1% comment and yet the article leans to the weight of the POV of the 1% statement.It is a valid point to make that distributor is also the first rank in this company and many stay at that rank as they are only purchasing products with no attention to make a profit so the statement "and very few distributors actually make a profit." isn't very necessary.

    I am simply challenging the articles views and from what I see the sources don't support these statements and I found that there is a confusion here of what TEAM is and what MonaVie is and what an independent distributors website is and what the MonaVie Companies website is and these lead to the POV of the article being extremely off and misleading to readers.

    I wish to improve the article however instead of my findings receiving an unbiased review I am attacked and accused of sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Thanks Alot! DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How about listing the top 5 "libelous" claims, along with sourcing refuting such claims? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Im pretty sure the attack on the CEO and calling the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is libel and the crap about claims coming from the company not being scientifically confirmed or approved yeah Im pretty confident in saying this is a distortion of the facts and libel. So you were previously involved in this article as well?

    Are there any admins here that can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie without bias. Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010[reply]

    I was previously uninvolved with this article, and have looked. When Forbes claims that "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." about Monavie, then us reporting that "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as [...] the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" is not in any way libelous or otherwise problematic, but just reporting what reliable sourcs have said about the company. These sources may be incorrect, but then you will need to find a retraction of their statements, or Forbes etc. getting a conviction for libel for those articles, or other reliable independent sources of similar standing refuting the arguments of Forbes and so on. Whitewashing the (lead of the) article and coming here for help in it won't work, and continued disruption of the article will lead to either protection of the article, or blocking of the disruptive editors. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    However you miss the point entirely when reading the Forbes article "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." "Orrin Woodward, cofounder of a company called Team" the article is about the company of TEAM and not about the company of MonaVie. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html DavidR2010 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010[reply]

    No, I don't. "Hope, for most of Woodward's audience, is a fruit juice gussied up in a wine bottle labeled MonaVie and sold for $39. Unload enough of this stuff on friends, recruit them to do the same, and you can be rich." and "Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" It is very obvious for anyone looking at this objectively that MonaVie is the pyramid, Team is the pyramid atop a pyramid, and hence "one step ahead" of other pyramid schemes. Fram (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright Fram so you are saying that because this source calls MonaVie a pyramid it is safe for wikipedia to compare it to a Pyramid Scheme? Look at the definition of a pyramid scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme.

    Are you you saying Monavie has no investment or sale of products or services to the public and that MonaVie is a form of fraud? Accusing a company of fraud seems serious enough to me. And why no mention about the other points I made?

    I think the admins here should just decide to play it safe with this article. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010[reply]

    I think what other editors have been trying to tell you is that Wikipedia isn't the place to fix your concerns - the article (like the rest of Wikipedia) reports what other sources say about the company. You need to address your concerns with those other sources first (e.g., get a retraction or print an update) before the article on Wikipedia will end up being changed. Shell babelfish 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When Forbes says a company is a pyramid scheme, it's pretty much settled that it is a pyramid scheme. See WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok so let me get this straight if Forbes says MonaVie is a Pyramid then it is assumed they mean it is a Pyramid Scheme and that automatically makes MonaVies product line dissapear magically and also makes them a fraud? How the heck does that make sense? It doesn't that is the issue we need to use common sense here to improve the article.

    What about the other issues Do the sources really say Dallin Larsen was involved in false health claims of another company? Is he some kind of scientist that would know what does and doesn't work? All I see is that he quit a year before the FDA shut it down is it not POV to say he was involved based on that? What about the other statements about the company of MonaVies health claims not being scientifically confirmed or approved? Wheres the proof of the FDA having issues with claims that the MonaVie company made. Whats the big deal its only juice?

    And why is it notable to say very few distributors make a profit? Is that an attempt to scare people away from building a business? Is it not a fact that most people don't make a profit in life? DavidR2010 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010[reply]

    If you want to contest what Forbes said, you need to take it up with them.
    If the MonaVie company has pubilished a refutation of Forbes' claims, that would be suitable for inclusion in the article, in general. Have they?
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of the argument I got into with Insider201283 regarding claims regarding pyramid schemes in general (Talk:Pyramid_scheme/Archive_1#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant). It got quite bizarre as his argument was effectively claiming books published by Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press were unreliable because they were saying there were such things as legal pyramid schemes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why is this User blocked

    Why is this user blocked for just one edit? [20] Is this another incident of an edoitor suspected to be Proabouviac or is there another reason. I think this needs to be out in the open too. I don't see any need to indeff from this [21] - or to be honest a need to CU in the first place. We have too many secrets lately festering away.  Giacomo  08:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a relatively obvious case. I even considered drawing a checkuser's attention to it by email. Please observe WP:DENY. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following you "obvious case." I just assumed it was a regular editor reluctant to be seen agreeing with me (there's quite a few of those)  Giacomo  09:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably blocked because its a gutless sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we blocked all of those, there would not be many people left editing at all.  Giacomo  10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be good, too. HalfShadow 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We block as many as can be found. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On that premise: I expect to see this User indeffed imediatly. Or there is going to be an immense amount of trouble! User:GiacomoWasHere.  Giacomo  22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like what? You'll type mean things at us or something? HalfShadow 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, and its indeffed now, so we will have to see who suddenly goes very quiet.  Giacomo  23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These not-so-great impostors turn up now and then. They usually get sent to the phantom zone quickly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Scythian77 editwarring and POV-pushing at Iran-Iraq War

    Scythian77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been on a POV-pushing rampage for a few weeks by now, adding the US as Iraq's co-belligerent in the campaign infobox, despite the lack of any sources for this assumption [22], [23], [24] (note the nasty personal assault- “Please do not start an edit war based on your racist agenda” - in the edit summary), [25].

    It is not only simple edit warring (where our guidelines would warrant warnings for all participants), but impudent POV pushing, aimed at deliberately introducing a fringe viewpoint only shared by this user, a user who looks like someone's sock puppet and one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , who has been on a similar crusade [26], [27], [28] for years by now. They sometimes also add Kuwait, other Arab states or Soviet Union as combatants on Iraqi side (all unsourced, no clarity there), but the main point of their crusade is to include the US. I'd emphasise that what Scythian and his ally have been doing there is simply fringe POV-pushing and violation of WP:OR. It's strictly speaking no longer content dispute, for what kind of content can you write if you have no reliable sources to back up your opinions? They have nothing but their own WP:SYNTH and demagoguery to offer at talk page, all their arguments at talk having been rejected by third parties [29], [30] and their POV-pushing reverted by clearly neutral parties.

    Instead of protecting the page, please deal this time with the POV-pushers. MIaceK (woof!) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to remind you that Xashaiar has already been indefinitely blocked for Iranian nationalist disruption, however, the block was lifted once he “confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution”. He failed to keep his promise, going on to spread his POV by edit warring on various articles like Iraq-Iran War. MIaceK (woof!) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Three points. 1. Your labelling me as "one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar " is beyond what you, as an editor, are allowed to do. 2. Read the wikipedia guidelines and do not mention unrelated things in your complains about another user. However, my block that you mention was on Cyrus Cylinder and was lifted. And as far as I know A: the promise that I will limit myself to 1rr does not relate to my edits on un-related issues like Iran - Iraq war (I am assuming that you know that these two subjects are not related which is obviously a wrong assumption). B: The countries that you keep deleting from the list (whose addition made me "iranian nationalist"!) as "all respected sources" claim were directly involved in military action against Iran during the war (you did remove the sources too, which is a serious problem in wikipedia). Interestingly you keep "deleting" these countries/parties from the list of Iraq supporting countries/parties and still keep some other unknown organisations in the list of Iran supporting parties! I mean lets laugh a bit: the well-sourced additions of (USA navy and arab league) to Iraq Belligerents have been removed by you and their re-additions by many others are called, by you, "iranian nationalism" but the addition of unsourced, un-claimed, parties like "PUK, KDP, SCIRI, Da'awa," to Iran Belligerents is your way of exercising "npov"?! 3. looking at the block-log of you (i.e. the user Miacek) shows that he/she clearly has a history of disruption on wikipedia and has been blocked 6 times in the last year alone for POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing). Xashaiar (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had cared to check my block log, you would have noticed that I've been blocked on just two occasions, other entries you could refer to were either sysop mistake that they undid or change in block duration. Secondly, none (and I mean it: none!) of your sources has ever listed the US or Kuwait as co-combatant or co-belligerent of Iraq in its war against Iran. The only cherrypicked quoatation you've managed to lift from some obscure booklet tells about someone being 'were directly involved in military action against Iran'. You refer to this single sentence ad nauseam, coupled with your own WP:SYNTH conclusion that this made the US a belligerent. Others have tried to explain you that the US were also defending the Kuwaiti ships against Iraqi threats: to no avail! Thirdly, your characterization of me as POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing) is laughable. MIaceK (woof!) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing, sockpuppet accussations, edit-warring, incivility

    There seems to be a deeper issue here, but I observed that on the Tbilisi International Airport article User:Jasepl and User:Inspector123 were edit-warring over the inclusion of a particular Privatair flight (see this 3RR report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jasepl_reported_by_User:Stepopen_.28Result:User_warned._.29). In apparent response User:Jasepl went on to tag dozens of dynamic and shared IPs as suspected sockpuppets of User:Inspector123, with circumstantial evidence at best (Note: An admin deleted these notices from the IP talk pages, thus these edits do not show up in the edit history of Jasepl anymore). See [31] for one of this tagged as sockpuppet and then deleted pages.

    Furthermore, after being warned for edit-warring Jasepl canvassed at least one editor [32]] and indirectly asked him to revert on his behalf. Also note this racist and bitey remark towards an editor who edited the controversial information to the Tbilisi airport article, [[33]]. Stepopen (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your hands are not fully clean here. I protected the page because you and others were in a slow burn edit war. This is being discussed at the Airports project page. You have been to my page asking me to do something to him because he made a comment to another user you didn't like. This problem will only de-escalate when you walk away for a few minutes. JodyB talk 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inspector123 labeled himself as Pakistani, admits not logging in when not absolutely necessary and types something not English in edit summaries. Why would it be racist for Jasepl to use the word Pakistani? Why would tagging admitted IPs be inappropriate? HkCaGu (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so over half a dozen contributors have weighed into the discussion that supposedly was a result of my canvassing. Some of them I haven't even heard of, let alone canvas. And most of them I've had some skirmish or the other with over the years. But I'm sure a way will still be found to pin it all on me.
    As for the other charge of racial assault, all I can do is laugh. The serial-vandalising user, Inspector123, happily swore away in English and some other language that I do not understand. I do know it certainly wasn't English. Inspector123 has on his user page, proclaimed to one and all that his is a Pakistani Wikipedian, so to presume that said swearing was in Pakistani wasn't too much of a stretch. If, after his leaving a bunch of (presumably) swear words on my talk page in a non-English language, saying "I don't understand Pakistani" and "swearing will not be tolerated, whether it is in English or Pakistani" are racial assaults, then I'm not the one who has issues.
    Besides, this is the English language Wikipedia, isn’t it?
    And regards the intimidation, Inspector123 has self admitted, on more than one occasion, that they have been editing using any of hundreds of IPs, for reasons ranging from "I'm lazy" to "I don't want to pretend to be an editor" to "I forget".
    All of this has been clearly communicated to Inspector123 (or one of his many IP avatars) on hundreds of occasions. Yet he continues to do as he wills, resolutely refusing to follow editing guidelines or established procedure, while swearing away at those who revert invalid edits or remind him of the rules.
    The fact that the serial illegal (for lack of a better word) edits and swearing has gone unnoticed likely is a result of his using so many IPs – a classic case of escaping accountability.
    If anyone wants specific instances of any of the above, I'll be happy to provide.
    So, as I asked before on more than one occasion, try to get a grip of the situation and an understanding of the guidelines first, and then wage all the war you want.
    And yes, I still find it odd that an editor, who had made about a dozen edits in total, with the most recent one being a year ago, suddenly gets all hot and bothered about one line in an article about a relatively insignificant airport and about the imaginary mistreatment of one other editor. And those sockpuppet tags clearly said "suspected” – even after the above mentioned admissions. jasepl (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carmonians and image problems

    Over the last several days, User:Carmonians has been uploading a significant number of images (see file contributions) and placing them on the Carmona, Cavite article. While this editor has indicated a source for these images, he has refused to add any licensing tags to these images, despite many, many warnings to that effect (his talk page is filled with them). On 5 November, administrator ESkog placed a warning on his page asking him to stop this behavior, and cautioned him that continuing it may result in his blocking. The editor continued anyway, uploading another six unlicensed images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I placed a final warning on his talk page with a rather large stop hand sign after those six unlicensed uploads, advising him he was receiving a final warning [34]. Subsequent to this, he uploaded another two images, this time claiming he had rights and was releasing them to public domain (1, File:Patronjoseph.jpg). Editor has been notified of this thread, though he has to date refused to engage in any discussion on his talk page. Some assistance please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User hasn't made a single discussion edit, I suggest blocking until he wants to talk about it, he clearly has little understanding of copyright and licensing so until he asserts that he does understand these policies he should not be uploading any more files. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Schwyz and User:Tobias Conradi

    Sorry for brining User:Schwyz up yet again but I think I've linked them to an editor who was blocked three and a half years ago, was involved in an ArbCom case and has a community ban. As such I'm feeling out of my depth and don't know where else to post. I realise this is given more limelight to this user so I'm happy for this thread to be quickly deleted / archive as long as I get some advice.

    Anyway both myself and User:JaGa are convinced that User:Schwyz is actually User:Tobias Conradi - we've discussed this a bit here. Although I pointed them at Tobias we reached the conclusion they are the same person independently and largely using different evidence.

    Reasons I think it was worth posting here (despite all users already being blocked) are:

    1. To see if any admins that were around when Tobias has been dealt with before have anything useful to add.
    2. It appears to me that we have uncovered only a small proportion of socks. The users involved have boasted of this and there are several users I have concerns about but which haven't edited enough for me to be confident. Given the disruption these users cause very quickly I think they need spotting and dealing with quickly but only having a couple of people looking for them and the slowness of WP:SPI means things happen quite slowly so I'm unsure how best to proceed although I do think this needs more eyes on it.
    3. I have no idea how to go about linking the reports at WP:SPI - as they're all banned starting a new SPI doesn't seem the way forward.

    Dpmuk (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't speak to the first two points, but I think I can help with the third. It may be worth putting a notice on the NPP talkpage to watch for a new user suddenly creating 30 one-sentence articles, and to bring it to the attention of an admin who can answer point 1 above. PMDrive1061, who is an admin, and I were working to head some of this off at the pass by creating a decent, referenced stub for Tuma River, which seems to have been the source of a lot of the latest problems; a liberal dose of salt may also help (I'll watch out for the articles he's looking to create, and see if I can beat him to it if possible). Finally, if Schwyz turns out not to be Tobias, it may be worth a separate community ban to help deal with the socks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for the hammer

    I say we shoul ban Schwyz for sockpuppetry, disruption, and refusal to accept consensus ,anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Access Denied (talk • contribs)

    Support; it's about bloody time. PMDrive1061 and I were thinking about starting a ban discussion, but it seems we were beaten to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So are we agreed that Schwyz = Tobias? If so I'll ask for the SPI pages to be merged and update tags etc. As a non-admin I didn't feel particularly happy doing this without an admin making the call they're the same person as only admins make decisions on sockpuppet cases. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with an update. I just told The Blade that I remember Tobias Conradi from new page patrol, but I thought he was an editor in good standing. Hadn't seen him in a long time...now I know why.  :) He's made a fine mess of things and topped it off with some really irritating trolling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to find a wikiproject to review articles

    Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you identify the context of that article? — Timneu22 · talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have a life outside Wikipedia, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it. Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings. The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it. Just relax, OK? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    {{notavote}} has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

    For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

    1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

    2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

    Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

    The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

    Here are my last two edits: [35] and [36] They represent the battleground.

    To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

    The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

    My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

    Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).
    The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.
    He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules
    1) posting your own materials as references,
    2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and
    3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.
    Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User pages imitating article pages

    Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. I have found several user pages that seem to be imitating namespace articles, either ones already created or some that seem fabricated. "They" all have been editing each other's user pages and they to each through wikilinks. I have found only one IP address, 24.184.11.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that has edited a handful of the pages. Here is a list of them:

    User:Cmlf1 · User:Lade_Films · User:Ttlf3 · User:Tcdlf4 · User:Gglf2 · User:RichMaples · User:Mike_Glavine · User:Nyc2354 · User:Jjlf1

    I don't know what kind of action should be taken on these articles, although I think they should be deleted or merged/moved to name space articles. If this isn't the right place, I can move the discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mike Glavine and User:Nyc2354 are both blatantly obvious hoaxes, so I'm tagging them as such. The rest you may have to take to MfD, although you'll probably want someone else's opinion on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blade. And the link should be User:RichMaples234. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to delete these. Tag them with {{noindex}} and move on. -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, they are all g11s from Lade Films (the remaining userpages are character-character-L-F-#). Just because they're bad attempts at advertising, doesn't mean they aren't advertising. Syrthiss (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted all the "character" accounts, blatant ads. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. And the user should probably be restricted to one account, rather than the ~10 currently being used. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why they're called G3 and G11, and not A3 and A11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for the swift action! BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed:

     IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of Clean start?

    "A clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities."

    As a result of numerous complaints and this ANI discussion], Gniniv (talk · contribs) wrote at ANI on September 15th "you can see that my user has been retired". On the 19th he posted to his talk page [37] "'This user is now retired, but I have returned to Wikipedia as another User per WP:CLEANSTART. There was an immediate complaint [38] about this (about his returning under cleanstart after retiring in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behaviour).

    Since returning as Terra Novus (talk · contribs) (who signs himself "Novus Orator" he has made various promises, eg to avoid editing in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" (one of the areas in which he had problems) while at the same time continuing to edit related articles such as Russell Humphreys and giving a Young Earth Creationist spin to others [39] and receiving a one week block for his edits at Heim theory -- see also this discussion at FTN [40] about his edits there. And about his setting up a new Wikiproject for Young Earth Creationism, first without going through the proposal stage (at one point today on the original page, now userfied, there were only 2 members, his old account which was marked inactive) and his new account). You can see at the new proposal page Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Young Earth Creationism that he admits to having a history of contentious editing.

    My question is whether he is entitled to claim that he started a new account under WP:Clean start, considering that he retired his old account in the middle of an ANI discussion, then came back claiming Clean start, while not making major changes in his editing habits and earning a one week block not long after returning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's not a clean start, that's just transfering accounts. He should be blocked for this. Secret account 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having observed both incarnations of this User (I have been monitoring contributions though not getting involved discussions), this is most certainly a misuse of Clean start, Either the user switched to new name was to avoid scrutiny or has fundamental misinterpretation of the rules of clean start. Based on the actions of the user as i have observed most likely its the former. I think a topic ban on Creationism might be our only hope here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is known that this is the same editor editing under account, then it is indeed not a cleanstart but a "transferring accounts". However, there's no need to block for that. There's only a problem if the link is not known, and the user is "pretending" to be a fresh user, but doing the same old stuff. If it is known it is the same user, then simply treat the contributions of the new account as a continuation of the old one, and deal with it as such. Would the behaviour been sanctionable if it had been done with the same account? If yes, then sanction. If no, then don't. Cleanstart is irrelevant, since the link is known there is no cleanstart. It's just a change of account - and that's allowed. The old problem is if users hide behind an undisclosed account to allow them to continue the same problematic activity.--Scott Mac 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been causing endless difficulties, making promises to reform and breaking them almost as soon as (or sometimes even before) they are made. His edits against consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now deleted and moved to his user space) are one example of that. Other ploys include creating physics templates to include Heim theory as "emerging physics". Or his recent attempts to introduce what turned out to be Young Earth Creationist commentary on the talk page of the featured physics article Oort cloud. Every time he is criticized he promises to reform, but unfortunately it seems at the moment that his editing patterns have become worse. Every edit he makes requires careful attention from other wikipedians: very few have any positive value. The article he created today is an example of this kind of unhelpful editing. It resulted in this thread on FTN.[41] The article did not survive. If a user requires every edit to be carefully examined, with just cause, that is not a good use of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban proposal: User:Justa Punk

    I am currently proposing a full siteban on Justa Punk (talk · contribs). After his indefinitely block, he has, to date, created over 15 sock puppets within the period of three months. He continually creates additional accounts to harass other users, de-tag all his socks' userpages, well after his talk page editing privileges have been revoked. He has also participated in a campaign of email harassment which has not been constructive, to say the least. He has said he was done with Wikipdia, but obviously he is not. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. –MuZemike 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nate2357 and Nate5713

    Nate5713 (talk · contribs) and Nate2357 (talk · contribs) are clearly the same editor and edit related or the same articles, and in June I posted to 5713's talk page suggesting that I block one of his accounts. Today one of them created an article which was turned into a redirect by another editor, and the 2nd account has been reverting the redirect. I know that there can be legitimate reasons for having more than one account, but this use of two accounts isn't one of them. As I've been involved with this editor I'm doing what I said I'd do in June, bringing it here for the attention of other Administrators. I can see no reason to let him continue with two accounts. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The "article" that this editor attempted to create was Ancestry of Jesus, which he did because his attempts to use a non-reliable source to add material to Genealogy of Jesus were reverted by a number of editors, including myself. The new article was clearly a content fork intended to get around the editor's inability to get a consensus to use a poster created by uncredentialed amateur researchers as a reliable source . Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguably unreliable source that I have been wrongly accused of using has a name: The Adam and Eve Family Tree[42][43] (and yes, I used your links). One might note, interestingly, that I NEVER use such a controversial reference in my relentlessly deleted article, none of the links provided say otherwise[44]. While you check my real refs, notice also how I never actually undid the redirects, yet my additions are undone anyway.
    To get strait to the point, we know that all Administrators have to post some kind of explanation on the discussions page as to why they would want to delete this piece of work. Yet the Talk page remains empty, I have received no notice, no prior explanation, just an angry administrator going, undo, UNDO, UNDO!. Therefore, seeing the obvious lack of prior discussions before deleting the content of this article, I must dutifully report the saddening renegade nature of these particular administrators: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Ironholds (talk · contribs), and Dougweller (talk · contribs).--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As to this, "two accounts" bit, I don't really pay attention to what I am doing with which account, I just happen to log in to whatever account the computer I am using remembers. If you ever block one account, then when I inevitably come back to that computer I'll just create a new one. So, it doesn't really matter to me what you do with my accounts, it only gets me adjudicated when people undo my edits (why do we even have that button, anyway?)--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's always so much easier when they brag about violating the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, I am not an administrator, and have never held myself out as being one. Any editor can (and should) delete material which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

    Your answers suggest that you have very little understanding of Wikipedia policies, so I suggest you might like to read this; your "article" is a content fork, which is not allowed. We have an article on this subject, called Genealogy of Jesus, and you can't start a new article on the same subject with a different name simply because you're not getting your way with that one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironholds is not an admin either. Dougweller is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I am. If I wasn't involved I would probably block him, particularly after his statement that he will continue to create new accounts if blocked. I'll also note that both Beyond My Ken and I gave edit summaries explaining our reverts, Nate did not. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about --> <-- this close to doing so. However, in the realm of WP:AGF I have notified him of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK (on both accounts) and requested him to modify both his behaviour and his statements on this thread. This is clear misuse of alternate accounts, and meets sock clearly. The threat to evade is to be taken seriously, but he has a very short time to rethink that because if he does, all hell's going to break lose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both your summaries say very little. As a matter of fact, the only thing they say is: FORK. If the message you're trying to convey to me is that I just created the page because it wasn't allowed on the main article then you're saddeningly misinformed. Did I use a reference that was not appropriate, for instance? You could have, and should have opened a discussion or at worst sent me a message to explain to me what you found disturbing, BEFORE you delete all my work, not after. Administrators are required to do it (even Dougweller), and all other users should probably do it anyway if they intend to delete an entire article.
    One very important fact must be known: The section that I created on Genealogy of Jesus (which was mercilessly deleted by Dougweller without discussion, by the way) is NO comparison to the article I tried to make. The only problem, repeat the only problem with the section, which apparently gives justice to delete the whole thing, was that I cited The Adam and Eve Family tree, which we decided was an arguably unreliable source only AFTER it was deleted. This new article I created NEVER mentions the Adam and Eve Family tree, so I am at a loss as to what could possibly be so heinous that it justifies deletion without warning. I really don't know what's wrong with my article. If you had a problem you should have discussed it. Just saying FORK postmortem doesn't cut it. I don't know how else to explain myself.
    Like I said earlier, I don't care what happens to my accounts. If both accounts are blocked, I'll probably not make the same mistake I made before and just use one account. But it doesn't matter to me what name I use, so long as I know that it is me. --Nate5713 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A note that I am not an administrator, and have never made myself out to be one. The suggestion that I am, however, did provide a good belly-laugh for me and probably the hundreds of individuals opposed to such events, so thanks for brightening my evening. The problem, at the root of it, is that you cannot use multiple accounts in that fashion and you cannot create content forks. Sourcing is irrelevant - you cannot have two articles covering differing viewpoints for a single topic in such a fashion. That's all there is to it. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the bottom line: The article I created may or may not be a fork. If someone happens to have read both my article and the Genealogy of Jesus, they may post their suggestion of a possible fork in the discussions page like anyone else. If someone out there feels that the content of my article is getting too similar to that of Genealogy of Jesus, then he or she may provide evidence for this claim in the discussion page like anyone else. And if and when we are in agreement, the creator and the antagonist, then may the information, resources, references, and content be stripped away from their home and deleted. But to delete everything without cause, without explanation, without warning, that must warrant some kind of discipline on this website.--Nate2357 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently created List of awards and nominations received by Paramore to be in line with the rest of the band articles that we have here. Since then, Para.leaf (talk · contribs) has been added a bunch of fancruft and non-notable awards to the list. Despite repeatedly warning the editor about their edits and urging them to discuss on the talk page, they just keep editing. Further, they have been warned multiple times about marking their major edits as minor, but they insist on doing it anyway. I'm just about at my wit's end, hence posting here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't particularly want to comment on what's fancruft and what's notable, but what is notable is that this editor has been here since July and has never once posted on a talkpage of an article or user. I'm minded to use a short block, to get him to talk, but I'll give him one final warning first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now we've got this edit from an IP. The edit is basically a big undo of what Para.leaf did. In an earlier edit, the editor basically copypasted the entire {{Paramore}} template into the article, and that's being done now by the IP. It's not really within the scope of SPI (aside from WP:DUCK, anyway) so I'm not going to open a case for it. Does seem like the editor is trying to avoid scrutiny, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now a new page was created at List of awards, nominations received, and miscellaneous awards and honors by Paramore by copying and pasting the contents of the page to a new one, but adding the miscellany. Related (possible sock?)? Yves (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matt319 and politician succession boxes

    Just a quick heads-up before it turns into a conflict - Matt319 (talk · contribs) has been removing the names of successors-elect from the articles of defeated American policitians. I've asked him to at least get some consensus, and use edit summaries when he does this, but he's pressed on regardless. Opinions welcome. Kelly hi! 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the user's edits and left them a warning. Report them to WP:AIV or leave a message here if the disruption continues. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, your actions, and that warning, were wrong. The succession box has a field called Succeeded by (note use of the past tense) which is filled by the name of one's successor. In the US Congress, and state elections as well, that successor does not take office until he or she is sworn in. In fact, those in office prior to the election last week, are still in office; they have not yet been succeeded by anyone.
    Yet you have engaged in wholesale reversion of correct edits by Matt, in apparent disregard of the discussion on the talk page, which makes these exact points. And you have threatened Matt with a block. That is very unfortunate, both for the good-faith editor who made the corrections, and Wikipedia.
    Please undo your edits and remove the unjustified warning on Matt's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you cleanly ignored my note at User_talk:Matt319#Hold_up. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Politically and legally correct action is that until sworn in, there is no successor. For example, if one of the recently-elected people were to die before taking office, I believe in most cases the person currently in the job would temporarily continue in it. We cannot add a successor yet, as they have not officially taken the job. Removing said persons from "succeeded by" was a valid line of action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. We're not crystal balling, here. Barring very unusual circumstances, these people are the successors. Then again, this really isn't requiring admin intervention at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. They "are" not the successors yet. (Does verb tense mean nothing?) Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

    Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[45] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[46]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[47] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious question

    As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[48] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[49], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[50], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a terrorist...

    WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Resolved
     – Thank you for the input Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [51]

    ...as are Materialscientist and Jpgordon

    Comments?

    Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant reverting without discussion or reasons point the "terrorist" label to Seb az86556. Name calling and labellinghelp your cause a lot...NOT! --174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone else see a problem here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could start by cleaning up your signature.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Navajo, right?
    174, please stop calling people "vandals" and "terrorists" if you wish to be taken seriously at all -- have a look at what vandalism is, for a start. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user is vandalizing the page then the normal warn/block process should work, no?    Thorncrag  05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was blocked. Returns with different IP and restores the talkpage section on "Administrator terrorism"... I don't know what to do with this anymore. I need someone else's opinion. I don't appreciate "vandal", much less so "terrorist". Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    174 does not appear to be a vandal, but he's a persistent edit-warrior, and has been blocked at least twice (that I saw on a quick look). The section on "Talk:Long_and_short_scales#Administrator_Terrorism" indicates he doesn't quite get it. 174, will you please stop the name-calling and discuss calmly what your issue is with the article, on that talk page? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I give up. You have your power trip. Discussion was open and you made it clear none was wanted by deleting my edits, threatening me and removing my comments. --174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By now, at least 5 other people have warned you, disagreed with you, blocked you, reverted you, and declined your unblock request. No bell ringing. And no, I don't think I have to "discuss" whether I am a terrorist or not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    174.118.149.54 and 173.35.12.221 do geolocate the same. Given the evidence, a block would probably be uncontroversial given the extensive warnings and blocks already imposed.    Thorncrag  05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to at least take a crack at reasoning with him. Unfortunately, he shows a pattern we see commonly with some new editors -- immediately jump into a revert war on even a mild disagreement; shout and stamp feet and call the other editor abusive names; claim it's our fault, threaten to run away, we won't get their great contributions, etc. Bullying and abusive behavior are so endemic on the internet that I wonder if a majority of our first-time editors expect it to be that way here too. Often enough it turns out to be self-fulfilling, as an abusive newbie is unlikely to encounter someone calm and patient -- two qualities in short supply on Wikipedia these days. Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. –George W. Bush 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At least this is a different take than the usual "Nazi" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help manage the debate at Talk: Greek love

    I would appreciate some help at Greek love where I am trying to nurture a debate on my upcoming nomination of the article for an Afd. However, the tags I have put on the article are being removed. This looks to me like an attempt to stifle debate. I am not the only WP user who believes the article is structurally compromised. The tags are appropriate. Please monitor this situation. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the next step. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am impressed that the disputants could continue their debate so fiercely while the opening sentence of the article remained "Greek love is a tern in Modern English synonymous with other similar phrases". Suggest you all cease warring over the tags and go find sources to actually improve the content for our readers. Skomorokh 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]

    Not sure if it is appropriate to interpret this edit as a legal threat. User notified of discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not really a legal threat, but that sort of discussion isn't constructive anyway. Stickee (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a good idea not to overlook the actual focus of the discussion, which appears to be that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <span class="anchor" id="Ncmvocalist <redacted> moving thread">

    Ncmvocalist moving thread

    Resolved
     – It's here, and that's where it's staying. GedUK  09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a thread above asking for a community ban for SRQ. I moved it to AN because that is the proper venue for discussion of community bans (they can take place here when they arise naturally from a discussion regarding a specific incident}. Ncmvocalist moved it back, and when I attempted to correct his error, reverted me in the middle of the process. I'm backing off now, will someone please inform Ncmvocalist of the proper placement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified him of this. Also, he changed the title of the thread, overriding the request of the initiatoing editor with his own opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BAN:

    Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so.

      Thank you!, that gave me the best laugh I've had all day.

      Oh, and I restored the word "disruptively" from the title I gave this section. I meant "disruptively" and I stick by it. Your disagreement with my assessment doesn't authorize you to change what I wrote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, it's well established that you do not use titles to grind your personal axe. Please cease unless you wish to be blocked; the alternative is to keep the username as the title on its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're supposed to keep you headings neutral (not that that guideline isn't frequently ignored on this page). Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you insist that "disruptive" remain? I didn't find his reversions disruptive, and he explained them in his edit summary, and from what I read, it makes more sense to keep the thread here. Why haven't you tried to discuss this with Ncmvocalist on his talk page?---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for one thing, because Ncmv was moving the thread back, Doc of Soc's comment ended up floating free and posted to the wrong thread over at AN. I initially moved the thread when I did because I happened to be here just after the thread was posted, so it could be moved without any dislocation. As for the title of this thread, it is "neutral", in the sense that it neutrally presents the problem I saw with his moves, that they were disruptive. The title is not pejorative or a personal attack, it's a dstraight-forward description. I can't help it that Ncmv objects to it - many people object to having their disruptive behavior called out.

    Anyway, what I came here to say before I leave this thread was to point out this consensus discussion on WT:Banning policy, in which it was established that AN was the preferred venue, because ANI is archived too quickly, among other reasons.

    So that's it from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry, one more thing -- I see that the thread has now attracted comments, so at this point I think it's too late to move it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the use of the "anchor" statement, just above the section header (go into edit mode on the previous section), which preserves links to the previous titles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    please remove false statement

    Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640 § Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2]]; and [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Dcahole redux - now including copyvio|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641 § Dcahole redux - now including copyvio]]
    Men's Health (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Moved from WP:AN

    I have tried to remove "The magazine does not submit itself to be measured by circulation or demographic companies" from the magazine article on Men's Health but all tries to do so have been road-blocked. I also tried to add sourced content including criticism but these were also erased. What a waste of time! At least remove the false statement or I'll ask Men's Health if they'd like to do an expose on how to decrease your anxiety, by never trusting Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowkeeps (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The contested statement appears to be false. At any rate the NYT source given refers to Children's Health (magazine), a related magazine by the same publisher. Rd232 talk 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unilateral page moving against consensus

    Resolved

    The article currently named Eggenberg Castle, Graz is so named because one user has recently moved it unilaterally on two occasions, firstly [52] and now again (after it was moved to a compromise title) [53] and [54]. All this despite the fact that there is a move discussion ongoing, there is clearly no consensus for it to be called "Castle", and the user making these unilateral moves hasn't contributed a word to that discussion. Could an admin please take a look and move the article to the appropriate place (I would suggest back to the original title, before the minor move war began, until consensus is reached in the discussion), and perhaps give some friendly advice to User:Gryffindor about respecting and engaging in the consensus-forming process. (I could trawl back in the logs to show that this isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing and had it brought to his attention, but I'm not asking for any sanction to be applied, just for it to be pointed out how we properly do things.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't really see consensus on the talk page. WP:NC suggests that we title articles according to common English-language usage. A rough-and-ready google comparison, excluding Wikipedia results, shows 6560 results for "Eggenburg Palace" and 9050 for "Eggenburg Castle". Make of that what you will.
    It takes two sides to move-war. However, as a fellow admin Gryffindor should really know better than to short-circuit the consensus-building process and impose a solution while discussion is underway. I'm not going to reverse their move (see WP:WHEEL), but I suggest that you conclude discussion on the talk page and, when you can show a policy-based consensus for one name or another (a few suggestions have been made), request the move via WP:RM. I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not really, since it implies that someone can simply get away with, as you put it, short-circuiting the consensus-building process simply by virtue of having admin status (I find it rather astonishing that he's an admin, but in any case, it doesn't seem relevant to this issue, since the behaviour in question could have been done by anyone). If people can just get their way by move warring (no, it doesn't "take two to move war" - if A moves, B moves back per BRD, then A moves again, then only A is move warring) totally ignoring discussion, then that is how things will come to be decided. It's not up to me or anyone else to show a consensus for some name; it's up to him, as the person proposing a change; and if he can't show such consensus (and he has shown such contempt - now I discover he's an admin, I feel stronger language is justified - for community processes as not even to lower himself to participate in the discussion), then his action should be reversed. Ideally by himself, but if that doesn't happen, I would expect another admin to do it (and really have a serious word with him about how to use his admin rights).--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to back up my assertion that this user (admin!) has a history of this sort of behaviour, I've found this previous discussion which resulted from the exact same thing. (I see he does a lot of page moves, most of which are probably useful and totally unobjectionable, but I would have thought he needed to learn that when an issue is or has been the subject of discussion, then he doesn't get to just make the decision himself.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kotniski, you can put your axe down. I didn't see that there was a discussion going on about the rename, sorry about that. I'll put in my feedback there. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But you remember doing exactly the same move before, right, so you knew it was opposed? Oh all right, consider this resolved (I assume you'll move the page back to its original name if your proposal doesn't get consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, not sure what you mean with "doing the same move before", but whatever it is I'm sure we can discuss the name over on the talk page. Gryffindor (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate

    Resolved

    This article is being repeatedly blanked out by this user. He claims to be the subject of the article, and wants the article removed. I am unsure of what policy this comes under, but his repeated blanking is a definite COI. Can an administrator please look into this? And please put a lock on the page for now - Amog | Talk • contribs 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved this from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), as it is an ongoing incident right this minute. I have no comment on this otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has apparently now been proposed for deletion, looks like the best course of action. ~ mazca talk 11:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PROD has been removed. The prod stated that the source wished the article removed. How can this be verified? Ask him to state this on his own website? Also, can subjects of articles just "wish" their articles away? The article does not belong to them! - Amog | Talk • contribs 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

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

    3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

    Here are the diffs:

    Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of Rev/Del

    I am not the most active admin on the Wiki, but I used RevDel in The Ogre Downstairs just now, admins can view the content, non admins can rely on my log summary. I'd just like a double check on my action, and for someone else to decide what should be done to the IP, as I wrote the article (not my best work, but still) I don't feel comfortable issuing a block. Diff of my revert is here--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. I've reverted the IP's other edits (none of which was close to that level), but don't know if blocking would be effective (unless its an open proxy or TOR or something). Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 70.160.15.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since it has no good contributions. This IP is on a DSL connection. There is nothing on Google about it being a proxy, so a report at WP:OP doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All that is good. When I read it (somewhat shocked), I remembered discussions that there is zero tolerance for that kind of thing here and so brought it to this noticeboard, since I could not block him myself. Well, maybe I could have, actually, but by bringing it here, I made sure everything necessary would be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    POV forks of Communist terrorism

    Left-wing terrorism was created as a POV fork of Communist terrorism and recent edits have deleted over 80% of that article and moved to the POV fork in a coordinated manner. It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement. Might some admin kindly review the articles and see why the POV fork exists, and the move of material without any merge discussion and without any moving of edit history ought to occur? Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried reverting? Is there a discussion on the talk page which supports the move? What you've brought up here isn't per se a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Full list of diffs posted on your UT page. One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks. Collect (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [55] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.
    [56] shows creation of the Left wing terrorism article.
    [57] shows massive deletion from the parent article. [58] shows Igny reverting my edit.
    [59] shows moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [60] shows moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [61] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [62] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [63] Anotether then asserted that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.
    [64] One editor asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that two editors knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    <sigh...> Communist terrorism is the POV-fork here. this article is being defended (fairly tendentiously) by two editors (Collect (talk · contribs) and Justus Maximus (talk · contribs)) to make the argument that Marxist philosophy generally put explicitly advocates for terrorism, which is not supported anywhere in the literature. The sticking point here is that some early Marxists talked about 'revolutionary terror' (the extirpation of a ruling class, ala the terror in the French revolution), and C & JM are using the coincidental equivalence of the word 'terror' to argue for Marxist support of modern terrorism. It's just a silly argument on the face of it, but there's no getting through to them on the point.
    Collect, I imagine, is hoping to use administrative power to defend the POV-assertions being made in the article, since there's no appropriate sourcing or argumentation for his position. You might bear that in mind as you look into the situation. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange - I made no comments about anything other than the title which was kept in a RfC for title change. The issue about POVforks is which arrticle was on WP first, and attacks on me do not help your case on that. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect: giving my impressions of the failings of your reasoning do not constitute an attack on you. If you don't like that I think your argument is silly, make a better or clearer argument. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Collect's claim is absolutely false. He states that "It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement." In actuality, the key point here is that no consensus was needed for this move. I demonstrated that the content I moved to the 'Left wing terrorism' article did belong to this article and not to the Communist terrorism article. This has been done using a neutrally formulated google.scholar search procedure and noone has pointed at any concrete flaw in this procedure. Since overwhelming majority of academic sources describe the moved content as "Left wing terrorism" and not as "Communist terrorism", the move of the content to the more appropriate article is a neutrality issue that cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I explained that on the article's talk page several times (and noone, besides Collect and, probably Justus Maximus, objected). I also encouraged other editors (on both talk pages) who may disagree with my results to do alternative gscholar search, followed by about a week long pause before the move. Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people. (Of course, I would be glad if someone proved I was wrong).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me [65]. However, I warned him not about disputing some POVfork, but because he reverted the move that has been done in accordance with neutrality requirement, made after a long discussion on both talk pages, and supported by majority editors. In addition, the reverts made by Collect were supplemented by misleading edit summaries (the text was not "deleted", it was moved).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)IOW the edit summary claiming agreement was wrong? But that edit summary exists - hence your assertion that the statement is "absolutely false" is false itself. Google is not considered a valid source for naming articles. As for your personal attack that I am "deliberately trying to mislead people" - I ask you redact instantly. Read WP:NPA. The issue here, moreover, remains whether setting up a POVfork and then deleting sections (80%) of the original article is proper on WP. Period. Note that the rename argument failed - this is a backdoor method of achieving what was not accomplished by any consensus. BTW, moving without moving edit history is deletion by any standards. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not google, but google scholar. You are supposed to know the difference between these two.
    With regard to my claim that your statement was false, I doubt it was a personal attack. You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article. You claimed that I referred to some alleged consensus, whereas my major point was that the content must be moved independent of any consensus, you claimed that I warned you about sanctions for disputing the new POVforks, whereas my warning had a relation to the reverts made against the neutrality policy and supplemented by misleading edit summaries. Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't the articles have the potential of being non-pov forks? Surely there an article could be written about general left-wing terrorism with a spinnout of a subarticle specifically on communist terrorism? This seems to be an issue of a content dispiute - namely what the articles should include and how they should relate to eachother. That is outside of the purview of this board. Requests for POV checks should be made elsewhere. If there are ownership issues, as ludwigs2 suggests, or other kinds of misconduct then that should be presented clearly and with diffs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original diff the content move was based on is here [66]. I demonstrated that all these terrorist groups are characterised by the words "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism" by reliable sources (by contrast to google, gscholar look predominantly through academic sources). These post was made on Oct 24, so everybody had a lot of time for presenting their counter-arguments. However, no counter-arguments followed. Based on that results, I proposed to move the content to the Leftist terrorism which was just an disambiguation page, however, other editors preferred to create a Left-wing terrorism article, which, probably was more accurate, because it was in agreement with what the source said. Taking into account that the move was done based on what majority RS say, that cannot be characterised as POVfork (even if it fits a content fork criteria).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Interestingly, the 'Left wing terrorism' article was created on 19 April 2006 [67] whereas 'Communist terrorism' only on 29 nMarch 2007 [68]. What POV fork are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Maunus: I think there may be a valid article on communist terrorism (or at least a valid subsection on the topic at left-wing terrorism or under revolutionary terrorism), the problem is keeping the POV-assertions in check. that would be easier if there was no content fork on the topic. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another problem with a 'communist terrorism' article is that 'communism' and 'Marxism' are not synonymous, whereas the article as it stood seemed to argue that they were. This confusion is likely to be unavoidable in an article that does not go into great detail explaining terms. An article on 'left-wing terrorism' on the other hand merely needs to provide WP:RS that any group included is both 'left-wing' and 'terrorist' - much simpler, and less likely to cause the sort of endless debate that plagues this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to Collect:

    • Since I recreated the article Left-wing terrorism, you should have informed me of this discussion thread, which you did not.
    • I recreated the article before Petri Krohn commented on my talk page about it.
    • The text was moved from CT to LWT after discussion among editors. Your edit-warring on this is contrary to the warning that the Arbitration Committee has issued you against edit-warring on certain topics, that includes CT.
    • The article CT includes many topics, including the views of Marx, the actions of Communist governments and left-wing terrorists. Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT. Calling it a POV fork is like calling "Cities in California" a POV fork of "Cities in the USA".
    • Can you please explain what you find POV about the article LWT. Other than the material transferred in, everything is sourced to mainstream academic writing on terrorism, which defines LWT as a specific type. The others are right-wing terrorism, nationalist terrorism, single issue terrorism, religious terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Since all the other generally accepted major types of terrorism have their own articles, is their any reason why this type should not?

    TFD (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First - the discussion was not intended to be about any editors at all, just about the article. Diffs were posted only after they were requested, again not mentioning anyone individually. The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above. So much for any claim of that sort. And the term "POVFORK" refers to setting up a new article in order to remove an older article - I need not assert any specific POV for it to be a POVFORK. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is well known as a non-reason for any act on WP, so the existence of an article on "Christian terrorism" would have zilch bearing on whether the new article, and the 80% shrinkage of an existing article in order to make the original article a near stub, is a POVFORK. I assert that it is a POVFORK pretty much by definition on WP:POVFORK. Collect (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above." One more false claim. Although my point was that no consensus was needed, I never stated there were no consensus. In actuality, Collect and, probably, Justus Maximus were the only persons who opposed to the move (without providing any serious arguments) [69]
    Re "Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT" Cannot fully agree. Since "Communist" is a subset of "Left wing", the LWT is supposed to have a broader scope. However, taking into account that the major part of the 'Communist terrorism' article belonged to the 'Left wing terrorism' (and was moved there), the current scope of the 'Communist terrorism' article is unclear. Instead of starting this useless quarrel, Collect should have find new sources and, based on that identify the scope of this article (which is supposed to be "terrorism associated with Communism sensu stricto, not with the Leftist movement").--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh! Ok, if we're going to get into a debate about whether left-wing is a subset of communist or vice-versa - a debate, I'll suggest, that cannot help but devolve into furious polemics - then we should just do the reasonable thing which would be to create an article called Revolutionary Terror and merge left-wing, communist, right-wing and any other terror-forks you care to mention into it. that article might be over-long, but once we've gotten that into a decent shape we can discuss creating content forks in a reasoned and balanced manner (as opposed to the current trench warfare approach). how does that sound? all in favor of creating the Revolutionary Terror article and bulk merging, say 'aye!' --Ludwigs2 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds reasonable. I assume Revolutionary Terror would not cover the use of modern terrorism by ostensible revolutionaries. So Pol Pot would be in; but Red Army Faction would be out? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempt to combine all of that under the name "revolutionary terror" (without "ism") may cause a problem. Some mainstream sources define terrorism as a "weapon of the weakest", implying that only small groups that conduct a hopeless struggle without well articulated program used to resort to such tactics. These sources separate terrorism from guerilla warfare and state terror. I didn't do any exhaustive search, so I have no idea if these views are mainstream, however, I would say that it would be incorrect to combine small group terrorism and state terror in a single article.
    The idea to create a Revolutionary Terror article seems good, because many sources draw parallelism between Jacobin dictatorship and later revolutionary regimes. However, the discussion about this issue goes far beyond the subject of this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Enquries advertised. Further discussion here not required. Rd232 talk 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In the absence of anything other, I am holding an enquiry into the last few days at the appropriatly named User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. All are welcome to comment.  Giacomo  14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine this is in your official capacity as ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    an editor...? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't much see the point. There is a CCI underway and any discussion over clarifying policy (and sanctions) for plagiarism should occur on the relevant talk pages. Whipping up the issue (as you did in the previous thread) is hardly collegial. Ok, so he quit in a huff after a pile on - and took a couple of days properly quitting. Is it worth continuing that chase? Rlevse is gone, what more can you achieve? (Were this an article you'd have to call this a "POV fork" ;)) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My major concern was the fighting over the protection of Rlevse's talkpage & complaints about his back-and-forth status of Retired/Indef Wiki-break. In otherwords, there's little to nothing I can add at your (Giacomo) enquiry. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giacomo's and others' complaints about the hiding of Rlevse's history were totally justified, and that mistake has since been corrected. Hard telling what else there is to do now, except maybe to resolve to do better next time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you see, when Giano caused others to have a grievance, we are urged to move on (and, incidentally, unblock Giacomo without the need for him filing an unblock request). When Giacomo has a grivance, we must discuss it to death or else never hear the end of it from him.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong. Giano didn't have a grievance, the community had one. They felt that his block should be undone, and someone finally listened after much huffing and puffing by those had him blocked. Please don't confuse consensus with someone's personal self-serving grievance. As you stated yourself Giano didn't post an unblock request. I tried pointing out earlier, to no avail apparently, that what got the peasantry all riled up was how admins were handling this situation. Rlevse made some mistakes, we all do. The matter would have been much less of a big deal if those who were annoyed by this, like Giano, were given their room to vent. All this protecting of talk pages and hatting conversations is what caused the unnecessary drama here. It would be good for people to remember that next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

    I am also holding an enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and it is here: User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair.

    Everyone is welcome to comment on the talk page.

    --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Great - dueling enquiries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    request to cease discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Third enquiry into the—let's all shut the fuck up, can we?

    Stop extending drama, because now it's disruptive. Go write some articles. Thanks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree completely that swearing in a section title is just plain disruptive. Please stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. Can we have less feeble Wikipedia jargon, and if necessary more swearing? Does "disruptive" nowadays mean anything whatsoever beyond IDONTLIKEIT and IDONTLIKEYOU? Best definitions for the word proposed on my talkpage (not here! ANI is full!) will garner fine prizes. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    This sub-section should be deleted, as it just a criticque. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed...it's bad enough we lost an editor over this; we really shouldn't go into this much discussion about it. It only extends the suffering, in a sense. =( --Ks1stm (talk) [alternate account of Ks0stm] 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think people have enquired enough; I wish they'd stop. ~ mazca talk 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, let him have his little kangaroo court. At least if it is in his own user space, it won't be bothering anyone else. The rest of us can get back to building an encyclopedia. Resolute 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the damage has already been done: retired->indef wikibreak->RTV. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So where are the answers? East of Borschov 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You want answers?--KorruskiTalk 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RevDel needed at Eddie Vedder, Chris Cornell

    Resolved
     – User's IPs and sock blocked; edits oversighted

    An individual posting out of at least two Montreal IPs has begun posting increasingly detailed accusations of conspiracies against her by various celebrities. This appears to go far enough beyond garden-variety vandalism to warrant suppression of the edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And I oversighted the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

    There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

    He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

    He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

    He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

    It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

    I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

    At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

    Thanks.

    John2510 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You could file a sockpuppet investigation (although this would mostly be for formality due to the post here). --Ks1stm (talk) [alternate account of Ks0stm] 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeffed the new account. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. John2510 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by dynamic IP at 1982 Lebanon War

    A dynamic IP (listed below) that geo-locates to Japan has been making numerous disruptive edits to the 1982 Lebanon War. The IP makes no use of the Talk pages, does not explain his/her edits in the edit summary section, engages in tendentious editing, has been reverted numerous times by other editors and appears to be singularly focused on this one article. I am requesting that the article be Semi-Protected.

    Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done for a week. Enigmamsg 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Fat Man

    User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back has been indeffed: another dumb question from the non-admin peanut gallery. I don't know how to read blocks: does he have access to his talk page? The reason for my question is one of consistency; another indeff'd editor has been given access to her talk page and has continued there the same behaviors that led to the indef, so I hope TFM also still has access to his talk page, for the sake of consistency at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind: he just posted there, so I see he has access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The block log [70] would say "cannot edit own talk page" if that condition had been imposed. Its absence implies he can still edit his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, BB-- I guess I should get a cot :) I just wanted to make sure the Jester's privilege isn't less important than other indeff's  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you are curious, this is exactly what it would look like if the talk page access was revoked. That was one of those Chinese automated spamming accounts if you are curious. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, again; most helpful (I don't have much experience with these adminly matters). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Contentious RM needs closing

    Resolved
     – The requested move issue stands resolved. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone close the RM at Talk:El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium? There's a lot of disputation going on that would be assisted by an uninvolved close. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There was discussion there that the Requested Move process should be allowed to conclude, rather than opening an RFC or--i thought--otherwise canvassing for others to get involved. There's also been productive discussion, including about the tangent of Talk page formatting, now discussed in a separate section, which is fine. I think it's best to let an uninvolved Requested Move editor close eventually, and not call here for a quick close. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, S's posting seems like a small violation of wp:CANVASS guideline, looking at the several criteria there for what constitutes inappropriate canvassing. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. SarekOfVulcan opened the Requested Move and had a clear position in the move. S has recently been involved in several disagreements with me, including blocking me (eventually overturned) and opening an RFC/U about me (eventually closed and deleted), and disagreeing at [wp:AN discussion] about whether the RFC/U was obviously delete-worthy, and following me closely and reverting edits in several articles, and also challenging me to open an RFC/U about him in some comment (don't have diff right now). Wanting a non-involved closer seems okay and good. But asking here, where SarekOfVulcan posts frequently, seems broadly like "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way", his way. It's a non-important article naming issue, really. But in 2 of the 4 wp:CANVASS criteria for evaluating inappropriate canvassing, Audience (votestacking) and Transparency (Stealth canvassing), the request here seems off. If the close were left to a regular Requested Move closer (admin or otherwise), that closer would be more focused on merits and less focused on anything about SarekOfVulcan vs. me. On transparency, the posting here was also not mentioned at the Talk page, where there was activity today, including some seemingly useful discussion. And since SarekOfVulcan had, at the Talk page, agreed with Orlady and me that a separate RFC should not be opened, it seems even a bit more odd that S was publicly taking a stance that the Requested Move process should conclude naturally, without other recruitment of other editors to get involved, but then asking here for someone to get involved.
    I do get the impression that non-administrators posting here or at wp:AN, perhaps especially if speaking with knowledge about guidelines and policies, tends to get administrators' attention in a negative, closing-ranks kind of way. In fact, the Requested Move was closed by Wifione. Wifione, may i presume that was in response to S's request here? And was it also after reading / in response to my objection here (but i don't guess whether you had seen my posting here beforehand or not). The announced decision statement's phrase "perspectives of seeing guidelines in a unique format by one of the opposing editors" seems to be addressed towards me, i am not sure. If it was SarekOfVulcan's goal to get a closer with that focus, and in favor of S's view, then that was achieved. Note, I myself had just added a new argument to a summary of pro and con arguments about the move there, and ask a question, which could have perhaps swayed other participants' views, but did not get time to sink in or other due consideration. So I think this is a small miscarriage of justice, or at least that letting usual processes end would have provided for a cleaner close. It is really not that important in that the name of the article does not really matter, but there are other principles involved, which is why others and i had continued with discussion. I see no reason why it had to be closed. I do believe that wifione applied his/her best, objective judgment, but that the judgment was informed in the way that S wished. --doncram (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Contentious RMs, by definition, need an admin close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Do you mean to suggest that RMs where there is disagreement need to be posted about here? --doncram (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they do not need to, but considering this is the board for requesting admin action, it's perfectly acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if it is, or appears to be, inappropriate canvassing.
    And in this new edit by you, you revert me on some copyediting which i think improved the article, for consolidating discussion of the NRHPness. That is on the very article being discussed here, but do you have to go out of your way to find little things to disagree with me about? In following me closely elsewhere, you've shown a pattern of reverts like that also on articles where you were never previously involved. Seems petty. --doncram (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on edits, not editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, editors often disagree on whether an edit "improved the article" or not. That's why we have talk pages. You add something, someone else removes it, you go to the talk page and ask why it was removed... and everyone discusses until a consensus is formed. At least that is how BRD is supposed to work. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's room for disagreement on wording, which is why i said "i think" about my own. I am noticing that SarekOfVulcan is not responding about the issue of apparent canvassing, however. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought "requesting an action that can only be taken by an admin on the board for requesting admin action is appropriate" was all the response that was needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock needed (if possible).

    User on a 69.151 prefix keeps adding nonsense to certain articles; we revert and/or block and he's back with a new number

    Current numbers used:

    ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Can anything be done here? SP would stop him, but it would have to literally be permanent and talk pages are involved. HalfShadow 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    69.151.192.0/19 would cover that range, but there's a fair amount of collateral damage. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    69.151.128.0/17 blocked 3 months. Any further vandalism will have to result in long-term semi-protection. –MuZemike 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur on the collateral damage, but I was checking two more bits to the left (.128/17). (Would your /19 cover the first address?)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blah, you're right; I skipped that one in my calculation. /17 was right then. :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify to Frank and the others that my rangeblock is anon only, account creation blocked; I have made a note in the block rationale to go straight to WP:ACC to request an account. The problem is that there has also been registered accounts this vandal has created, which goes back several months, hence the length of the block. –MuZemike 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks perfectly reasonable. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP range

    An IP range from Pakistan has been following Geniac (talk · contribs) and reverting his edits, apparently over a dispute about Ahmed Rushdi. All of the IPs are from 119.154.XXX.XXX, but otherwise vary greatly. Some samples:

    There are others, but those are the /24 ranges seen so far. Someone with more rangeblock clue than I possess is welcome to examine what might be done, as it's obvious that some selectivity is needed to keep from blocking much of Pakistan. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And 119.154.41.197 (talk · contribs) has now followed my edits to an editor who self-identified as a nine-year-old. For the record, my mother's been dead for thirty years. Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just swatted another one. A high proportion of the contributions from the /16 range appear to be the problem user; one way would be to use short range blocks, e.g. a couple of hours at a time (trolls get bored easily). It might be possible to narrow it down further but it does look like this would cause at least some collateral damage. Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some narrow ranges might work; it's not so fun to have to cycle your router four times to get an unblocked IP. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a way to do it in three: 119.154.32.0/19, 119.154.96.0/19, 119.154.128.0/21 (with the ones you've given so far -- I didn't see any more on a quick run through the full /16 contributions). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable. It's 0323 in Karachi, so I think I'll do 24 hours to discourage a return in 18 hours. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I already did it ... it's tightly focused and shouldn't affect many other editors (there was a good editor, for example, one of the other /19 ranges). Antandrus (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I stepped on one, but set it back to your terms. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Worldcat use

    Dunno if this is the right place for it, but I want to bring a topic up for larger discussion. When & where is the appropriate place to use Template:Worldcat? Reason for my asking is I've come across an editor (User:Matkatamiba) who's been merrily adding it to articles across the spectrum. For example: [71] (which is where it first caught my eye), Miley Cyrus and Kevin Costner. Said editor has added it to about 125 articles to date, and has suspended the addition for now.

    But in digging further into this, I can't see any instructions on what articles this template is intended for and as a result it's found in some rather.. unusual places. For instance, both Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous have a Worldcat link on it. I came across a mention in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 18#Proposal:_Worldcat_link where it was first proposed, which then led me to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2#Worldcat_link which seems to be the first public announcement of it. A search of the Admins' board here comes up a mention of it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive2#Adding_100.2B_external_links where one editor placed Worldcar links on 100 articles and got a tentative debate about when it is useful. Nothing seems to have been resolved in that earlier debate though either way... and it seems to have been under the general radar in the interim.

    Comments and thoughts from the peanut gallery about where (or even if) this template should be used?? Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was my understanding that the template would be a useful addition to the pages of people who have created artistic content -- books, movies, music, etc. as it provides an overview of their creative work from the perspective of what is held by thousands of libraries around the world (although primarily North America). It gives information on their most widely held works as well as the topic areas their work covers, etc.

    However, I can understand the need to determine where it might make the most sense to add these links, so as Tabercil says above I have voluntarily suspended such links until guidance on the use of the template can be determined. I have no desire to pollute Wikipedia with unwanted links. Matkatamiba (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) This was briefly discussed on IRC and I have been concerned about it popping up in External links sections on a few articles on my watch-list. Considering that all relevant pages to cite WorldCat on will have citations to publications, the fact that all OCLC links already point to WorldCat and all ISBNs point to a page which links to WorldCat as an option, this template seems highly redundant. If the (Beta) name pages on WorldCat are particularly helpful, I suggest they are first added to the Open Directory Project and interested users ensure appropriate ODP links are added to External links for which there is a well established consensus. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult for me to determine from the above comment if everyone really understands what the WorldCat template I have been using links to. It links to the appropriate "Identities" page for an individual, which summarizes their contributions to our cultural heritage as well as works others have written about them, all on one page. This template does not link to a particular work in the WorldCat database. In other words, any reference to ISBNs (that represent individual works) is inappropriate. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I think the use of the template on pages like Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous is completely spurious and unfortunately muddies the water around a perfectly legitimate template, when used appropriately. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppet

    Grundlelovesthe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    Possible new sockpuppet of Grundle2600 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

    Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks Red X Unrelated, but a watch and wait attitude is probably best. TNXMan 00:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate cleanup tag removal

    Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has been making a habit of removing cleanup tags from articles without addressing the issues to which the cleanup tags refer. For instance, he often removes the {{unreferenced}} tag from articles that have zero references and zero external links, or he removes {{orphan}} tags from articles that have zero incoming links. A quick look through his contributions for just the last few days brought up many examples: [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. He ignored my message on his talk page today and continued to remove tags [80]. He even went so far as to edit war about it with another user, as can be seen here. I can't imagine any reason why a user would remove cleanup tags without addressing the problem first. It seems like he is trying to sweep the problem under the rug so that no one notices. Cleanup tags are an organizational tool which help other editors fix problems with articles, and removing cleanup tags disrupts that organization and prevents known problems from being addressed by willing editors. Therefore, since Colonel Warden's behavior is disrupting/preventing (or, at the very least, making more difficult) the process of improving the encyclopedia, I would characterize it as vandalism. While there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior here, it's unlikely that punitive measures are required. However, is there any consensus to give Colonel Warden a warning such that the continuation of this behavior will result in a block? SnottyWong confabulate 00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suffice it to say that my actions are all in good faith and I shall be happy to discuss any particular cases with interested parties. Excuse me if I don't go through this list in detail now as it's time for bed and the details seem likely to be wearisome. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orphan tags are regarded by many editors as a nuisance. Banner tags about references are not much better because they merely state the obvious in an intrusive way. There have been repeated complaints about such intrusive tagging at Village Pump and, following a recent discussion of this sort, I have been doing something about it. Per WP:V, references are only required for material which has been "challenged or likely to be challenged" and so should not be insisted upon in a general and indiscriminate way. Again, there have been recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which confirm this and these inform my understanding of the matter. And so to bed. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you want to cite those actual discussions? If you want to use the as a defense provide them. We're not going to hunting through the archives for you. The discussion you already cited on your talk page has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on here. You cited a discussion about a bot proposal. That isn't blanket permission for you to start going through and removing maintenance tags without addressing the concerns raised in them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say block for blatantly disruptive edits, maintenance tags have a long history of acceptability on wikipedia except for a very small minority of editors I've run across who view maintenance tags on articles as some kind of personal insult to them, but that usually comes with other ownership issues on the articles in question. This edit [81] is further evidence of disruption. it's a blatantly false and misleading edit summary. Unless Colonel would like to show us where on the article's talk page [82] he added an explanation? He's now claimed that it's the talk on his page, but he didn't state that in the summary and any editor reading that would expect to find talk on the article page. It seems from the talk his trying to remove the other templates is to get the ARS template solo time at the top of the article. This makes these edits come across as pointy.-Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing orphan tags because "are regarded by many editors as a nuisance" is an action against long-standing consensus and without prior discussion. Moreover, it's pointless because editors and bots will put them back.
    • Prod tags removal without any explanation isn't very friendly action neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using "cleanup" as an edit summary, Colonel Warden removed cleanup and unreferenced tags from an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colonel Warden's inappropriate removal of cleanup tags, dishonest edit summaries, bogus sourcing to "save" articles at AfD, and dissembling when challenged is getting to be a real nuisance. I think a block at this stage would be more punitive than preventive but it should be made crystal clear to the Colonel that his interpretation of various guidelines and policies is seriously at odds with the rest of the community's, and that the way he acts upon his idiosyncratic interpretation frequently meanders over into disruptive territory. If it continues, a lengthy block would be appropriate. Reyk YO! 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Colonel is a good wiki-friend of mine. Alas, in his frustration with people who tag when they should be fixing, he has been trying to make a point in what seems a disruptive way. He knows as well as all of us that the consensus is that articles must be referenced to meet WP:V, & that his interpretation to the contrary is not generally accepted. He may not think "unreferenced" tags helpful, but they are used to compile lists and categories that most of us --myself included--find essential for improving such articles. I consider removing such tags without indicating at least some minimal sourcing does tend to disrupt our processes.
    As for "orphan", I personally agree with him that the tag is disruptive to readers if used on the article page, but unfortunately there does not seem to be consensus for that. I;d love to do something about it. But calling attention to it in this way is not a good idea
    I see no need for immediate block. If our disapproval is clear enough, I suppose he will not resume in the morning. If he does, then I think we will be forced to do that until he agrees to stop. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=395863979"