Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:David Tombe is being abused by me

I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail[ed] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Wikipedia) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that this is also being discussed at User talk:Timotheus Canens and User talk:David Tombe. It may be worth keeping an eye on those pages in case things get out of hand. I will be leaving a comment at the former page advising on what should be done here, but as an arbitration enforcement action has been taken, there is no need (yet) to discuss the matter here, so this thread can probably be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, With all due respect, I think we need to distinguish between the concept of 'alternative physics' on the one hand, and the fact that two alternative concepts of centrifugal force were being discussed on the talk page at centrifugal force. Alternative physics was not being discussed. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this [7]. I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, [8]. It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with WP procedures but I was contributing to talk:centrifugal force and the subject "abuse of David Tombe" cropped up. It seems that another editor reported himself for an abuse and it ends with this David Tombe permanently banned from physics articles. Can this be right? I have now checked back and this is about contributions to a talk page. Do you approve of free speech in a talk page? This was all about merging articles on centrifugal force into one, and got mixed up with interpretations. David Tombe's contributions were all "polite" were they not? The only heated comments came from Dicklyon and they were really minor but he admitted he had lost his temper. What is going on? I also checked back about the earlier fracas and it seems to me the ban was then to close down discussion rather than because of a single immoderate or insulting remark. OK there is disagreement here echoing Newton and Leibniz, actually very interesting stuff and as I said in the talk page, we do not understand the cause of inertia so we must be humble rather than fixed in our views of what is a real force. Is gravity a real force? We don't understand that either . I for one feel that we are seeing an injustice here where one editor (dicklyon) gets annoyed and has another banned - indefinitely.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding here is the idea that Wikipedia talk pages are somehow a place to debate what centrifugal force is, or is not (or whatever the topic of the page is). There is often a need for limited discussion of that nature, but it is important to bear in mind the need to keep such discussions limited and to focus discussions onto what edits need to be made to the page and what sources are appropriate. This doesn't mean discussing in depth the science behind what the sources say, but rather the talk page should be for discussing whether and how to present what the sources say. That might seem like the same thing, but there is a subtle and fundamental difference. In other words, Wikipedia article talk pages are not areas of free speech where opinions about the topic should be debated (though that does happen sometimes). This misunderstanding is clearly seen in the comment made by David Tombe here: "the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force". The aim of collaborating on a Wikipedia page on centrifugal force is not to come up with the last word on what is correct and what is not correct. The aim is to document what reliable sources say, and to cover some of the history, and put the rest of the history on the page about the history (see History of centrifugal and centripetal forces), and even there, the aim would be to summarise what historians of science have concluded, not to draw our own conclusions. It is very, very easy to cross the line and end up discussing the content (as you would in a forum), rather than discussing the article and what it should look like. There is even {{Not a forum}} that is put on talk pages explicitly to remind readers to avoid this conduct. For more on the community attitude to Wikipedia being treated as a forum, see the recent Village pump thread here. See also here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, You should have read the discussion before making a recommendation for a topic ban. Then you would have seen that it was indeed about how to reduce the content of five articles into one article. And if you think that the problem was that I was expressing my opinions on the topic, then so was everybody else in the discussion. As for John Blackburne, he wasn't even involved in the discussion. What is important here is that this thread has illustrated everything that is bad about wikipedia. Tim Song has acted arbitrarily on the back of rumour, without any investigation whatsoever, and he has summarily convicted without even giving the defendant a chance to defend himself. And it's not the fact that he has acted beyond his remit which is the problem here. It's the fact that the system has defended his actions and tried to argue that his actions were correct, even though everybody knows that his actions were badly wrong. Since when has it been acceptable to claim that a warning for one kind of behaviour is relevant to a warning for another kind of 'alleged' misbehaviour 15 months later? And there has been no evidence of misbehaviour presented. John Blackburne's opinions do not count as evidence. Ideally Tim Song should be de-sysoped for his actions. But experience shows that no such good fortune ever happens, and as such I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of appealing against this monumental farce. It is like England's goal against Germany at the world cup last summer. The whole world saw that it was a goal but the referee disallowed it. The decision was not overturned and England went into the second half demoralized. And so it is here. The priority is making sure that Tim Song doesn't lose face. And so be it. Let's end the pretence that there was even the remotest grain of legitimacy in his actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is polite to use people's current usernames. Secondly, since you have stated you have no intention of appealing, I suggest this thread is closed. I've explained why I think WP:NOT#FORUM applies here (the template is on that article talk page), and it applies to you more than others due to the previous arbitration case. I won't say more on that here, as that will just means things are going round in circles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Going around in circles is what Tombe does best. How many hours of pointless, endless discussion with and about him are going to go by before we finally decide enough is enough? I came to that decision about two years ago myself, over pretty much these same issues. ArbCom tried one of their "middle road" solutions and, surprise surprise, it failed. David, don't feel any need to reply to this as I will not be reading it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great at being sanctimonious to the point that it believes that proper process is not required. You would think a permanent ban would be an instance where you would want to get it right. Even if the believe is that wikipedia is right to act, you might just go that extra mile to be certain.--scuro (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said David Tombe should appeal to ArbCom, rather than go round in circles here (and elsewhere). That would be the proper process here. To respond to Beeblebrox, have a look at the voting in the proposed decision on the case. It is one of the few times I voted to support a year-long site ban and was in the minority (the topic ban was passed instead). In general, I wish administrators would enforce "not a forum" more than they do. Discussion on talk pages should be focused on improving the article, and other stuff should go to user talk pages or to off-wiki venues. Unfortunately, some editors dress up their discussion and opinion on a topic under the guise of claiming to be improving the article, claiming that in order to show why the article should be written such-and-such-a-way, they need to give a mini-lecture on the topic first. And the mini-lecture then devolves into an acrimonious debate and lots of hand-waving. But this should be discussed elsewhere. I think we really are done here now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, we can only be certain of his guilt by imposing a permanent ban so that it can sorted out in an appeal to arbcom?!?????!! Are not appeals of arbcom an opaque process not viewable to all?! I do not understand at all why this shortcut to proper justice is being imposed.--scuro (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to make yourself familiar with this situation, then. Tombe was originally topic-banned from this subject ~2 years ago, and the entire physics category is under general sanctions per ArbCom. Tombe's ban dropped, and he went right back into arguing his alternative hypothesis, exactly the same thing that got him banned before. Per ArbCom's general sanctions, admins may impose a topic ban on those who are violating the sanction rules. And Tombe is clearly doing that. Process has been followed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between what wikipedia can do and what wikipedia should do. An appeal to close the thread right now does nothing to bolster the impression that this has NOT been done too quickly. Another contributor has mentioned his breadth of knowledge that DT has on this topic and that his viewpoint is not fringe viewpoint. Has this situtation been misrepresented in anyway? As a bare minimum you would to know that wikipedia got it right before you impose a permanant ban.--scuro (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• When the case was being heard, I'd proposed a full site ban because I expected the issues to continue like a never ending story. The proposal moved forward to the PD but the majority wanted to give other sanctions a chance to work (which was fine at the time). However, this is no longer a first-timer; we're seeing repeats of the same problems by the same user which the case already dealt with. There isn't any reason for the Community to overturn what has been noted here so if an appeal is wanted, it'll need to go to AC...which brings me to my point...why is this still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the possibility of injustice.--scuro (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we reviewed that. No ban is permanent, and frankly, this restriction isn't even a site ban (perhaps unfortunately)...so if the AC remedy needs to be overturned, take it to AC so they can decide if the way in which their restriction was enforced was 'unjust'. It may not have been perfect, but if they subsequently find that this remedy was too generous, then they can fix that as well. As far as I can see, there isn't any private evidence in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ncmvocalist, but I objected to that course of action. There are two characterizations of DT by different contributors and they do not at all mesh. It disturbs me that we are so quick to bury this thread and "live" with the permanent ban. Where is the fire? Why factor in the possibility of "fixing" something later? Especially since, as far as I understand this, the appeal process is not a transparent process?!?? Any possible injustice should see the light of day now.

Do you not trust that DT is speaking truthfully or that he is not acting in good faith on this thread? I for one would like to hear him explain things more and I would like to hear more from the character witness.--scuro (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see your point here, nor why you're objecting, save for some sort of "white knight" impulse. Toombe has a history of this behavior, and returned to it after a topic ban had dropped. Reinstating the topic ban isn't a stretch, nor necessarily permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'fire' is here: WP:ARBSL. No-one I think is being quick to bury this, but are respecting the wisdom of the arbitrators who put in place the sanctions, after a long and drawn out process that took all circumstances into account, which now see this ban imposed. The recent behaviour is a return to exactly the same behaviour on the same topic that resulted in a year long physics ban. It's difficult to see where else it could go after that but an indefinite topic ban, indefinite rather than permanent as all such bans can be appealed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We have had two calls to bury this and it would have been done without objections. So again I ask, where is the fire? Had every contributor to this thread all stated the same point, then yes, I would have also agreed to bury the thread.

User WFPM saw nothing wrong with DT posts and he spoke to this in an intelligent and straightforward manner. Explain to me how this is so? Did WFPM misrepresent the situation?

While all bans can be appealed what is wrong in taking some more time here to be certain that this facts have not been misconstrued. We can actually be saving wikipedia time by doing it right the first time.

Allow DT or WFPM to speak to the issues without pressure...give them perhaps a day or two more. ANI is a very stressful place. Give him time to collect himself and respond in a reasonable manner. If he chooses not to respond shortly I am all for closing the thread.--scuro (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

[9], Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. _WM^O 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per policy - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? _WM^O 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I neither know nor care what Salegi's sexual preferences are. I could not possibly have outed him. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Oversight deleted the difference, right? That's just blatant lying right there. _WM^O 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "outing" have something to do with a person's sexual orientation? --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but it has something to do with a WP:COMPETENCE block I can see in your very near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more a "being deliberately obtuse" block. --B (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy, I don't understand why no administrator is doing anything about it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, I would like to apologize to you for the names I called you. I am sorry I did that. It was not appropriate for me to do that, and I apologize. A lot of useless friction could have been avoided had I googled your old username sooner, instead of last night. Which brings us to my note to Moonriddengirl -- I was only trying to explain to her my behavior in suddenly walking away from further interaction with you. Your age, as indicated on your own outside websites, was the determining factor in my decision. "Outing" you, in any sense of the word, was the last thing on my mind and not my intention at all. I also apologize to you for embarassing you in that regard. Sincerely, --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still an attempted violation of WP:OUTING, an egregious one I might add. Yes, you are correct that you did call me a bunch of inappropriate names multiple times which was a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So four policies/guidelines violated. That's all there is to it, administrator, please? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you want done? Please see the blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. What disruption is there to prevent here? The user seems unlikely to out you again. --B (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It would prevent him from constantly removing the {{noindex}} tags from his Sandbox pages, for one thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is another thing that I have clearly shown him the policy for and he refuses to stop removing them. I quote from the WP:NPA policy:

"Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

I would say this is a serious personal attack, not a lesser one but even a lesser attack generally starts blocks starting with 24 hours, which he has already had a 24 hour block for personal attacks, so this should bring an escalating block. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My apology to WikiManOne still holds, no matter what happens to me or my userpages here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As a point of information, WMO did practically identify himself on wiki. I was able to find an online profile with the real name in seconds, by using information he himself posted at one point or another. If he is concerned about his identity he needs to do a better job keeping it a secret. Can old edits of his be oversighted so we don't have to hear about this again? In the end this appears to me to be more of the same. These editors have been cluttering up ANI for the last week trying to get each other blocked or banned. WP:BATTLEGROUND is apparently meaningless around here. I say block all the instigators on either side of the ideological divide. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here. When I read this ANI, I was then able to find the afore mentioned personal information in seconds. I have never previously tried to find it. Indeed, until the recent spate ANI postings I'd never heard of any of these editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Then that leaves nobody interested in the tainted ideology. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I made the information publicly available, it is still considered outing, no matter how easy or how hard it is to find such information. I did ask for oversight a while back but it has not happened. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your identity known, you shouldn't say anything here that could help identify you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And why have you twice changed the timestamp on you last post in an effort to keep this discussion on the board for as long as possible? - Haymaker (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Bugs, I'm not sure why it matters how easy it is to find, it is still against the policy to OUT another editor however easy it is to get the information. It is considered an egregious violation of NPA to do so. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The exception would be if you revealed your identity within wikipedia. If someone is fishing outside wikipedia, that's supposed to be off-limits. I'm just saying you need to be careful, if you want to protect your identity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest just letting this drop? If nobody has blocked Kenatipo for this in the first four days of it, I doubt that's going to change on the 5th day. Lecturing WikiManOne about how to protect his identity kinda reminds me of Captain Hindsight (ie, not very helpful). I don't see anything that's going to come out of this discussion that hasn't already come out of it. --B (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice required, apparently...

Per this Wikipedia:Hardcore images needs an Editnotice created to let us know that we're not allowed to edit that essay without Herostratus' permission. I was going to create one myself but it seems one needs to be an admin to do it; no doubt he would have himself had he not been desysopped.

Oh, and yes the above may contain a *hint* of sarcasm. Egg Centric (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Account creators may also edit edit notices. --Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can make one if he wants it. Otherwise, I'd ignore him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar on its way Egg Centric (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I think the sarcasm is funny, this is actually a situation where some input from others would be great. Months ago I asked HS to userfy this essay. The request was refused and I took it to a deletion discussion. Editors assumed it was an attempt to censor an essay and overwhelmingly !voted to keep. Since then, HS has locked the page down. Reverts (not my changes) here and here. These on top of the gaul to say anyone can edit but me 'is not only completely out of line, it is against WP:ESSAYS. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.". Time to userfy this essay and I believe HS needs a reminder of protocol if they can dictate who can and cannot edit.Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. If anyone wants to WP:OWN an essay, time to move it out of project space. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is troubling, Fences. The essay was up for MfD this fall and the decision was "Keep" (the headcount FWIW was 11-3, and one of the "Strong Keep" voters was Jimbo, for whatever that is worth.) So just deciding on one's own say-so to ignore that is troubling, and since you also deleted the shortcut (not called for, since many shortcuts point into userspace) this is an administrative rather than just an editorial action, so this is doubly troubling. (actually, a bot did this, sorry)

Now, as to "owning", this is an interesting question, and it involves the question of "hostile edits" to essays in Wikispace. Of course what constitutes a "hostile edit" can be debatable in some cases. But not here. An editor (who has repeatedly, vociferously, and at great length expressed his opposition to and rejection of the entire thrust and thesis of the essay) was gutting the essay, essentially a slow-motion page blanking. This was no good-faith effort to improve the essay or make it stronger and clearer, but rather a hostile attempt to destroy it, disingenuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. All this is discussed on the essay's talk page, which Fences should probably have read before taking this mistaken action.

In my opinion, edits to an essay that are clearly hostile shouldn't be allowed (instead, editors are encouraged to create refuting essays of their own and link to them on the original essay's "See also" section). I think if the principle of hostile edits to essays is to be allowed, that lead to a lot chaos and basically the potential destruction of the concept of essays, at least for those which are not necessarily popular and well-protected.

But who knows, maybe it would be a good thing. But it would be a major change, and there should be some quite considerable discussion before this is accepted, I think.

So if someone could please undo Fences' action and sort this all out, that would be good idea, I think. As always, I'm open to RfC, mediation, or whatever other good solutions are available. Another MfD would certainly be permissible. But not just, you know, one editor deciding he doesn't like the page. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't one editor not liking it. You reverted two other editors trying to make changes so at least three of us were raising concerns. You are able to make it say so much more in your user space so have fun with it and make your point. If you feel it is sufficient to change policy (which is an ongoing discussion over at Commons which you have been absent from) then please submit it at the Village Pump's policy page. F&W did act a little more boldly than I expected but any admin applying the policy fixes the issue and is exactly the outcome I expected sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that in the article history, I see only User:Atomaton, not counting this one edit by Egg Centric, unless one wants to go back to November or earlier.

Well, anyway, Fences, there you have it: if you acted a little more boldly than Cptnono expected (!) then I think it's safe to say you've gone quite a bit off the edge of the board.

OK, well, this looks like a good case for mediation, I think. I'll file a request with the Cabal, and if mediation works OK we'll take it from there. In the meantime, the essay should be moved back into main essay space, and I would prefer if someone do this, but this is not critical, we can do that later on. I am restoring the shortcut, though, as this will make the page easier to point to.

Also, ould it be asking too much if, in future, participants at ANI could suggest dispute resolution or something before taking precipitate action? We do have a whole dispute resolution process, and it would a good thing if admins in particular familiarize themselves with it, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:ESSAYS, the idea of an essay is to put forward a point of view. These may range from personal to minority views, to views that enjoy wide consensus. If an essay sets out to make the case for a particular point of view, it is legitimate for the author to ensure that it stays true to that point of view. Improvements should be focused on clarifying the presentation of that point of view, but not to change the point of view. Editors who do not agree with the point of view put forward are free to write an alternative essay. Sorry, Fences, the deletion and userification without an XfD was improper, and should be undone. --JN466 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Reread it, please: Wikipedia:ESSAYS clearly says, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Do you see this occurring here? Because I certainly do. The issue is not the viewpoint, it's the refusal to let others edit it. The MfD was about the content, not the actions of the author. None of the content is being changed in userfication. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the changes Herostratus reverted: [10], [11], [12].
    • For reference, the previous MfD for the essay at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hardcore images was a clear Keep. --JN466 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at the edit history, and detailed discussions in the talk page you would see that no editor has tried to change the point of view being made in the essay. If it is in main space, then the essay is subject to the same consensus rules and BRD rules as any other article. No editor may wp:OWN the essay in mainspace. Clearly the originating editor of this essay wished for no one to modify the article without his approval, and explicitly expressed that he owned the article. Hence, he should be able to do that, but only if it is in user space. having said that -- see my earlier comment below about due process, that Herostratus should have had a chance to express his view before any action was made. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that the essay could be broken into sections allowing expression of all major points of views on the general topic. An exclusionist perspective of only allowing one editor to make changes and expressly prohibiting edits of any kind from editors that are viewed as hostile is not functional. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've dropped a post about this to the Gendergap list. I would like a few more eyes on this, in particular female eyes. --JN466 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I think that it is clear that a personal essay should be in user space, and community work to develop policies or guidelines should allow opinions and expressions from the spectrum of Wikipedia editors. In this case I was bothered by the lack of due process. I would have at least liked to see editor Herostratus express his viewpoint on why his essay should not be in user space before any decision or action was taken. Atom (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Atom, you have indicated that you will not accept mediation. I leave it as exercise to the reader to determine why this might be so. This now leaves us with the question, what to do next? RfC is not designed to handle this type of situation, and I don't know of any other dispute resolution steps that would apply here.

One solution would be for another editor or editors besides me to agree to watchlist the page and defend the page's integrity. However, we're all busy and have full watchlists, so I'm not sure if anyone is willing to do this.

Another solution would be to move the page back to main space and initiate an MfD.

A third solution would be to clarify the operative policy, by suggesting something like the following change be made to WP:ESSAY (additions show in italics, and if anyone could suggest better wording that would be fine) and submitting it to an RfC:

"Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. If an essay is subject to hostile or destructive edits (such as section or page blanking), and only a single editor objects, that editor may be assumed to be in violation of WP:OWN and the essay may be summarily moved to userspace by any editor; no WP:MFD or other procedure is required

I wouldn't support this, but it's arguable - a case could be made that if only one editor is watchlisting and defending an essay this if prima facie evidence that it doesn't have consensus to be in main space, and if the community wants to adopt this change to WP:ESSAY I'd go along with it. This is the de facto standard that is being applied by Fetchcomms and Fence, but I think it would be a good idea to have it clarified by community decision before we apply it across the board.

So which of these three solutions would be best, or does anyone have another suggestion? Since mediation has been rejected, I would seek advice. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, I agreed to assist you if you thought mediating something would help. I'm not sure what iy is I said was a "rejection". Secondly, while it was in your user space, it was your essay. What did we have to mediate? Third is, what do we have to mediate? I have just as much right as any other editos to improve Wikipedia. We went through a very normal BRD cycle and discussed viewpoints in a ehalthy way. Should all articles be mediated when that happens? Atom (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move back to Wikipedia namespace because there was an extended deletion debate with the result Keep. The essay which was considered for deletion was the one written by Herostratus, not a denatured version. The extent and manner such an essay can be changed is a question that needs to be addressed. I think edits which substantially change the meaning of the essay as opposed to refining it or elaborating on it are properly reverted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was before the ownership issue. HS proved that others were not welcome to contribute after the deletion discussion so this was a great decision. Faster than I thought but same result that should have been expected. And note that I did not edit war, edit maliciously, or even open this ANI so I am not the bad guy as HS is asserting at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am more inclined to see what is happening here as a form of censorship. Essays should reflect a range of opinions, and there was plenty of support for having this as an essay in the MfD. This reminds me a little of happened to the WP:ACTIVIST essay a few weeks ago: it was overwhelmed by editors dicking around with it, making it say the opposite of what it used to say, inserting jokes, etc. In the end it was locked, the controversy has died down, and the essay now seems to be coming along nicely, judging by the WP:ACTIVIST talk page.

I am not saying behaviour at this essay rose to that level (although this comes close, but there was still an effort to change and water down the message of the essay. If you fundamentally disagree with the message of an essay, it is better to ignore it and work on a different one stating your position; both essays can and should then link to each other. That way we get fruitful debate; not by shutting positions out.

• Move back to Wikipedia namespace per previous MfD. --JN466 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that "shutting positions out" is exactly what HS was doing by WP:OWNing the article. If people cannot edit the essay, it doesn't belong in WP space. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This absolutely needs to be userfied. In addition to ownership issues, Herostratus apparently means for this to apply to a very contrived definition of "hardcore", that is almost just bukkake and nothing else. It's a pointy salvo in a content dispute that Jimbo has latched on to. To Jimbo: While an appeal to exercising editorial discretion when it comes to pornographic images would be a completely appropriate essay, this isn't it. Gigs (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

Currently all the activities of this users seems to be trying to remove information from the Wikipedia, especially about programming languages. He may be right about single points, some pages may really not be notable, but: overall he is certainly inflicting damage to the Wikipedia. The notability-related distinguishing features are often marginal, so this systematic elimination of information, including fast deletion-processes certainly implies the loss of a lot of usefull, and even notable (for statistical reasons) articles. It will decrease the representativeness of the presented programming languages dramatically, and I do not see any benefits in this systematic elimination. In my opinion it is better to keep some non-notable programming languages than to take those risks. Even if a programming language becomes notable in near future it is unlikely that there will be usefull information available at Wikipedia due to this process, authors will be shocked by that elimination. Since he has announced not to reply to criticism, I am writing this comment here. I am really worried about the quality of information related to programming languages in the Wikipedia. Sometimes we should not be to finicky with notability-policies, when the over-all quality of Wikipedia's information about one topic is in danger, this process of deletion should be stopped. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chricho that the deletion of a few notable, but hard to prove programming languages are a loss for Wikipedia. The deletion of Nemerle and Pure alone mean that Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source for information on Functional Programming Languages. Cleaning out programming languages is a good idea, but a more conservative attitude with popular, emerging languages would be wise. I gather that this is not the proper place for this argument, however, so I will attempt to find an appropriate place. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm not a fan of one of the removed programming language, it is just about the quality of information presented here. And I do not follow Christopher's advice not to complain here, because it is not a personal issue, but I care about Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought the complaints would stop after Nemerle got deleted. I'm very conservative with the languages I nominate for deletion. Read any of my AfDs -- no one, including myself, could find one solid source (i.e., related to the subject, non-neighborhood-of-zero citations, independent, non-blog-post, etc) backing their notability, let alone multiple. In other words, if I nominate something for deletion, it will most likely be a landslide-delete. Seriously, I haven't "lost" a single AfD. Doesn't that say something about the languages I'm nominating for deletion? If you don't think so, please, click the User Contributions link, find my AfDs, and find admissible sources for the languages in question. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the deletion of articles just saying “this language is usually ignored”. But some of them are really interesting, no orphans and an enrichment for the Wikipedia, e.g. Pure or Nemerle, they are notable because of their characteristics, not because of some Wikipedia-guidelines, I do not get, how it should become easier “to find interesting programming languages” if they get deleted, although there are some scientific papers. I know that you win your AfDs, but there is something more notable about your user contributions list: just destructive changes. It is obvious that there will be collateral damage. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then take your complaints up with the WP community, I didn't come up with the notability guidelines. However, I happen to think the deletions are for the better. It is impossible to browse PL lists and categories because of the overwhelming number of pet programming languages on WP. If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules, we do not have to change all guidelines, if they obviously imply damage in specific cases. Btw: “…because of their characteristics…” and because of agile communities, you should consider that aspect, too. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

“If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google.” they aren't pets, they (are|were)n't orphans, they fit nicely into the Wikipedia as additional information. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think why nobody ever complained about all those stubs, about Nemerle, Pure or the size of the list of programming languages and why there are so many complaints about your work now? I think there is a good reason. Btw all those stubs are the main-reason why I prefer the English Wikipedia to the German one, at the German Wikipedia there are more such people trying to enforce all rules and to delete many articles. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing, regarding Nemerle you are arguing against a AfD decision - you can do that at WP:DRV. Secondly, you appear to be accepting that that and other computer languages may not comply with WP policy but suggesting that this is good. Interesting stance (but perhaps not one to advance at DRV)... The major issues regarding Christopher Monsanto's work is that he is apparently unpopular with various individuals for trying to apply both letter and spirit of policy to an area of WP that appears rather lax in complying with requirements. As one of the correspondents at the Nemerle AfD said, why not make the effort to find the reliable sources required? WP:IAR is only where non compliance is of benefit to the project, and is not an excuse for laziness, ineptitude or simple lack. It is inappropriate to blame the messenger, when it is those complaining who should have found the references for the articles. Since a sizeable percentage, perhaps a majority, of those complaining and opposing AfD's for these computer language articles are those involved in producing, marketing and using these products, surely it would be easier for them to find the relevant reliable third party sources? Or perhaps there are no such references? In which case, start an RfC for the argument that Computer Language articles need not comply with WP requirements. In any event, do stop attempting to stifle Christopher Monsanto from using proper WP processes to improve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of those languages. But I think it is not normal to do nothing else than destruction in the Wikipedia, deleting articles having been there for three years, that is not the normal process, normally articles get removed after 2 weeks or something like that. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Agree with LHvU above. Edits like this one [13], where you ask CM "What the Hell are you doing?" simply because he puts an article up for deletion, are simply not civil. Blaming the messenger isn't going to help build an article that demonstrates notability. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have no horse in this race, not having ever read the articles being contested. But I feel like it would be wrong of me not, in the interest of full disclosure, to bring this to the attention of those in this discussion: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It made Hacker News, as well. Suffice to say, a lot of people weren't too happy about it. It's still at the top of proggit and HN, so a lot of traffic will continue to be driven this way. Still, CM has left a message on his talk/user page that should appease anyone with an axe to grind. It's unfortunate that many of those who came from reddit weren't capable of behaving civilly and resorted to personal attacks. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to mark some SPA comments, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Dayewalker, sorry, I was upset, I could not understand why somebody is trying to damage the Wikipedia in that way. I did not come from reddit, but from Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

People will always be willing to complain about things, but less willing to go do something about it —Blackmane (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki does not only allow constructive, but also destructive behaviour, so not doing something is sometimes a good thing compared to some activities. That is also the reason why IAR can apply to being lazy. Btw, protesting is also an action, not constructive, but it can prevent destruction. The pros and cons at reddit seem to be very appropriate. I think we should stop the deletion of non-stub-articles about programming languages and articles about programming languages with active communities (Alice, Nemerle, Pure, Falcon, …) instantly, deletions against the will of many people before there is any consensus and against the previous consensus (simply keeping it) are a bad thing, although the formal process might have been okay. There are good reasons for the protests and for the duration they have(had) been existed. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote User:Christopher Monsanto: “Dear internet, You guys win. I will stop nominating pages for deletion.”. Should Nemerle and Alice be restored? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not on that basis. The DRV discussions are ongoing -- we'll see what happens there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that SarekOfVulcan started this whole mess (Christopher_Monsato just joined in) I can hardly think that he is a neutral party. Yserbius (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chircho, you really don't get it. Wikipedia is not a majority rule. You don't "win" by drowning out the opposition with numbers. Nor with "It's useful" arguments. WP:IAR is not for keeping articles with no sources. You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Wikipedia's rules.

I know the rules (at least those you mention), I know that AfDs do not get decided by the majority, but I have an opinion what is good for Wikipedia and this particular topic in the Wikipedia, and I have never said that the majority would decide, but I said that this majority against deletion indicates that it is not a clear decision. So stop speculating about my argumentation and start arguing yourself, why those deletions should be good for the Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reading that thread I'm amused by the fact that everyone has an opinion about the contours of our coverage on pokemon but demands that no one have an opinion about our coverage on functional programming language. I'd just give this a few days for it to fall off the reddit front page when someone makes a bacon hat or something. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What should we do without Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot? :D --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the armchair editors at reddit, we should delete it because it serves as an example of how deletionists ruin wikipedia. Really we should do with that subject what we do with any subject. If there are reliable sources with which we can write a factual, neutral and appropriate article, then we should have an article. If there aren't, we shouldn't have an article. The notability policy isn't perfect (and like any rule, is not perfectly decidable), but it works pretty damn well. As a best case we find ourselves with a decision rule which makes the actual subject type irrelevant. As a worst case we have a distribution of articles which represents the past more than the future (and subjects with published coverage over those which do not). But it serves pretty well. I could just as easily turn this around and complain that reddit should/shouldn't frontpage certain articles or images because I have some prior expectations about what should be on reddit. But you know and I know such complaints are pretty Quixotic. Reddit has a mechanism to moderate content and the front page exists as a result of that mechanism. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And to paraphrase Christopher Monsanto's words over Nemerle, the entire matter would come to a sudden halt with all parties satisfied if someone could simply provide some reliable sources for that programming language. You mean periodicals like Information Week or the Computer Society's Computer never published an article on it? Or is the problem none of its defenders are willing to put Google aside & make a trip to their local library & ask a professional there how to search through the technical literature? -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protect Vex News

Relevant links: [[14]] --Article for semi protect [[15]] --Article subject [[16]] --User harassed off WP for editing the article [[17]] --User harassing above user [[18]] --User who created the article [[19]]

The article on the conservative blog / news site in Australia, VEX News is in a poor state and I'm requesting Semi-Protection so that I am able, along with other interesting WP editors to clean it up without the threats / reverts / undos etc. that have come from a range of anonymous IP's and 2 users (including the user who created the article). All of the IP's in the list below began by editing the article, all but 2 ONLY edited the article. As such I am going to assume they are the same people as the registered users and I am not going to notify them that they are being discussed. I apologise if this is against policy. I will notify SammyAzizMercedes and Gerrydavidson

• [[20]] |175.37.98.245
• [[21]] |175.35.117.201
• [[22]] |58.171.2.174
• [[23]] |58.171.153.94
• [[24]] |SammyAzizMercedes
• [[25]] |110.174.108.177
• [[26]] |Gerrydavidson
• [[27]] |58.171.231.121
• [[28]] |120.156.194.153
• [[29]] |120.156.203.92

For all intents and purposes it appears that this article was created as a fluff piece by user GerryDavidson and protected by a series of anon IP edits and SammyAzizMercedes. When I first encountered VexNews it was during the last Federal Election and there was a considerably nasty piece, near the top of google searches for a labor party candidate in an electorate. The piece attacked her viciously on a number of fronts, not having a single source for its claims and there not being a single mention of the claims on any online source despite their ferocity and intensity. I get the feeling this website and hence the WP article are part of a partisan game of name-blackening and little more and suggest editors be vigilant to assure this doesn't continue. Furthermore, as part of these tactics it seems User: Roooster was bullied off WP as she stopped editing after being threatened by user SammyAzizMercedes.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather stale looking at the edit history of the article. Collect (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a pattern. Each time there is an edit, anon IP's turn up. I thought it was worth asking (even if denied) to get semi-protect to ensure editing is more secure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed after a bit more of a poke around that the article on the author of Vex News has suffered the same problems. Semi-Protect has been granted, then lifted and the problems have returned. I now ask for Permanent Semi-Protect for both neglected articles.

[[30]] --Talk page discussing previous semi-protect and Anon IP edits.

Now for a list of suspect editors on the Andrew Landeryou article:

• [[31]] |DoclerWhose?
• [[32]] |120.155.146.242
• [[33]] |120.156.124.244
• [[34]] |Showninner888
• [[35]] |120.152.29.130
• [[36]] |124.180.34.30

Ok forget this ... the amount of IP's is endless, the amount of users with identical talk pages and edits only to this article seems outright stupid. This is downright intimidating.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might've found the motivation for this campaign. This character, Landeryou first had an article made about him talking about his arresting and sacking as demonstrated at; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Landeryou&action=historysubmit&diff=358610162&oldid=18461385 Since then, he (or someone acting in his interests) has acted almost as a vigilante attempting to clean his online image in order to support the operation of his news website.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely WP:RPP is the place to go...? GiantSnowman 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, that's the correct page to request protection; and no, the article shouldn't be semiprotected based on the above report. None of those contributors is vandalizing, they are disputing a part of the article, and they have engaged in discussion about it. We don't semiprotect articles in order to pick sides in a content dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I looked for that page, thinking I'd been there before but I couldn't find it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Gavin immer, we should semi-protect articles in this kind of dispute. I gave up eventually at Andrew Landeryou, but IPs and new accounts would constantly remove anything that the subject might not like, effectively sanitising it and turning it into a hagiography. IP hopping and meatpuppetry is ground for semi-protection. Look at Talk:Andrew Landeryou to see what I was dealing it. Fences&Windows 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So thats 1 for and 2 against? More opinions would be nice. Thank you for your opinions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this is the right venue, I think the honourable Fences is right about semi-protection; it might be a good idea in this case. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree on semi-protecting these two articles. We have the responsibility to prevent the recurrence of a chronic problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

persistent Frances Fox Piven blanking and legal threat

(Copy of WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#persistent_Francis_Fox_Piven_blanking_and_legal_threat needing prompt attention)
Please see Frances Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat from User:Fannielou. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I received a similar legal threat from FannieLou, who is past 6RR with blanking the page. She should be blocked immediately.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fannielou is now blocked by MuZemike, who got there seconds before I did to do the same. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have gotten that earlier, but I accidentally blocked Rostz instead. My sincere apologies to Rostz for that. –MuZemike 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the content dispute is concerned, she may have a viable complaint. I have already directed Fannielou to OTRS. She was retracted her legal threat on her talk page, but in the event of her unblock (which I won't oppose) I think it might not hurt to full-protect Frances Fox Piven for a few days to allow discussion on the talk page (or via OTRS if she chooses) to occur. Thoughts? –MuZemike 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a very crappy situation (person is an innocuous academic from what I can tell, getting death threats due to a harassment campaign, partly about an article she wrote 45 years ago in a drastically different social climate than today). Per "do no harm" please do protect the article or do whatever else it takes to prevent it from worsening her problems. I personally would support an AfD in rather strong terms, but I'm almost certainly in a minority about that. Cloward–Piven strategy appears to be a poorly sourced neologism that should also be deleted. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One thought that no one seems to have brought up, does Fannielou want her email address included in her posts? It appears several places. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing after briefly looking at it (and I agree, this is a very crappy situation). We got this recent incident as documented from The Guardian here, which, in layman terms, Piven is basically in some sort of a shouting war with Glenn Beck (surprise, surprise). We can keep the "criticism" section at proper weight compared to the rest of the article as well as focused and neutral, but even keeping all that in mind, I don't think Wikipedia is obligated to protect Piven (or conversely Beck) for whatever fallout might occur as a result by omitting any mention of her ongoing battle with Beck, not to mention most of the other stuff in the article which can be easily found in other online sources as currently referenced in the article (i.e. the "personal information"). –MuZemike 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify with my above comment: once something like this hits The Guardian, The New York Times, or any other widely reputable international source (that's the important part, the WP:RS part), then suppressing said information from Wikipedia is not going to do too much more good. –MuZemike 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ick. What an all-round unpleasant situation. I've nominated this article for deletion, not so much because I'm sure it should be deleted or stubbed, but because I feel like consensus is needed, and I'm leaning in the direction of deletion- I'm not sure that Piven meets WP:ACADEMIC, and I'm not sure that she should be considered notable just because Glenn Beck decided to give her notoriety. Maybe you feel differently, and that's okay. I have a lot of mixed feelings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 5 ofWP:ACADEMIC: appointment as a "Distinguished Professor". Publisher's blurb[37] states, "Frances Fox Piven is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, CUNY". Glrx (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the AFD is now underway (and discussion regarding deletion should go there instead), what about the unblock request on Fannielou's page, given that it looks like she has retracted the legal threat. My concern is that she will go right back to trying to blank the Piven article, which is why I recommended above that we should possibly full-protect the article in the meantime; at the very least let discussion about the content itself go on Talk:Frances Fox Piven. –MuZemike 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article; the last thing we need right now is someone who doesn't know better adding stuff in there that can cause further damage. –MuZemike 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope its OK if I weigh in here, as I have edited both Frances Fox Piven and Cloward Piven Strategy and was one of the editors to revert the blanking of the former earlier today. As someone who sympathizes with Frances Fox Piven and has taken a look at the overall situation, I believe the following: 1. She is a notable academic and columnist on her own, not just because of the attack by Glenn Beck. 2. Though my original reaction was that "Cloward Piven Strategy" was a recent conservative neologism, a Google book search discloses a 1975 book in which she and Dr. Cloward used the phrase and other significant use by liberals and others after the original 1966 essay appeared. While I respect the need to respond to a legal threat and our attention to BLP issues regarding Dr. Piven, the right solution is not to delete the two articles, both of which deal with notable matters and belong in this encyclopedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" in that Google Books link. I do see the link shows that the word "strategy" occurs in a book written by Cloward and Piven, but that is not the same thing. I think to have a standalone article about the phrase, you need some reasonable academic sources focusing on the concept. Otherwise it should get at most a brief mention in some other article. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I note that currently the material on the controversy is not in the article. I've given my opinion on the talk p. there, that this is the opposite of protection of living subjects--we do not protect here by making it obvious to everyone likely to read the article that we are censoring the content. My opinion of GB is something below what I am capable of expressing in writing, but we best protect his victims by preserving the principles of free expression that he is so outrageously misusing. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still support deleting the Piven biography (which isn't going to happen), but given that it's staying, the GB conflict should be briefly mentioned in it. Since the conflict mostly derives from Beck's notability rather than Piven's, though, any lengthier discussion of it should go in Beck's biography instead of Piven's (which can cross-reference it). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing, meatpuppets,SPAs, oh my!

This. This. This. Some stuff here. The general issue has been brought up before, but this really needs to have its own section brought to administrator attention. There's a lot of SPAs and all that jazz that need dealing with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's not much we can do about it, I'm afraid. It's like trying to deal with 4chan trolls, and I've been dealing with them every day since I virtually became an admin, if not before. –MuZemike 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, no action's needed before they move on soon. But it's important that at least the closing admins of the AfD's affected are aware, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article in question is at DRV right now (not mentioning which one or pointing to any specific discussion per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the details, but from just looking through the user's talk page I saw a few IPs or new editors who's only recent edits were on that talk page and on programming language AfDs.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Christopher Monsanto' talk page be semi-protected until this all blows over? That has been the general course of action when a user is verbally abused by random IPs. —Farix (t | c) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it, but ended up just blanking most of the insults. It's over, now. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If these people blow off steam on his talk page, it keeps other parts of the wiki from being damaged. Better to leave it, unless Christopher says he's had enough --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "blowing off steam" is a legitimate excuse to overlook a campaign of personal attacks by IPs. When there is a problem with an editor being personally attack, administrators have a responsibility to prevent the attacks from occurring further, regardless of whether the editor asks for protection from the personal attacks or not. The fact that Christopher Monsanto has now withdrawn from editing as a result is the very thing that WP:NPA is suppose to prevent. I honestly don't see any good that has came out of this mess while the culprits now know that they can get away with similar abuse in the future. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's over now. CM went to LHvU to ask for help, and I suggested a temporary semi-prot, but LHvU didn't edit again until the storm was mostly passed. I spent a couple hours keeping an eye on his talk page and blanking any personal attacks (narrowly interpreted). There's nothing for AN/I to do now, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing it. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that personal attacks should be ignored. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of fraud

Would any more admins care to join the two currently in a deletion/recreation fest at Category:British politicians convicted of fraud? I will let them both know of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an ok category to me. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To me too. --JN466 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And the way things are going, it looks like it could become quite a well-populated one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Oops, I used the wrong smiley there - I meant the sad one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a very sad state of affairs. Even worse that my party seems to be the main offender...GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Political comment: But no surprise. Egg Centric (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any of you take a look at the logs? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Category was temporarily deleted pursuant to this close. Apparently User:Scott MacDonald can't handle this delay. That's fine. It's a little bit ha-ha funny, but fine. I'm not going to keep pulling away the pacifier by deleting it again. By re-creating the category three times he appears to have violated 3RR, but I'll let someone else deal with that if they think it's worthwhile. Given his reactions thus far, I doubt acting on it would result in anything approaching a teachable moment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't get to delete something without any basis in the WP:CSD policy, redelete is as a recreation when there hasn't been any deletion discussion (as required by policy CSD G4), then throw the 3RR policy at me. Look, we disagree as to whether this category should exist - so you nominate it for deletion and we calmly discuss it. Just leave your admin tools in the drawer next time.--Scott Mac 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point—that's where you assume too much and turn everything into a battleground. I was carrying out a temporary administrative action; the close said the categories could be recreated after the DRV—but no, you just couldn't wait when you were asked repeatedly to do so. And yes, you violated 3RR, which is a bright line rule you can't get around. It's difficult to "leave your admin tools in the drawer" when one is carrying out admin functions of closing an inappropriately timed CFD temporarily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Huh? You early closed a CFD discussion by deleting an category that had not been nominated for deletion - and leaving that populated category as a red link. Nothing gives an admin the discretion to do that. If it were only temporary then why not just leave things as they were? The DRV is due to close prior to the CFD, so there was no need for you to do anything - and I actually don't think the DRV can any impact on this either way anyhow but ymmv.--Scott Mac 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • "Huh?" indeed. Yeah, I can see you still don't get it, or are at least choosing not to do so. I've no desire to attempt yet another explanation or to continue this lovely banter—I already got a belly full of that on my talkpage. Bottom line: try to respect the administrative actions of other admins, don't bother to inquire on their talk pages about the action if you are just going to do what you want in any case, and don't violate 3RR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
          • (ec)Bottom line: please don't abuse your admin tools. If you want something deleted that's not coverted by the CSD, then use XfD. If revert waring is bad, doing so with admin tools is worse.--Scott Mac 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't "want something deleted". You've completely missed the boat, and I don't think it's coming back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
              • If you don't care why did you comment to endorse the dubious deletion of the parent category here?Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                • My vote was purely procedural and had nothing to say about the merits of the category in and of itself. DRVs are purely about process and are not XFD round 2. The boat's now too far away for me to shout to the shore anymore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yes, it looks to me like you were all at sea long before I got to the beach.--Scott Mac 23:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • What I'm saying is your continued stated belief in what I was trying to achieve is so far away and so unconnected from what I have repeatedly stated as my actual intent that I see little point in continuing discussion. You missed it somewhere near the very beginning, I think, either mistakenly or deliberately, and I don't see a prospect for change in that regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Groucho on What's My Line, addressing a Mystery Guest: "Are you a corrupt politician? Am I being redundant?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Science kook refusing to back down at Talk:Sun

• Lawstubes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Talk:Sun (edit | history)

Lawstubes is disruptive editor with a history of pure pseudoscientific POV-pushing, and who has been blocked for that in the past. Right now, he's back after an absence of several months, doing exactly what he was doing before he got blocked.

In case you aren't sure that he's pushing pure garbage, he's claiming the sun does not emit light (amongst a long list of equally insane claims). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue. We have no concern for content. He would have to say a naughty word or otherwise breach a behavioral guideline in order for action to be warranted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He was previously blocked in September 2010 for edit warring. He has also been warned under his IP User:173.218.85.222 (which I understand he acknowledges is him). This particular issue involves huge interference with the talkpage which can be seen in the talkpage history. He removed his own and other editors posts, shifted things around, left responses hanging in the air and then briefly edit warred to keep it that way. He stopped when this ANI was filed. I have warned him on his talkpage that this is disruptive and referred him to the relevent guideline.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If his edits are inappropriate, provide examples in the form of diffs. Otherwise, he's simply arguing for his (incorrect) views. if he abides by our rules, he's fine. If not, we need diffs. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree diffs should have been provided. A quick look at the talkpage history showed the situation though. After I warned him another admin blocked him for 31 hours. I have put a block notice on his page if he wants to appeal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the history of the Talk page shows clear comment-refactoring and edit-warring - individual diffs surely aren't needed when it's so blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious COI on Danese Cooper

It's pretty clear that there is a big COI problem here with folks on the board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem. Simon Phipps has self identified himself as Open Source Guy (talk · contribs) and Webmink (talk · contribs), Russ Nelson is self-evident as RussNelson (talk · contribs) and Danese Cooper is also on the board. Now a co-worker of Danese's at the Wikimedia Foundation, Steven Walling (talk · contribs) has stepped in and removed the tags pointing out the WP:COI connections. The bigger problem is that several of these editors have been writing poorly sourced articles about each other relying largely on primary sources. This is probably the worst example of COI editing I've come across and now has WMF intervention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps other readers might find it interesting that Toddst1, in his hurry to accuse others of misbehavior, has failed to noticed that neither Danese nor Simon have ever edited the article about me. I've edited the article about Simon exactly once, to announce that he had moved from observer status to being on the board, AND I included a citation in the edit notice, feeling that three words didn't justify an inline citation. He was accurate to say that Simon and I have edited Danese's article.

That said, I believe that WP:COI is highly overweighted. Frankly, if anybody asked me if they should edit wikipedia using their own name, because of the activities like Mrs. Toddst1's, I would say "never ever". If you edit anonymously, you will never be accused of COI. I happen to be an honest person, and have nothing to hide, so I edit using my own name. Perhaps, given her accusations, I should be editing under a pseudonym like Mrs. Toddst1's. She will NEVER be accused of a COI because nobody can know what her interests are. ... I believe that Wikipedia is not helped by the activities of anonymous editors. Why be anonymous unless you have something to hide? And yeah, girlie, I'm lookin' at you.

The problem is made worse for people who are notable. If someone anonymous or not notable wants to get picky with the article about you, and goes on a deleting spree, as have Damiens.rf (repeatedly deleting citations) and Toddst1 (diffs), any reverting of the article about you looks bad. Thus, if there is a conflict on other articles, it can easily spill over into the article about you, and as a notable person editing under your own name, you have no recourse. This is not a good thing and provides a strong incentive to edit anonymously. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I stepped in because I watch the article, and this kind of drama is driving away editors who are participating in good faith. Are some of the editors people who know Danese in real life? Yes. Do they they think it needs to be whitewashed and have no notices about the fact that there are problems in the article? Clearly not. No one disagrees that the bio is kind of crappy and needs way better sourcing. But freaking out and pointing fingers at people who clearly are here to collaborate in good faith does nothing to improve a poor BLP. To say that me or people who know Danese are strictly forbidden from participating and using talk page templates to initiate some kind of witch hunt is ridiculous when everyone is completely and intentionally transparent. I don't have a lot of time to waste on this today, but this overly aggressive stance and assumptions of bad faith are only working to push away editors who care about improving the article. Steven Walling 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions on either side, if there are editors editing an article that they have a close affiliation with and, thus, a COI, it must be pointed out on the talk page with the usual template which I notice has indeed been removed. Silverseren^C 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the template is only for the subject of the article. Is that wrong? It seems like the list would be crazy long (potentially everyone at the Foundation?) otherwise. (Yep, you were right Silver.) Anyway, I don't really much care about whether the template is there or not, so long as we can be a little more cordial about the whole affair. The OSI-connected editors involved clearly aren't here to own the article or push other editors around, and I think we need to assume some good faith here. Steven Walling 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the folks at the foundation should live up to the standards set by the community and avoid editing articles about each other. Those rules should apply to foundation employees as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions like this are why we need to tone down the hostility. This isn't a battle front to be defended against all outsiders, it's an open community for a reason, and the OSI folks have the right frame of mind in participating. Steven Walling 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would these folks be considered "notable" if they weren't connected with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the big deal is here, are members of churches banned from editing articles about people in the same denomination? No, even though they theoretically could have a conflict of interest. Rather, it is people with some level of connection with the subject, either negative or positive, that have an interest in improving and expanding articles. Why should that be driven away? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx4) I'm not seeing how the WMF staff and the OSI folks are failing to follow community standards. The vast majority of our articles are written by, and maintained by, people who have an interest in the subject. Provided they are following the five pillars, there is no conflict of interest. There is also the fact that, when it comes to personal beliefs, we come down hard when the beliefs of a subject cannot be directly attributed to a statement by the subject; the subject's statement outweighs whatever others say. So I am at a loss as to why Cooper's own statement about her beliefs is considered unreliable, when that is what we would hope to see from other subjects. (And yes, Baseball Bugs, the CTO of one of the top-5 internet sites would be notable enough for a biography; Cooper had one years before she joined the WMF.) Risker (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, they weren't following the 5 pillars, putting in unsourced information, and when sources were used, most were primary. Look at the mess at Russ Nelson. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about "primary sources" and when they are appropriate. The official website of an organization is a reliable source for the membership of its board of directors, even if it is a primary source. A person's blog, where they state their philosophical beliefs, is a reliable source for the person's beliefs, even if it is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, but are specifically not excluded from use of sourcing. Perhaps the "mess" over a Russ Nelson wouldn't be such a mess if people understood this. As it exists right now, it is not a proper article and it serves only to disparage the subject; it is a G10 at the moment, and I'll go speedy it if there's not some resolution. Risker (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will put on my website that I graduated Magna Cum Laude from Santa's Reindeer Academy. Then I will write an article about myself which cites that primary source. I am, afterall, a reindeer and I have a primary source to prove it! Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've consulted the Santa's Reindeer Academy's website, and not only do they not list you as a Magna Cum Laude graduate, not only do they not list you as a graduate in any year, they only list you as a freshman in the class of 2001, but suspiciously you disappear after that. I can only conclude that you are IN FACT not a graduate at all, but instead you flunked out. And if we can't believe the SRA as a primary source, we certainly shouldn't believe anything published about the SRA. And frankly, I'm underwhelmed by your contributions to Wikipedia. You delete a lot, but what have you created? I don't believe that deletionists can count their activities as improving Wikipedia. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove here, although I suspect your essay probably explains a lot of the frustrating editing situations you've encountered. However, I think you're being a bit unreasonable to suggest that someone's own words are an unreliable source for their philosophical beliefs (after all, even if they occur in another source, the words will still have come from the subject); or that an organization is an unreliable source for the names of those sitting on its Board. Where do you think the secondary sources get this information? Risker (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the most insightful and on-target essays I've seen in quite a while. Thanks for the pointer. @Toddst1, give it up, you can't fight city hall. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else amused that Toddst1 wrote an essay that says "If you think an admin is on to you, quickly accuse him/her of being involved and/or having a bias and report them immediately ANI. You should probably throw in a few uncivil comments to give the air of authenticity to your actions", and then is here doing exactly that? :) AlexandraJackson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad for your 11th edit (only 9 were not having to do with Danese). Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF You're continuing to do the things you decry. Please stop. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, don't rile A-Jacks. She's stronger than dirt.[38] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I have to agree with Baseball Bugs, is she even notable to start with? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow Todd, way to go with the hostility on that talk page. Why not calm down a little and stop being so unpleasant? Why can't we verify someone's religious affiliation with their own blog? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". See WP:SELFPUB. And WP:COI doesn't prohibit people with a declared COI from editing articles. You should read up on policy, particularly WP:BITE. Fences&Windows 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Nelson. The subject had removed content and prodded it, but this appeared to be more frustration than an actual desire for the bio to be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish the negative emphasis, and I would regard anyone restoring it as being in direct violation of the obvious principles of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This is a good example of why we need an edict prohibiting BLPs on marginally notable people. (Yes, I've said this before, and I'll keep on saying it.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:GutiLucian02

GutiLucian02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing little more than playing with his User page since registering, and looks like he's just doing random things. That itself is pretty harmless (although he's been doing stuff there that's needed reverting), though he's also been making some bad changes to articles, which also get reverted. But now, he's just done this to my user page, after I asked him not to change the dates of tags on articles. I'm not sure I could go as far as to suggest it's a vandalism-only account, but does anyone think anything needs to be done? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed he's already been indef blocked. Sorry to waste your time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...And now they've requested an unblock. I've asked them to explain where they screwed up, but have not declined outright - yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from both their current talk page and its history, I tried multiple times to engage this user in dialogue about their editing pattern and what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I was roundly ignored, as were several other users who tried to talk to them. If they can explain specifically what they would do if unblocked I guess a second chance may be in order, but I think we have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Maybe decline with {{2ndchance}}? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Dear admins/non-admins,

I have a question and want to ask it here: As far as I am aware, iPod Nano is a copyrighted trademark, right? So if a user name has such username, doesn't it violate the Wikipedia:Username policy, even if they don't promote anything? An answer would be great. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pushed to argue that it's strictly speaking illegal (incidentally, it's not copyrighted, just trademarked, but it hardly matters). Whether it violates policy, of course, is another question. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several users whose ID's start with "Ipodnano". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the usual answer to this is, "it doesn't matter". We can have user names like "Firefox lover" or "ToyotaCorollaDriver" or "Rock band player". I think this is because the user is not actually infringing on the trademark because they are not offering the same product. I think that if a user named "iPod Nano" offered himself as a portable music player, then that would be infringing on Apple's rights. I found this on a Harvard cyberlaw site: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent."^[39] /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The more likely potential problem is POV-pushing. I don't see how the name, by itself, would be much of an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this, it doesn't appear to be a problem. If you feel it is, consider asking for input over at WP:RFCN Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mad Doggin 7 continuing disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings/reports on multiple issues

Resolved

 – ...maybe. Account indeffed, IP blocked for a month. Report any ducks. N419BH 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The user, Mad Doggin 7 (and likely also editing under the IP 65.254.165.214) has been the subject of no less than 2 ANI reports within the past week for serious and multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. These reports were archived without any administrator intervention or even comment. Several warnings were posted over relevant pages, including his talk page(s) and the article's talk page (which he frequents). Please see the following archived reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#User_Impersonation_-_Mad_Doggin_7_Making_False_Claims_Using_my_Signatures.2FClaiming_to_be_Moderator

Since then, within the last few hours, he has continued to persist in making these disruptive edits, once again ignoring all evidence against his claims and failing/refusing to provide any sources (as he has done on at least 16 separate occasions over the past several months), and defying community concensus and multiple warnings. He is likely emboldened by the lack of administrator action despite overwhelming evidence and explicit reports of his multiple and serious infractions.

I strongly urge immediate administrator action this time to prevent further disruption to this article and and to other Wikipedia users. He has shown consistently over his history that he has no intention of ever heeding any evidence or warnings, and will continue to post his gross misinformation while refusing to provide sources or evidence, and is willing to go to extreme ends to persist, including threatening other users, lying about administrator privileges, and explicit impersonation. CannikinX (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well - having been repeatedly asked for sources, claimed an apparently non-existent source, impersonated another editor to falsly back it up and threatened everybody if they continued to argue - he is now merely re-adding his unsourced additions. Why does Wikipedia need an editor like this? I would propose an indef. block - unless there are serious signs of understanding the nature of what he has done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response Fainites. I agree that an indefinite block is in order as (if 65.254.165.214 is indeed the same person as seems likely) he has shown in the past that despite multiple (4) temporary blocks, he has no intention of stopping his disruptive behavior, but rather continues upon expiry of the blocks. CannikinX (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what he has to say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a warning regarding unsourced content, but we're now getting into severe WP:IDHT. Block is in order to prevent disruption. I don't think the user has been blocked before (nothing in the public log). It also looks like every single file they have uploaded has been deleted. An appropriate restriction from uploading images is also in order once the block expires. N419BH 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the IDHT. I know he was only warned for falsifying sources and "support" for those sources but it does seem at the moment that basic integrity and a basic willingness to edit in accordance with the principles is missing. This is beyond the usual over-enthusiasitc POV pusher. I proposed an indef. until such time as he can demonstrate an understanding of basic principles. It would help if he would come and discuss this here though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just now, a little over an hour ago, he has once again reverted the page, using his alternate IP 65.254.165.214. See the following diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=414076540&oldid=413962874. There is no doubt that this is the same person, as this address has exactly the same behavior and pushes exactly the same edits (it is also the address which I mentioned had been blocked 4 times previously for similar behavior; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A65.254.165.214). CannikinX (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked account for disruption. Blocked IP for a month. Hopefully he'll just go away. Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for settling this, Rklawton, hopefully for good. I seriously cannot fathom what is going on inside his head. He just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper with every act. I will keep a close eye on his IP activity once the 1 month block period expires. Given his past history, repeat offenses are a distinct possibility. CannikinX (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive trivial insertions, failure to communicate, within 1 day of expiration of 6 month block

Resolved

 – IP re-blocked for 1 year, edits reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This IP 99.26.208.157 (talk · contribs) is within 1 day of coming off a 6 month block for the same behavior. It has begun again. Apparently the user continuously adds the fact that Alvin and the Chipmunks covered a song to a song or album's article. None of these are referenced, and even if they are true, it remains questionable whether they're relevant. What's distressing though is that they've added over 100 of these over the last 5 hours.

More notable, this has happened within 1 day of the block expiring. It almost makes me wonder if this is some kind of automated script.

Of course they have made no response to any attempt to communicate, which was true in the past as well.

I did begin to roll back these edits, but reversed myself, deciding to bring it here first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also turned this in to WP:AIV, to see who gets to it first. I recommend holding off on the rollbacks until the IP is put on ice again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What seems puzzling to me is that after looking through some of the edits by the ip, they seem to be adding true information and not vandalism. I don't know if I personally would have added these without a reliable source, but given the fact that none of the other information in the section appears to be sourced either, it seems that Shadowjams could have made better use of his/her time. I don't know what triggered this response by Shadowjams, but these edits are clearly not vandalism and seem to be good faith edits attached to a content dispute with shadowjams.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and this IP has accumulated over 7 months worth of blocks because of a single so-called "content dispute with Shadowjams". I find that hard to believe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the blocks were for adding this same information which if I interpret them correctly were not vandalism then and are still not vandalism. It troubles me to see that this ip account was blocked for what seems to me to be adding correct information in the past. The ip was warned for adding information to a section of an article that has other uncited information in it. Very Very puzzling.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no previous interaction with this user (that I know of). There's no content dispute that I'm aware of. Shadowjams (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The monitors of AIV wouldn't block the IP. The question at this point is, what are the rules, if any, about distributing a particular group's every song among the various song pages? What is notable about the Chipmunks vs. possibly many other "real" artists who may have covered a given song? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I stress that this is most likely a content dispute and less likely that any admin will take action against an ip adding good faith edits, even across multiple pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the rules, if any, regarding spamming of one particular group's performances across every song article they can find? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly consider adding cover vesrions to songs to a section full of numerous uncited cover versions, spamming.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, in your personal opinion as an editor, are the edits OK as they are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not have added them as they are, but I also would not have removed some of them and then start a thread at ANI, nor would I have reported the editor for vandalism, all of which has happened in the past hour. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So someone should start a discussion on each of the many dozens of pages spammed by that user? A user who won't communicate with anyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we get to the heart of the argument, what to do. Well if I was Shadowjams and I wasn't happy with some particular edits made by an ip or any other user,I would first revert, Do Not Rollback, any edits with the comment that a reliable source was required. I would then begin a discussion at the ip's talk page. If the ip doesn't respond, but doesn't readd the information then the issue is settled, but if the ip readds the info, Do not get into an edit war with an ip, simply add a "Fact" tag to the information and see what may come of it. You may be surprised, you may actually get one. But we'll never know if we Do Not Assume Good Faith. If after a suitable amount of time has passed, then if no source is presented then I would have just removed it, but this information is hardly that dubious, easily confirmable, and does not appear to hurt the project one bit. Not enough to go through all of this trouble at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact tags are unnecessary. The information is easily verified. That's not the issue. The issue is the appropriateness of the added items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you and Shadowjams feel thatthe edits are innapropriate, then by all means go ahead and do whatever you seem fit, but its a content dispute and hardly a case for ANI,, nor a reason to ask for a 6 month block.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A user refusing to talk IS a case for ANI, as it's about disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if not partaking in a discussion is disruptive then I guess we must all get 6 month blocks.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you and I normally respond when questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you asked what I would do and I told you. What you do is of course up to you, as I have no stake in whether or not those refernces are in the articles or not and they're hardly worth edit warring over, or losing any sleep about, since as you said, the information is "easily verified".--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the available history, it is the addition of information of dubious value across dozens of pages that initiated concerns, and it's the failure to respond, while continuing to do so that led to the blocks. It looks like that's happened 3 times now. What I don't think Jojhutton is appreciating is how there is no communication going on here, only more insertions of the same material. That is disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the admins won't block the guy, the admin-related question at this point is, should we start doing mass-rollbacks? Or is someone going to yelp about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait on that question until we get more editors' input. In some cases this stuff could be relevant, in other articles it seems entirely trivial.

It's the continual additions that need to stop until at least some discussion with the user begins. A discussion on the content boards about this will have no effect if the user won't even communicate at this stage.

I certainly wouldn't have started this thread if it was a first time occurrence, but it's the ongoing nature of this that troubles me. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for joj to explain how we're supposed to start a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: edits have restarted after a brief lull. Maybe some new voices on this topic could be helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocking admin (now retired) clearly stated "The block is for six months. If you return after that time and continue on your spree, the block will be for a minimum of one year."[40] Six months to the day, there's another "spree". It's apparently a problem, and point #4 of the WP:DE guideline demonstrates how refusal to communicate is in fact ignoring consensus building. Doc talk 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want to block an ip for adding information that any one of us would have been given Good Faith to add.If I or any other logged in user with a clean record made these edits, it would never have come down to a block. Seems more likely that we should review the previous blocks and see if there aws any real justification for them at all. Other than the failure to communicate, I see no real threat to wikipedia at all. Not enough to block for.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want us to start over a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk? What could that possibly accomplish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I was trying to imply, but I agree discussion is preferable, but unless there is clear vandalism or an edit war going on, I don't see any esaon to block. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that would make me change my mind. If you don't like the edits, simply revert them.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're advocating edit-warring as a solution??? Have you looked at that IP user's talk page, and observed the frequent and futile attempts to communicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I expressly said In Bold, Do Not Edit War. Was that not read correctly? Are you not assuming Good Faith toward me and accusing me of advocating a breach in policy. Please read WP:BRD. I understand that the ip will not communicate, but as the edits appear to not be vandalism and has not, as far as I know, reverted the previous reversions, I would assume that there is no blockable offense that I can find.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should we revert all of them? Or just a few, as a test? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do what ever your concious demands, I have no stake in the information at all. I just hated to see Good Faith edits treated as vandalism and even reported at AIV as being so.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy was repeatedly warned, suspended for 6 months, and continues unabated and refuses to respond. How does that qualify as "good faith" editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Continues doing what exactly? What is it about the added information that you felt constituted vandalism?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the comments by various other users on the IP's talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't concern me as much as what makes these edits vandalism to you?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

← Errr, it just started again... with no discussion... -- Luk ^talk 14:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

comment - just block him again asap - repeat of previous behavior and failure to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I liked "vomment" better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ah, you spotted it, never a truer word said in jest..or something along those lines \-)Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He should be blocked for another 6 and his changes should be reverted as trivia/listcruft/spamming/whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming to the issue via AIV, I blocked the IP for a whole year as an escalation. If anyone thinks this is too drastic, I won't object to a reduction. More controversially (in view of this discussion which I didn't see until it was a bit late) I have bulk-reverted their latest wave of edits. I cannot tell which are legit, but when they so stubbornly refuse to explain or discuss, I see no other option. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a single purpose of spamming a cartoon band to the lede of all sorts of articles that starts up again like some kind of bot after a six month restriction and refuses to discuss needs a mentor or something if they want an unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The chipmunk has now been confined to his tree for the next year. In the interim, someone(s) will need to look at each of the hundred-plus articles and figure out whether each specific entry has any merit or whether it should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Favonian - bulk reverted them, which sounds like a handy addition to a monobook. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just the last round - there are still lots of them. I'm going to remove the one for my beloved Doors as "non-notable", and if there are objections they can be discussed on the talk page. What a novel idea! Doc talk 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Reverting a bunch of acorns in "one swell foop", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Good job troops. Pat yourselves on the back. You just blocked an editor for adding true and verifiable information to articles. I thought that we were trying to encourage people to contribute to wikipedia, not block them for it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everything true and verifiable is of encyclopedic relevance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We've blocked a disruptive possibly non-human spammer for six months. I see no problem with that. Rklawton (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well at least I know that I'll sleep with a clear conscious tonight, because I advocated for what I felt was right.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While we did not agree on approach, no one questions your good faith in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat

Resolved

 – Police and WMF notified Kudos to User:NeutralHomer

I noticed in this diff of Oxford Valley Mall, 24.127.142.216 (talk · contribs) made a possible threat to bomb the vacant Boscov's store at the mall. I just felt I needed to report this because I am not sure whether this is an actual threat or not and am also unsure if any precautions need to be taken. Dough4872 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether not not this is serious, but it is concerning as a possible threat of violence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WhoIs traces this back to Monroe Township, NJ. Their Police Department's number is 732-521-0222. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the mall needs to be notified of the incident? Dough4872 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, definitely and I would also notify the PA State Police, Troop M, which serves Bucks County at 610-861-2026. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It might help to call the Middletown Township Police Department at 215-949-1000, which is the local police for where the mall is located. In addition, the main phone number for the mall is 215-752-0845. Which number would probably be best to call? In addition, it may help for someone with more experience on reporting Wikipedia incidents to police to call. Dough4872 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When is the IP going to be blocked, before or after he gets arrested? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. For safety's sake, it may help to block now. Dough4872 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just go with the PA State Police and let them handle it the way down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here up to calling the state police. Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable calling the cops as I have never dealt with such a situation. Dough4872 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, should the bad edit be deleted? Dough4872 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Has anyone called any police departments in association with this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not from what I know of, I would prefer if an administrator with experience do the task. Dough4872 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Called the Langhorne, PA police department. They didn't seem real concerned. They seemed more concerned on who I was. But hopefully they get someone out to give the place a good once-over. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool, thanks for calling the police. Hopefully everything goes fine. Dough4872 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Monitoring. I am also emailing Legal for their assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Anyone know how to get ahold of the new general counsel, Geoffrey Brigham? Mike Godwin is out (as of October 2010), so I have no one to contact at WMF. Left a message at WMF's legal department, so I will let them handle it in the morning. In the meantime, we've done all we can folks, the rest is up to people above our paygrade. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • You did email- "emergency@wikimedia.org" didnt you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I was not aware of that email address....emailing now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• AFAIK Geoff doesn't have an email yet; he's not an official employee till March, I think. The emergency address is best for death threats, bomb threats, suicide threats, etc. and it's monitored by other people as well (I think including Philippe, Swatjester, other WMF staff). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For reference, the legal address I last knew of was legalwikimedia.org, and I think convention is that such edits shouldn't be RevDel'd because it would prevent law enforcement from looking at them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Two or three times I have used it for similar situations some one has gotten back to me within 5 minutes. The shifts people must arrange.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we've got the email and information, we're on it. emergency@ is the best address to send this stuff to, it pings a number of us all at once. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete user JS

Resolved

Could an admin please delete User:Tom Morris/userinfo.js? I've placed a db-userreq CSD template on there, but because it's JavaScript, it doesn't actually work. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm told that putting the tag on the associated talk page still categorizes the javascript page properly, for future reference. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try and remember that! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of css and js user pages, the category should have been added. Did you wait for category lag to clear? Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Life move debate: "reporting myself"

I just notified the original closer and admin who reclosed this debate of this discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-admin user with a Christian icon closed the move debate for Pro-Life. An admin reverted because, clearly, a non-admin, should not hae cosed such a controversial subject. I posted this, this, and this on the Talk page, for which User:Roscelese gave me this warning and final warning. I believe it is entirely legitimate to question the non-adim's motivation in this because (a) in the context of this particular debate the christianity icon is highly emotive (b) it's about who closes the debate, not just the motivations of any edit and (c) it's important to get it right in terms of the admin who actually closes the debate for the reputation of Wikipedia. To me, this issue is a matter of principle and I've therefore "reported" myself 9rather than post yet again) and am happy to go along with whatever decision is made as I think that in this context my comments were legitimate nd am extremely unhappy with what I believe to be User:Roscelese's rather unthinking and heavy-handed reaction. DeCausa (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, DeCausa. As I already told this user, WP:NPA is painstakingly clear about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," so the attack on Alpha Quadrant would have been inappropriate even if we had known that zie opposed abortion, rather than being "Christian," which could mean Episcopalian, pro-choice Catholic, or any number of other things. I hope, DeCausa, that "reporting" yourself here is indicative of a desire to improve your behavior rather than to see it justified, because what you said is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe it is absilutely justified and I am happy to be blocked for this, if that is the decision. It's a basic principle of Natural justice that the decision maker is not seen to be one-sided. I repeat, this is not about the religion of the user, it's about the overt display of icons directly relevant to the issue in debate. The comment about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," is absolutely fine and I support in the context of general editing. In making a decision such as this, it is not fine. And one other aspect, there's possibly a difference between displaying these sort of icons in a US context and in an international context. In the UK (where I'm from) it is a an agressive stance. DeCausa (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And, as I say, I'm happy to be blocked if that is the decision. On the other hand, I ask for a decision on whether Roscelese's 'final warning' was unjustified (so I can say in the deletion edit summary that that was the determination, if indeed that is the case.) DeCausa (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this thread (or the one below) going to accomplish other than to continue to raise the temperature? If you want to remove the comment from your talk page, remove it. Roscelese is not an admin and has no ability to block you, nor is any admin going to consider the warning (or a lack thereof) in deciding whether to block you. Warning templates (other than pro forma templates like deletion notifications) are primarily geared towards new users and templating regular users is considered rude. --B (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa was not "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" at all, but simply to question the wisdom of their non-admin closure - I see no criticism of anybody's *views* in any of those messages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to discredit the closure not based on the rationale or the reading of the consensus, but on the fact that the one doing it has a particular box on their user page. That's an inappropriate ad hominem if I've ever heard one. At any rate the whole thing should be resolved now that an admin has closed the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person closing a discussion who has an "icon" on their page proclaiming themselves to be X, so long as they do so based upon the merits of the discussion and have not been involved in the discussion themselves (or other related discussions.) Using one's self-identification is not grounds for dismissing their views, which is what you are doing here, in that I have to agree with Roscoe. A person coming in quoting the Bible and has through his/her words/deeds shown an inability to remain objective is a different story, but somebody who has a user box/icon/etc---no. (going based solely on what I see in this discussion and attached links) IMO, it does not paint you in the best of light---makes you look paranoid about other peoples ability to maintain objectivity. I've closed discussions and been invited to mediate discussion related to politics despite having a user box declaring my personal political stance. That being said, unless there is more than what has been posted here, I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack. But that is based upon what you yourself have provided (I don't know if there is a pattern of your discrediting the views of others based upon self-identification or not). On controversial subjects, non-admins should definitely refrain from closing the discussion---so I support the admin reversal of the closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds like a pretty fair and balanced view of things to me. I see no bad faith on either side here - neither in Alpha Quadrant's non-admin close nor in DeCausa's objection to it. With a contentious issue like this, I just think that closing should not have been attempted by any non-admin or by any editor (admin or not) who might look to be in any way involved or biased (even if no bias is actually employed in the decision). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That was EXACTLY my point - probably put more succinctly than I did. (Cuchullain: Of course I wasn't trying to discredit the closure - I had no need to as it had already been reversed.) DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you can make legitimate concern about a user being a non-admin closing such a controversial subject. If applicable, you could even make a legitimate concern about a user who has shown a history of being unable to separate their personal views and objectivity. When you come in and declare that somebody, simply for having an "Icon" on their page is unfit to make a close, that is a different story. You made a broad statement stereotype. I have a Republican "Icon" on my user page, but that didn't stop people on the "Tea Party Movement" from asking me to mediate a discussion about the Tea Party shortly before the elections. They asked me because both sides of the issue believed that I could remain objective on the subject. Declaring oneself to be of a particular political party/religion/sexual orientation/etc does not, by default, make one incapable of remaining objective. Also, being a Christian <> Pro-Life. There are Christians out there who are pro-choice (my Cousin was one of his states' Planned Parenthood Board of Directors for 8 years and is a minister.) Was AQ's original close within the parameters of the discussion? Yes. Was it well rationed/reasoned? Yes. Did it accurately represent the views presented? Yes. Had the original closer been involved in the discussion? No. Had the original closer ever contributed to the article? Looking at the last 4 years on the talk page and 2 years on the actual article, the answer is no. Based on the discussion, could it have been closed any other way? No, there clearly was not consensus to close as a move. My guess is that prior to this close you had never heard of AlphaQuadrant. You're only grounds for objecting are "an Icon" and the fact that he isn't an admin. The later might be a legit concern on highly controversial subject, but the former (lacking any other evidence) is not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I made my points on this in the Pro-life Talk Page. The reason I came here was in relation to Roscelese's reaction, specifically the templating for saying what I said. I have not made a complaint about AlphaQuadrant to this noticeboard. Earlier you said "I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack". I took that to mean Roscelese's templating was incorrect (although you said that assumes I've disclosed all the relevant posts - which actually I have). Given all of that, I'm not sure where you are going with this and what more there is to add. Is this just a debate on my original point of view? If so, I'm not sure this is now the right forum? Or have you changed your mind that I haven't committed a blockabled offence? Could you clarify please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that one's personal opinions on things should not be generalized from one's expressed religious and/or political affiliations, I still think it is unwise to take closure/admin actions on topics in which people of one's expressed allegiance are often seen to have a strong point of view, and I do think it is valid to be concerned when someone does that. For example, if I had a userbox proclaiming myself as a Floobian, I would specifically recuse myself from closure decisions on any topic in which Floobians in general appeared to have an interest. I think it comes with the territory really - by all means publicly identify yourself with a group/cause/belief/etc (and I respect people who are open about such things), but if you do then I think you should avoid making "management" decisions in areas in which people who share that identity are strongly active. And finally, yes, I agree that the warnings given to DeCausa were wrong - there were no personal attacks and no bad faith by anyone here (including Roscelese, who I think was also acting in good faith). Would it perhaps be a good idea for everyone to accept that everyone else was acting in good faith and move on now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think Roscoe's warning was out of place, I think some people throw NPA too casually. So in that light, no I would not support a block or action on your statements. (I completely agree with Boing, I think everybody here is activing in good faith.)

But making a generalized statement about a single user box, without ANY proof that said user box affects his/her edits, is not justified and IMO reflects poorly on you. The same issue comes up occassionally at RfA, but usually with people who identify themselves as Athiest! In both cases, having a user box that identifies a belief, does not by default, disqualify one from measuring consensus among the community. Especially, when said user box is so generic and vague that it coulf fit a quarter of the worlds population. The concern comes in when a user starts editing in a manner in which their personal beliefs override their ability to be objective. Which was not shown. Not only was it not shown, but no evidence exists to support that notion, except for their "icon." In fact, looking at the editors contributions belies your concerns. The editor has no history on the Pro-Life page. The close, while non-admin, was not against consensus. The editor in question has a history of working on closes and based upon his talk page seems to have the respect of those he works with. I doubt he even gave the fact that he has an "icon" on his page a second thought related to this discussion.

I'd rather have a person who shows sound judgment being open with where they stand, than to have somebody with no user boxes showing unsound judgment. Boing! you make an argument about Floobian, but that is a little off the mark. I'd rather point to something more generic, where DeCausa lives---the UK. Now, it is entirely possible that a discussion might arise between two groups of people who live in the UK about an issue related to the UK. As a dumb American, I might not have the knowledge to properly parse the discussion and understand what is relevant. In order to close the discussion, you just might need to get somebody who is from the UK to understand the nuiances of the discussion. Hell, if the issue involves one of the soccer teams then it might be beneficial to have somebody from the soccer project get involved. ;-) Having a user box, whether Athiest/Christian/Republican/Torry/American/Brit/Manchester United/etc does not disqualify one from using their knowledge/expertise to properly understand a discussion. One's edit history, not user boxes, should be the basis for criticism/concerns. AQs close, was perfectly legit, although he probably should have let an Admin do so because of the subject involved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your responses and time. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, you (Balloonman) make a lot of fair points, and I'm largely in agreement with you. I just find myself erring on the side of caution from both directions. So I'd be happy myself with decisions made by people who show good judgment (as AQ indeed did), regardless of their userboxes, but at the same time I would not effect judgments myself if there was any possibility of conflict with a userbox I used, if for no other reason than that it might raise suspicions in others. So I think it is wise to avoid doing closure stuff in such situations, and also wise to take great care when thinking of disputing such actions.

PS: I just looked up "Floobian" - I thought I'd made up the word and had no idea it really existed.

PPS: I'm from the UK - and you should never trust anyone who displays a "Manchester United" userbox ;-)

Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to look it up too... and when I did, I thought you were making a little commentary on the subject or Pro-Life. A lot of pro-lifers are anti-Floobians ;-)

I just think before we start impugning the motives of others, we should do more than a cursory check of the user page. When I came to this thread, I expected to find a case wherein a user had ventured outside of the lines to close a discussion in a manner that was a clear example of bias. Or a user who had an extensive history on the page and then claimed neutrality. Instead, I found a rationale close that accurately reflected consensus.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, it's quite amusing that not only does "Floobian" really exist, but it actually has some relevance to the pro-life debate. I'll be more careful in future when I try to make up words, and I'll go for something that can't possibly be real - "Raelian" sounds good . But seriously, yes, I think we're pretty closely aligned in our thoughts here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Clearly the move debate was a very complicated discussion and needed an experienced closure, which has now happened, and as the thread below - WP:RESPECT this is a very emotive topic. Take it easy with the warnings and the reverting and look for the middle ground. As per Zebedee and more heat than light, I also think closing this down and shaking hands and starting afresh is the way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Profanity and homophobia

Sighs another day, another IP and another overzealous editor. This time its over at Talk:Raining Men (song), with 91.154.107.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) using profanity. In particular he/she has directed homophobic slurs at myself (even though I've not professed to being homosexual), not that I have an prejudices against anyone, and more importantly has made offensive comments such as "now i know your a ho-m-o.. thats explains it all.. your so fu*kin stupid" which imply that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence. I would like to see such comments removed from the page. Additionally I think its evident that the IP is unable to respond to concerns about his/her view might be considered incorrect and fails to respect the nature of discussions. There could be a link to sock master User:Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has previously clashed with all involved editors multiple times before being banned and marked as a sockmaster. also could be linked to Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who harrassed my talkpage not long ago. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia and disrespect towards others should not be tolerated IMO — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 06:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you delete the IP's dumb-headed comments, and also your own comment so it won't be left orphaned, on the grounds of "not feeding the troll". They're not likely to block the IP since he's only made the two entries. But you could start an SPI, if this becomes an epidemic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is my experience that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence; everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Putting it slightly more charitably, I suspect that loud opponents of anything that has to do with "gay rights" (or any kind of "abnormal" sexual behavior) are either not sufficiently in touch with their own sexuality, or else believe that what's "right" for them is how it has to be for everyone else. Even at that, it's amazing the social progress that has been made in the last 50 years in America. Not just gay people, but the subject itself was "in the closet" when I was young. The AIDS epidemic, and Surgeon General Everett Koop's courageous insistence on dealing with it instead of hiding from it, brought the issue out of the closet for good. However, there are still a sufficient number of morons out there, on any number of subjects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, ANI is not a soapbox. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think most anyone who was around in 1970 would be amazed that, for example, "same sex marriage" would be approaching a level of acceptibility a mere 40 years hence. However, just as there are still racists around, there are also still sexists around. P.S. If you want to also lecture the admin LHvU for calling them "morons", feel free. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a troll, plain and simple. I removed the trolling and warned the anon. With hope they've already moved on and no more action is necessary. If not, well, that's what blocks of increasing duration are for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, while I don't disagree, you're getting very close to attacking people for their religious beliefs. Just because I agree with you doesn't make it okay. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite a stretch to consider this diff[41] to be an expression of "religious belief". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons" -LHvU. Now I think homophobia is entirely unjustifiable, but between Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, there's about 2 billion people who at least nominally believe it to be sinful, a good chunk of whom probably do hold the beliefs described. I'm not saying LHvU is wrong, but he's treading a dangerous line and sacrificing the moral high ground. Let's stick to the matter at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't rule out the satirical element. And by the way, I know plenty of folks who were raised Christian (myself included) who are a lot more tolerant about these things than our religion theoretically dictates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Should such comments not have been removed from the edit history too? I believe its called RD2ing? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone said a bad word

Can anyone have a look at the contributions by 98.85.17.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The worst of it is that the guy's IP-hopping. Unless a broad range-block could be applied, ignoring it might be the best option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one... Looks like MaterialScientist is watching them pretty closely.  7  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming after an admin is not exactly an intelligent move, given that the admin can pick them off like ducks (pardon the ironic metaphor) in a shooting gallery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And who teaches these kids such foul language? Is it Glee? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they watch too much C-SPAN (ten years ago, that would have been an over-the-top joke...). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I watched the video of Dee Snider in front of Congress on C-SPAN's website, and they (online) didn't censor out the name of Twisted Sister's fan club- the Sick Motherfucking Friends of Twisted Sister- when Dee said it. I'm only 20- I wish I'd been around for the 1980's. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dee Snider? I was thinking of Dee Barnes. –MuZemike 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated religious attacks by WikiManOne

WikiManOne (talk · contribs) has repeatedly brought up others' religion during content disputes.

• Here, he brings up an editor's Catholicism.
• Here, he agrees with another editor who questions the credibility of an editor who has a Christian userbox on his page.
• Here, he questions my credibility (without naming me) and basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects. He is rightfully called out for it.
• Here, he makes a completely uncalled, false, and irrelevant attack on Catholicism in a dispute over sources.
• Here, he is warned on his talk page but shows no remorse and denies everything.

I think I got them all.

There's a fine line between getting heated in a content dispute and making highly offensive and unwarranted personal attacks on someone's religion. This editor is the most uncivil and belligerent I have ever seen on here. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions. --B (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 is hardly beyond reproach. DeCausa (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This of course coming from the editor who claimed that I was pro-human death because of my pro-choice stance. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Yes, I admit without hesitation that I am guilty of making personal attacks. But I have never seen an editor go as far as to attack someone else's religion and question their credibility as an editor based on their religious beliefs. I am fully willing to be punished for what I said to WikiManOne. But I can't stand watching this sort of unabashed bigotry go unpunished. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your perspective speaks of your own prejudices and bigotry. To you, a religious belief is sacrosanct, whereas any other belief isn't and can be denigrated. I think that's repugnant. DeCausa (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can say that, in general terms, "Pro-Choice" is in fact an "anti-life" stance. But to accuse a specific user of literally being "anti-life" or "pro-death" is rather over the top. Meanwhile, implying that conservatives on this point shouldn't be allowed to edit, is also over the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that if you look carefully. What I said was that any admin that closes the discussion on the move in question should not have any obvious positions on the move, I clarified that being Christian doesn't disqualify one in my mind from being uninvolved by citing Episcopalians. As for the NCRegister, I still do not consider it a reliable source because it is run by a Church. My general statements about Catholics there were not directed at any editor and furthermore what I said about abuse and disrespecting women, I'm sure I could find you reliable sources for, they've been widely criticized for those things. I'm not going to answer every accusation thrown on these threads (as I've learned that replies seem to only fuel the flame on ANI) so if an uninvolved/neutral admin has questions, I can be reached here

Bugs, that first comment was gratuitous and isn't going to do anything to cleanly and easily rectify this situation. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. My conservative friends have pointed out to me on various occasions, the "anti-life" aspect of "pro-choice". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And it does no good whatsoever to bring that sentiment here. Wikipedia is not a political discussion board. --B (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the recent dispute over whether to rename "Pro-Life" as "Anti-Abortion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Still not relevant here. Calling pro-life "anti-life" or "pro-death" is a smear tactic, and flatly untrue. Your conservative friends have fed you a common POV talking point, that's all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so. There is a valid, logical basis for those terms, which I can explain for you if you would like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[42] --B (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you post a link to a comment that you made earlier in this section? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was to say "This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions" in reference to your comment about anti-life. Of course, it loses something when other users jump in front of it and modify the comment order. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might have been clearer to just restate the original statement. Here we have users at opposite poles that are at war with each other and accusing each other of bad faith and bias, and they might both be right. Good luck to the admins trying to figure this one out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm <-- Basically sums all of the discussions that have occurred over the last few weeks.

If you can tell what real life POV someone has, they are (probably) editing wrong. If people can tell that about you, then you're (probably) editing wrong. There are 3,558,998 other articles on the Wiki, and editing completely random ones is often far more fun. NW (Talk) 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The lot of them should be banned from AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Their user pages pretty well summarize their personal stances, and the unfortunate consequence, rightly or wrongly, is that it tends to raise suspicions about their edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I still find it amusing that I somehow said "any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." I find that very amusing considering that I am myself a Christian as my userpage says. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The citation claiming that you say, "any Christian should not edit",[43] actually says that Christians who are part of the "Right to Life movement" are problematic; not all Christians. I don't see how any Christian could support abortion-as-contraception. Regardless of that, Yankee mischaracterized what you said in that one diff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please stop making every discussion a soapbox for your own political views. Talk:Pro-life was a bad place for it, and AN/I is worse. The issue at hand is WM1's comments and whether they were out of line. Unless you're arguing that being a Christian is indicative of bias on abortion-related articles, in which case you're implicated in this fiasco too, the comment you made is not a productive one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My political views are not as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Anyway, NYyankees51 significantly mischaracterized one of Wikiman's statements. Whether that was deliberate or a misreading, I couldn't say, but it does tend to undermine his argument. Yankees also makes it clear on his user page that he's conservative and a Roman Catholic. So raising questions about his neutrality seems fair. It's perfectly clear that Wikiman is politically opposite on that issue and in my opinion he's not neutral either. But while Wikiman's comments may be a bit pointed, they are not inherently unfair, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if you look at my history, you will find that I don't let my personal views interfere with my editing. Besides, this is not about me or the abortion issue. This is about Wikiman repeatedly bringing others' religion into a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to do something about your mischaracterization about this quote[44], where in your initial post here you said, "... basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." That is plainly not the case. His issue is with churches that are actively involved with the right-to-life stance, which the Roman Catholic obviously is; and he names some other denominations that he considers to be more liberal on abortion rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare is totally correct, it can be so much more fun and rewarding editing topics you are not emotionally involved in - try this - if your emotionally involved in an issue then stay away from editing it. This issue pro life and abortion is clearly a train crash in the making and it is going to end in tears, or at least, blocks and bans and editing restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, hence why I don't edit any articles (other than the occasional simple tidy up) concerned with my political/religious/lifestyle beliefs/choices. GiantSnowman 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at WikiManOne's diff comments above personally I don't see anything presently actionable but he should be careful not to create a WP:BATTLEFIELD and does need to be aware as everyone else does there that the topic is emotive and all users discussing should attempt to be as respectful Wikipedia:RESPECT to the other position as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that being said, WikiManOne should focus on one's edit history, not user boxes when determining if a person can remain objective on a subject. Sharing where you stand does not mean that one can't be objective and can actually be helpful as it lets others know whether or not you are knowledgable on specific subjects.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA clearly states: "What is considered to be a personal attack? ... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be 'you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?'" NYyankees51 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend wikiman, as I said above, a person should be judged upon what he does/how he edits, not on his self-identification. I'd much rather deal with a rational thoughtful athiest/christian/hindu/Manchester United fan that has identified themselves as such via a user box, than deal with an irrational user who hasn't self-identified where they stand. Despite what some believe, a user box does not equate to lack of objectivity/integrity or the lack of the ability to measure consensus. Some people get too sensitive around the issue of NPA. We need thicker skins around here. That being said, if the rationale to discredit other points of view continues, then there are other grounds upon which the community could act. But 4 edits? He's not there yet.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal Access Denied

Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created many socks and doesn't really seem to have any intention of stopping. I proposing a full site ban for Access Denied. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Inka⁸⁸⁸
• The user has been blocked since December. I doubt anyone is going to unblock him. --B (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• We've blocked so many AD socks that we've actually stopped marking them. I can't believe it actually needs to be stated, but yes, I support a ban. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support He had not be banned? Why wait. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment when was the most recent sock blocked? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Support per Heironymous Rowe, Depressing I was shocked when he was blocked for Socking and I sent him an email encouraging him to help at another WMF project to get the block reconsidered. I remember him quite fondly and I hope one day he is another Jack Merridew and come back and get back to content creation. That day is not now in the mean time but it seem he has left us no choice.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support-didn't his latest sock pop up on ANI last night to taunt and get blocked[45]? I alrready assumed he was banned, but if not the situation should be remedied.Heiro 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• DFTT Kthx. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Btw, ban proposals usually go to AN, not AN/I. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment He's not the one who's been disrupting ANI? And is this the proper venue for this proposal?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Serial sockpuppeteer ,wasting the time of other users, admins, CheckUsers. Hobartimus (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Fetchcomms's point is well-taken, and last time around I didn't see the point of a ban, but if he's still at it and a ban makes people less nervous about reverting his silly trolling, then sure. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Gloomy sad regretful upsetting...support Been hunting him down for more than a month, he's [like] a 4chan troll now. --Perseus8235 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  See also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied. --Perseus8235 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you put some AD socks on my talk page (ones that aren't tagged yet)? --Perseus8235 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban or not, all this sock-tagging is pretty pointless, IMO. He's not some wily supervillain who needs a team of forensic analysts on the case 24/7, he's just a bored former editor who occasionally drops by to troll. RBI is really the best thing to do here, ban or not. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support - AD has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and has used many sockpuppets. We've blocked so many of them (even though I am not an administrator). As far as I know, trolling and sockpuppetry are not tolerated, and therefore, they must be put in their place. He has crossed the line several times while he is blocked. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's disappointing to know this guy once was a constructive editor... what a shame. Diego Grez (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  WTH User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox User:Pigman/Admin toolbox and ANI are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied? --Perseus8235 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Perseus8235 what are you saying in above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Perseus had accidentally tagged this page as a sockpuppet of AD. Since fixed. 28bytes (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: It is a shame, but AD was, when he was here, a good editor. Why he took this path, I am not sure, but it is disappointing to say the least. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Very sad support. It doesn't appear to be stopping and it's gone on long enough. It is with much sadness that I !vote this way, but still. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support through my tears. Access Denied was brilliant with the code and knew his way around the wiki like no one else. He helped me calculate range blocks. I have no idea why he turned to the Dark Side either. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse ban - I've been waffling on this one for a bit. I was originally going to oppose because obvious vandalism (like what Access has done) already falls under the list of exceptions to 3RR; site-banning another editor makes their contributions eligible for reversion on sight. He's effectively de facto banned already (to be perfectly blunt, no admin who isn't on crack will unblock him), but there is disruption which cannot be accurately categorized as exempted from 3RR (such as trolling, personal attacks, outing, and MoS violations); this renders a formal de jure community ban necessary. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am Access Denied and I hate to ware a perfectly good ip to say this. I would like to return to new page patrol (I have only created one sock inthe last few weeks the Mexico ups were not me). My account is global locked which is only thing stopping me requesting unblOck to work on new page patrol again. Thanks for reading this 74.117.233.130 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a new acct could we try WP:ROPE? Access Denied2 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per above. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is really ridiculous at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who socks this much is up to no good. --Rschen7754 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough. If he's going to continue evading his block as he evidently did today, then we really have no other choice. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Access Denied unblock appeal

Acct global locked so cannot request from there. Would likeunblock to be able to go back to NPP work thank you Access Denied2 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above user is either a sock or is pretending to be, and I've reported it to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What is or was preventing AD from logging in from his main account and posting a proper unblock request to his talk page? I don't see "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

    It's globally locked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's welcome to email Arbcom arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (that's a lower case L, not a 1) with a sensible proposal for a return to productive editing. He doesn't need access to Wikipedia email to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an standard offer set six months from the last sock. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if they are banned... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's not banned yet. I support a ban. I was saying if we choose not to ban him that is a possible road to take. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The standard offer still applies to banned users; though given the large number of socks (43 confirmed in addition to another 7 suspected), I doubt that the community would be willing to let him back in after just six months. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a ban is going to happen. There is unanimous support for the ban and AD's posts to the section just added more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I meant. It would probably take a lot longer than 6 months to get the community's trust back. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, [46]. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Though as a general rule, ban discussions need to run for 24-48 hours before closing, perhaps we could invoke IAR on this one and close it early? HalfShadow's tagging is correct; Access was effectively banned already – this discussion is a mere formality, albeit a necessary one. In any event, it's becoming a blizzard out here. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• AD, if you're reading this, the community is obviously not willing to let you back at the minute. That doesn't necessarily mean they never will (you can see why folks might be just a little bit pissed off), but you need to totally disengage, at least from this project for at least 6 months (under any account or IP) and let people start to forget how much disruption you caused and how much unnecessary work was created in cleaning up after you. If there's a WMF project on which you're not blocked, making yourself useful there wouldn't hurt your case. Wikipedia will still be here in 6 months or however long it takes for you to regain the community's trust, but for every sock you create, the slimmer your chances of ever being allowed back become. Nothing that is done on Wikipedia cannot be undone and no user who is blocked/banned cannot be unbanned, but it's not going to happen overnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Resolved

 – No chance in hell account is going to be blocked. –MuZemike 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki)

IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses. It's been noted and he has been warned about it many times, see:

1. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 2#Inappropriate username (what are the "magical powers" here that "User:Durova has corrected my incorrect assumption re your username, as you said s/he would. My apologies for hassling you. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)" -- can other editors also apply for exemptions from WP policies?);
2. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 7#Your username; how does "getting grandfathered in" work on WP, there should at least be an essay about this: "This has been addressed about a million times already. Rms is grandfathered in. -Rrius (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)" -- can other users get "grandfathered in" if they are still using hundreds of older rules to edit by?
3. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com#REGARDING MY USERNAME (what kind of "excuse" is "Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)" -- could such "excuses" be made when old-time users try to rely on older more lax rules of WP editing for example?)

This would nominally be a case for Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention but the situation has deteriorated as there are more serious ramifications because the above user, while feeling self-satisfied that he may carry on in violation of current WP policies, sees fit to "impose" WP policies as he is now doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz, see in particular "Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided" and my attempt to point out this contradictory situation that has been reverted multiple times. An involved admin User David Eppstein (talk · contribs) has tried to intervene on the above user's behalf, however, it is utterly absurd, inconsistent and ridiculous that one lone user should have the right do as he pleases in violation of WP policies, while he feels free to enforce WP editorial policies in regard to articles. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It's one thing if the above user keeps to himself and edits quietly, but it is quite another matter if he abrogates for himself the right to start AfDs and "impose" policies when he does not live by them himself. Any serious Wikipedian would have changed his user name by name and avoided any appearance of conflict, but this user. Outside admin intervention is requested. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Will inform involved parties. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Both the above user and the involved admin have been informed. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• You know, personally, I'd look at that and go "Well, this has been talked out before, and it's obvious that it's not changing, so why bring it up again?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a real problem or a vendetta about you AFD discussion? If it's the first talk to him first. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "vendetta" I have never come across this user before as far as I know so I have nothing against him. But when any user nominates an article that interests me for deletion then I try to see where that user is coming from, I take a look at his user page and talk page and I get a sense of him, his general reasoning, and his motives. In this case, what quickly became very clear was that here's a guy who thinks there is one set of rules for him and another set of rules for all other Wikipedians. By what "right" does he come along and nominate articles for deletion which are at root ONLY POLICY discussions and decisions that APPLY TO EVERYONE yet for himself declares with HIS USER NAME YET, that HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO WP POLICIES? That is what got me so curious and concerned and that is why I ask for more serious intervention. It's one thing if he merrily edits along in places and does not cause mischief, BUT it is quite another matter if he puts on the mantel of a "WP policy wonk" and "WP policeman" to delete articles that are pretty serious in many editors eyes. So it's not about "vendettas" but it IS about consistency of all the WP policies without any exceptions. Otherwise please let me know where the "exceptions" section to rules and policies FOR EVERYONE is to be found on WP? Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This sounds more like you're annoyed over his AfD of Chaim Rabinowitz than his username. We've had a long-established 'grandfather' rule regarding account names that were created before the rules changed back in - when? - September 2006? And the only reason they were changed back then was because Mediawiki didn't handle escaped characters in usernames correctly and blocks, prots, etc were going wrong. That bug has also been addressed years back. And any time someone wants to take a pop at Robert, they always seem to go for his username. This has been the way these (email addresses as usernames) cases have been handled for years now on WP:UAA and indeed at one point, I was by far the most active admin at UAA, so I know the score - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Alison, why do you call him "Robert" where does it say that is his name if he does not use it. Why can't he use "Robert__" as his user name? You are advocating for him. IZAK (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Let's end this one now please. I'm amazed this would still be brought up after so many years. Who cares? Wknight94 ^talk 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. This user is in the process of implementing WP policy when he is in violation of WP policy. Don't be so superficial please, it's a serious matter. Can you tell us which policies we can ignore please now that one guy is allowed to ignore a WP policy so out in the open? Thanks, IZAK (talk)
    • He is not in violation of the username policy. See this version, for example; "E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional. Note that for a long time, email addresses were not prohibited. Usernames created before January 1, 2007 that are email addresses are grandfathered under this policy and are not prohibited." ... and so on. Soon as the policy is changed so that editors with capital "K"s in their name are outlawed, you'll be the first on the chopping block ;) (Trivialising? It is trivial!) - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Alison: It is incredible the lengths you are going to defend this violation based on OLD versions of things. Who cares what it said then? I can tell you that when I started on WP about 8 years ago it said lots of things that today would be laughable. Anhow, FYI, here is TODAY's WP policy in case you have not read it yet: "Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" that is pretty simple and clear, here is a repeat: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" --- THUS "not valid" means that admins have the responsibility to enforce that policy or themselves be in violation of allowing it when the WP rules say others. Stop your WP:LAWYERing that is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Point of note, and an aside, admins are not 'obliged' to 'enforce' anything on WP, as we're all volunteers just like any other editor. As for his name, he's used his RL name on here for many years now, given he's been here since around 2004 - same as we have. I'm seven years on here under this account (tomorrow, actually!) and I've seen policies change too. However, what I'm seeing right now seems to be driven by spite, quite frankly, as he's been editing for years under that name and given it's no longer an issue for Mediawiki, why should it be an issue for you? And why, for that matter, have you forumshopped this over to WP:COIN? - Alison ^❤ 06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Alison I was not going to respond because an admin has closed this discussion, but you still inserted your last comment all the same, and are creating a false impression. The only reason I continued this discussion at COI is precisely because discussion was cut of here and for the wrong reason. At no time was I looking for a "block" for the user in question. My request was that he not get involved in "implementing" policy decisions as in AfDs when something as basic as his own user name is in violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" (no mention of it not applying to some, or being rejected by Mediawiki or some such excuse by you) for which he has an exemption that no-one but he and you seem to know about that is bound to create questions and you see that they happen even though you dismiss them so lightly. I am trying to move on from this, so please stop making fun of the issue in defense of this problematic user. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • • His username is irrelevant. The end. 115.64.182.73 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Why do you care IZAK? NW (Talk) 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am trying to figure out when confronted with the implications of policies in AfDs why a user can be exempted from policies being applying to him when such efforts would be laughed out of court if they were tried by anyone else except this user. Can you let me that first? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • • According to the admin comments here, he's exempted because the policy says he is. As far as the "Robert" part, he made that fact known in one of his early edits. I don't think that using one's e-mail address as one's ID is a very smart thing to do, but "it's his funeral", as the saying goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What does "because the policy says he is" mean? You are confusing what admins say with what policy is. Admins say many things, they are obliged to follow policy like all users. Policy is arrived at by its own means and once it's accepted it applies to all users. I am trying to move on from this discussion now. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This isn't a courtroom. If his username doesn't cause any problems, then we have no problems with it. Prodego ^talk 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • This is not the only editor with "grandfather rights". Therefore, I've made an addition to WP:U. The few users who have exemptions by consensus of the community have probably been discussed before, and thus there should be a record somewhere that consensus exists for their username to be allowed. It may be that there are still a few editors whose cases have not been discussed. Such cases can be discussed if and when they are raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What, are we being sensible now? How is something like an accurate description of current practice supposed to help people yell past each other for hours on end? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm sure there's pleny of other stuff to yell past each other over. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the user's incredibly over-the-top overreaction to another user's ID, technically he has a point. I have asked Alison this question, and I'll ask it here also: Why was the "grandfather" clause referenced earlier in this section removed from the writeup over 3 years ago?[47] It makes it seem that the current policy has no exceptions at all. Shouldn't that "grandfather clause" be re-added to the policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is right here. If RMS's username is indeed grandfathered, then the policy should explicitly state a clause about grandfathered usernames. However, this seems like shopping for sanctions to eliminate an opponent in an AfD about a Talmudic scholar of questionable notability. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One of our more frequently repeated (and occasionally heeded) mantra is that our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. We could describe the policy better to avoid misunderstandings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT - I understand that the issue is closed but I was offwiki until a little while ago, and was debating whether or not as the subject of this matter I should respond. Therefore I am leaving this brief message just to underscore a few points. I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 -- not 2004, as Alison noted but I understand why, it feels like forever sometimes -- and when I created this username, I probably was not fully aware of the all the ramifications of using your email address as your username, but I don't think I have had any problems because of it. This is the username I was directed to maintain per ArbCom (my unbanning agreement) so I have. I do not understand why it should be of concern to anyone, but in light of the behavior exhibited towards me by IZAK I am sure it will be understood that I therefore, consequently, could not consider any change of username, although obviously I would have to abide by any justified directive (i.e. requirement) to do so by an unbiased, disinterested third party. I would like to thank everyone for judging this case on the merits, not on my past as has been done in the past, by those seeking a weapon to discredit me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots and some other editors have contributed to a new section in the user name guide called "Exceptions",[48] which is intended to cover cases like yours. Hopefully, that will settle this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we just block IZAK and be done with this? He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and is waa-waa'ing over his precious article being send for deletion. 140.247.141.136 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we block you instead for being a sock? GiantSnowman 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An IP comes back to life after being dormant for 5 years and 4 months? Might that be a record? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question

Why has IZAK not been blocked for Personal attacks and disruptive editing? I am Looking some of the stuff at AFD and he seems to have clearly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVILITY crossed here, here [49] not to mention forum shopping here. Why are we tolerating this outlandish behavior? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 6:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

That's a good question. I would chalk it up to a large level of tolerance on the part of the admin that he was yelling at. As I said, he did have a point, technically; and that point has been resolved. But it all seems to have been a smokescreen for disagreement on the deletion of an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question is not stupid. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Either one of these acts of outrageous behavior would seem more than enough deserving of a block IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Block review Mcgawkelly

Resolved

 – user re-blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this here for visibility. Based on actions in the RocknRolla and Michael Clayton (film) articles, I have temporarily blocked user Mcgawkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I invite any comments on my action, and authorize any other administrator to release the block as they see fit or upon a reasonable unblock request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following as a reply to the user on my talk page (as well as posting similar to talk:RocknRolla), but am reposting here as the discussion is likely to be centralized here:

The user's behavior is as a single purpose account, whose only edits have been to promote the same person across multiple pages:

• RocknRolla
• Michael Clayton (film)
• now deleted, but viewable by admins:
  • User:Mcgawkelly
  • User:Mcgawkelly/new article name here
  • User talk:Mcgawkelly/new article name here
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 5
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 13

Add into this that the material is not appropriate on Wikipedia in the first place due to WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI - it all combines to make clear that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, and that the user's behavior is inappropriate and represents disruptive editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's handier if you don't provide links to addresses on the secure Wikipedia, Barek. Those cause inconvenience to those who are using the standard Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of changing your diffs to use the {{diff2}} template (or {{diff}} is another alternative). - David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting ... if a user posts a non-secure-Wikipedia diff, the mediawiki software intercepts the link and automatically presents the secure version for me. Aparently the same process doesn't work in reverse for those not using the secure server. Good to know - sorry about the inconvenience. --- Barek (talk) - 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. -Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant diff may be this one in which the blocked editor states that Guy Ritchie's publicist has solicited him to add Scott Walterscheid's name to articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot, exemplary block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I not only dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page, I added a personal message specifically addressing what was wrong with this content,[50] and I began a discussion on the article's talk page[51]. He was already in violation of WP:3RR by then, and was reverted a further two times by two previously uninvolved users. He(?) had every chance in the world to discuss and, actually we did discuss at some length on my talk page, but he continued to edit war at the same time despite repeatedly being told very plainly that edit warring will get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And now they say they are doing an interview this afternoon with someone from the front office, and are contradicting themselves about which news organization they are a reporter for. I sense the fine art of WP:BALLS at work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good block. The claims made by the editor(meeting Wiki-VP, knowing Jimbo, etc.) doesn't mean anything, in regards to the edit warring behavior and repeated attempts to add trivial, unsourced text into articles. Let the block run out, and if the editor returns to the same behavior, give a longer block. Dave Dial (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment claims

The user is now also claiming [52] that Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) has been harassing them (they state harrassment "of", but they appear to be claiming "from"). I'm not seeing it, but posting here so that others are aware and can review themselves. --- Barek (talk) - 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently trying like five times to explain about edit warring and reliable sources in an attempt to keep them from getting blocked over it is harassment. After the block, which I had nothing to do with, it became increasingly clear they are lying about some things as well. The harassment charge is nonsense, but for the record i have already told them I don't intend to interact with them anymore as it is obviously a hopeless waste of time. They don't even seem to read others' comments before firing off angry responses, and they don't seem to get that we can all see everything they have done, including the increasingly obvious COI coupled with at least one big fat lie, and probably three or four more. Threatening to have their editor convince Jimbo to personally block me was good for a laugh though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that the editor's very first edit was to an archive record.[53] Rather unusual for a "newbie", I would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly worth a look - some other editors futilely touting this Scott Walterscheid guy:

Pprice1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Industry11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GoGreen09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Variety99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mcgawkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if it's related; but other usernames that have been involved in related promotional activity can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pprice1. --- Barek (talk) - 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. That's where I got some of these. I expect there are more. Between that and the threats, the user should be indef'd and talk page access should be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. I independently came to the same conclusion - this guy a sock of Pprice1. Just look at the very first edits Mcgawkelly made. Legitimate users rarely make their first two edits to archived pages - and certainly not "reporters". The subject interest is the same - and so are the unsupported claims at being someone important - Mcgawkelly claims to be a reporter, and one of Pprice1's socks claimed to be a lawyer. Neither claims have been supported. I suggest we indef block Mcgawkelly as yet another Pprice1 sock. Rklawton (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given this,[54] which one of the listed users had copied into one of his edits, it's a good bet that all of these guys are either Walterscheid himself or one of his associates, attempting to achieve artificial notability via wikipedia. Par for the course, self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone start a new pprice1 SPI, and how about we indef ban pprice rather than worrying about consensus on the indef block of this sock? tedder (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pprice1 item was a couple of years ago, so I doubt an SPI on it would yield definitive results. It would be interesting to find out how many more socks the guy has, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, Pprice1 has long been indef blocked. He's persistent, so it's just a matter of playing wack-a-jerk. Rklawton (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one of those guys who edit-war for years over one specific thing. Roger. And that supposedly highly-educated character has now managed to get himself much higher on the radar. Smart move, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a category, "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pprice1". I might take the liberty of adding a couple more names to it. Unless you think that would be feeding the troll too much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, feeding the troll was the griefing at the user talk page. I'm not able to spend time on it, but I think it would be nice to get CHU/SPI done to find other socks. I'll create the request in several hours if it hasn't been done. tedder (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I support adding to the sock list - it'll just help future cases move faster. Rklawton (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, although most of them are 2 years old. Some more recent ones would be useful for the SPI, and the SPI should also do a "sweep" for possible "sleepers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960 engaging in personal attacks, repeated OR and NPOV violations and refusing to seek consensus

Despite having been recently blocked for 24 hours, Blake1960 (talk · contribs) continues his personal attacks, as well as his refusal to abide by Wikipedias rules against original research and editing from a biased point of view.

Personal attack diffs in reverse order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=414109310&oldid=414108175

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=413929569&oldid=413637552

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=413362992&oldid=413357637

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&diff=prev&oldid=412867006

Note that the last diff above is the one he was blocked for -- the others are from after the block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One diff regarding OR and NPOV from Chevrolet Volt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Volt&action=historysubmit&diff=412866446&oldid=412862181

I can provide other diffs on OR and NPOV edits if necessary.

Also, I suspect he was editing Chevrolet Volt anonymously here to avoid people recognizing his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Volt&action=historysubmit&diff=413941500&oldid=413410804

Blake's focus on the EPA in other edits makes me suspicious that he is this anonymous editor as well. Is it possible for an administrator to check the IPs?

Note also that Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent was protected in order to stop Black1960's disruptive editing, but that, within two days of the end of the protection period, he/she made 17 edits which were not discussed on the article's talk page prior to insertion.Ebikeguy (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not blocked for personal attacks. I was blocked for violating the 3-revert rule. An accident on my part, being new to editing on wikipedia. I did make one inflammatory comment against someone who deleted my entire contribution with no thoughtful explanation, my bad. Won't happen again.

You were blocked for both 3RR violation and "making personal attack" per the original block notice. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack was never my intent in any discussion. A few days ago, my contributions were being rudely deleted in their entirety; no attempt was made to help improve or edit them, just delete them. My contributions added new fully referenced information pertinent (I would say vital) to the balance, understanding, and completeness of the article. The excuses given for the wholesale deletion of my contributions included excessive POV, original authorship, or that they lacked references and citations. I reworked and tried to edit/reword as neutrally as possible, and I added multiple references, and citations. My contributions were still glibly deleted in entirety. What adds to my frustration is that most of the rest of the article is horribly lacking in citations and references. When I initially noted some of those cases, those contributions asking for citations were also deleted! Much of my contributions were mainly simply mathematical relations or unit conversions. The math which I presented was based only on the equations already cited and published in the article. That type of authorship is permitted according to wikipedia rules.

If you review the most recent examples of my commentary in the discussion, you'll see that my accuser has little basis for his complaint. You'll also find that he invariable turns to personal commentary rather than discussion of the issue, the subject matter of the article in question. I hate that! I'm only interested in contributing positively to the article. I am not the anonymous editor, whoever that may be, whom he is accusing me of being. I asked the Ebike person to stick to discussion of the issue or to hush. I don't think that is out of line given his history.

Thank you. Blake1960 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Blake1960 is resorting to personal attacks and misrepresentation of actual events to justify his ongoing insertion of OR and NPOV language into the article. A review of my involvement in this matter will show that I have not only adhered to Wikipedia rules, but that my edits and comments have also been polite, based on facts, and that I have tried to be helpful in explaining the rules to this relatively new editor. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Help move war

Resolved

 – Admin renamed and re-protected article, as per consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#I_asked_for_immediate_911_on_protection Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what you want? If its a revert issue report at the WP:3RRNB - Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We're ping-ponging between different names to describe the global/middle east/greater middle east/arab world protests. Discussing it on talk. Move Protection may be helpful, but it's not desperately needed. Ocaasi (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No a move protect should be put in place this is out of hand and a clear consensus should form before a page is moved that at least 3 editors disagree on in only minnutes of it being moved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The page that for the past few weeks has been called 2010–2011 Arab world protests was moved yesterday without consensus and reverted after rapid talk-page opposition to the move:

• Template:Sec link auto (original move without any obvious consensus)
• Template:Sec link auto (revert to Arab world protests)
• Template:Sec link auto (revert to en dash in 2010–2011)

During the last (half hour or so?) it has been moved several times:

• Template:Sec link auto
• Template:Sec link auto
• Template:Sec link auto
• Template:Sec link auto
• Template:Sec link auto

IMHO this needs a revert to the previous stable name prior to the move Template:Sec link auto by User:FromEast at 17:39 13 February 2011 (UTC), i.e. the name in Template:Sec link auto (17:39, 13 February 2011 Ser Amantio di Nicolao) and a block against further moves pending a standard move proposal. There are enough users involved in working on the page so that there is a good chance that a consensus decision following a standard page move proposal would be a good and stable decision.

Boud (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What, if anything, do the sources call this series of protests? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the originator of the article. So far all I have seen is "Arab world protests". There are protests in Iran right now (which is not Arab world), but that stems from earlier protests there and on the whole unrelated to the protest movements inspired by Tunisia. Jmj713 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources connect the dots to cover other continents' protests, or is that "global" conclusion a bit of "original synthesis"? One could lump the "tea party" stuff into it, to really stretch it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. There are numerous citations for that in the lead, plus several external links to that section at the bottom of the article. They specifically state "Arab world" (or variation thereof). Thus far I haven't seen a single source that lumps every ongoing protest into these, like those in Europe, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Stubing is trying to get "his version" protected before someone moves it to something else. There's no apparent consensus yet, and it's strictly a content issue at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Baseball Bugs' view on this. Per Boud, the page should be moved to the status quo ante, i.e. to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. I've left a warning at the editor's talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is his attempt and thus hard to AGF. He has claimed consensus, but here Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Renaming_of_article_proposal and Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Page_move (unaninmous vs. him) the consensus is opposite

let me just say the view im keeping as status qup consensus is NOT my view. i voted against that move.

this is the most flagrant case of WP:BOOMERANG ive seen--Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen more flagrant cases, but this one may be in the running. Looking at the user's history, I'm not so sure it's bad faith, but maybe just that the user is a bit exciteable. That doesn't make his actions valid, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the original title is Iran, which is where the protest started last year and are returning right now. If we have an Arab-only name, then we can't put the template for the protests at the Iran article, and it just gets too restrictive. We're looking for a broader name, but not too broad. Ocaasi (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated above, the protests in Iran right now are a continuation of earlier protests, and there is an article for that. For the article in question, it began in Tunisia, and subsequently people in other Arab states were inspired, as in Egypt, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many here use the word "concur" instead of the rather more straightforward and easier to type "agree"? Is it in a mis-guided attempt to appear educated? Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Duh, yup, dat's right. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that there is such a difference in style between "agree" and "concur". What I wanted to say is that, in my view, Baseball Bugs got it right.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even us blind squirrels find an acorn sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I acquiesce. GiantSnowman 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey dudes, I simply am requesting that the MOST accurate title be used. I do not feel this is unreasonable. If someone can explain how protests on four continents are "Middle East" I will agree. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What sources connect all of these protests together as a single movement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And also your view alone doesnt constitute the "MOST ACCURATE" thats what consensus is for

please also note his THREE reverts ont he move without ANY consenss is the strongest indicate for a block [55] and the last 3 section of his talk page+ [56] + [57] User_talk:Merrill_Stubing--Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong" version has now been protected

The title "2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests" has now been protected for 7 days. This is rewarding a move that was made against consensus, by an editor who apparently does not care about consensus. This page protection measure needs to be reviewed.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help that another editor got into a move edit war, despite being advised not to do so due to the lack of consensus. There should be NO MORE MOVES until consensus can be reached. There is no rush on this matter. Finalize consensus, and then ask an admin to do the move, and maybe continue to keep it move-protected after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

please see the page. EVERY single editor has disagreed with the moe of the 1 unilateral mover.

Also please note the latest incarnation of consensus (which irnoically is moving back to waht i supported) Talk:2010–2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Reasons_for.2Fagainst_each_title and Talk:2010–2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Article_name--Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if the page would be move protected for 1 or 2 days. But, in my view, we cannot have a POV-based title that is not based on reliable sources on a high-visibility page for a week.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely consensus can be reached before then. It looked like there was good progress being made, but one editor just couldn't stand the fact the article had the "wrong" title, and edit-warred over it. That has to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the page is linked to from the Main page. It's a shame to have what was a great article and a highly visible one, devolve into what it has. Take a look at the state it was in just yesterday, before someone decided everything in the world has to be interconnected. Jmj713 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the page as well as the title be reverted to some point yesterday? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone just has. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And I think "formal" consensus on the title is also at hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin has now renamed the article to 2010–2011 Arab world protests, and re-protected it also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of my administrator actions: block of WikiManOne

I recently put down a block after reading the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours). This was a difficult block to make, because I have expressed a very strong opinion on just this very subject, and it is diametrically opposed to WikiManOne's. Worse, after I made the block, I was already going to bring it to ANI, but I now actually notice that WikiManOne was the very same editor to whom I expressed this opinion! The result is that I've made a block that was out of the scope of what was appropriate for me. I don't want to completely undo it and as such give the editor a free pass if the block was justified (which I still believe it was, based simply on the structure of the edits, regardless of content). Can I have the community to take a review of it please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you're in the green. This is a textbook violation of 3RR - given that you're a great administrator, I won't hesitate to say that I trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses and not previous experience. m.o.p 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, good for you for bringing it up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are an admin, and thus your action is wrong. However, I am also an admin which makes my comment wrong. Any admin either agreeing with me or disagreeing me is also wrong (although it is wrong of me to say that). Are you sure you are an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me LHvU. I don't get it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not unlike Jayron's recent self-directed comment that "everything he says is wrong". I expect LHvU is saying that any admin's actions are under review and in some sence "everything they do is wrong", at least in the eyes of some editors. Hope that helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I would hate to see either 1) the editor's block log unnecssarily plugged up with another block or 2) the editor not be blocked for behavior which the community agrees on. I would be glad to unblock otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Two days is cheap enough for this report the user was only blocked a couple of days ago and has raced back in seemingly without listening to any advice - Magog's realized he was a bit involved and so brought it here, for opinions, and I support his actions completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Some, though not all, of WikiMan's verbal attacks on other editors are unfair and unjustified. He needs to cool his jets a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring. Not a good combination. No matter how well-meaning he may be, he's building up to a permanent place in the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Good block I was considering it myself, and I tend to lean a bit more on WM1's side of the argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've taken ownership of the block, so he can't complain about Magog not being impartial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• The mistake was certainly understandable - when a user's name doesn't match their signature, it's possible to accidentally not realize the two are one in the same. Sure, it would have been better if someone else had done it, but it's not the end of the world. --B (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm, good point B. There may be a bit of climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  This is getting to be a bit ridiculous; the talk page is being used to soapbox, not to request unblock. I request another admin give him a final warning before locking his page for the remainder of the time. I have nothing against WikiManOne (or at least I didn't until a few minutes ago), but right now the discussion is counterproductive and taking away from other areas where we could be working. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tidal power

User 202.169.177.107 (talk · contribs) used an altered pseudonym for user Rehman here, with hints towards autism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Play the ball and not the man"? Nice irony. Karenjc 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User 202.169.177.107 continues with personal attacks, see here. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Waterfall117

Resolved

 – zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall117 (talk · contribs) came to my attention do to a set of edits to Shattered Angels.[58] Looking at the editor history since 2007. Every edit has been either disruptive and in most cases, outright vandalism. This editor has not show any signs of constructively contributed since making this edit[[59]] 3 1/2 years ago. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The best policy is to just revert-warn-report after the final warning.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. This editor has a pattern of vandalizing until they get that last warning, laying low for a few months, then picking back up. They are effectively playing a game with the system so as to avoid a block. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he certainly managed to last a long time. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)