Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grey Fox-9589 (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 20 May 2011 (→‎More than two months of tag warring: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Problematic user who does not listen or respond

    I have been dealing with the edits of ポケットモンスター エニシングゴーズ (talk · contribs) for a month now. He has persisted in modifying content on Gokaigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite several requests to not add the content (as he is the only individual who does so). Lately, he has been focusing on adding a list to the article that was removed in early April, and does so every two weeks. He initially created a separate article for the content (see Ranger Keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), but he has instead insisted on adding this content to the article. I have told him total of three times to not add the content to the page (including after his most recent edit to the page).

    On top of this, he has operated other accounts, but they were not used inappropriately. Just obstructively. The individual can clearly write in English, but he does not respond to any queries. And I am getting tired of having to remove the section I have asked him not to replace every two weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that repetitive 3RR-naive editing is a problem in most cases, and this is a particular example of that. This sort of thing happens a lot and it's rare someone knows where to bring the issue. Open communication is key and this is a good example of how that's simply not happening. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So what the hell do we do about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you have a consensus somewhere for redirecting Ranger Keys to the piece on Ranger Keys in the Gokaigers article? It means nothing to me (Oh Vienna) so I don't know whether there is a discussion somewhere that agreed there should not be an article. If such an article has previously been Afd'd, then we have a problem. If not, I'd just un-redirect his article and leave him to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article got put up for speedy deletion and then someone realized that it would work better as a redirect. And the problem is that the content is entirely unencyclopedic and it would be destroyed at AFD anyway. The information does not require its own page and most certainly does not require its own coverage. The article, if it were be allowed to proliferate, would be a list of approximately all 200 fictional characters that have been part of a 37 year old franchise with the word "Key" appended to their name and a sentence that says "transforms X into Y" (or exactly what you see on User:ポケットモンスター エニシングゴーズ). I removed the list from the main article a while ago because it was becoming a vio of WP:IINFO and I cannot seem to explain it clearly enough to Pokemon Anything Goes that the content is not welcome because he returns every two weeks to put the list back onto Gokaigers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like there should be a discussion on the talk page about how to resolve this as it appears to be a content issue... maybe time for an article RfC? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should there be an RFC when only one individual keeps putting back content that he has been asked not to replace on the page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban on SuperblySpiffingPerson?

    Community ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SuperblySpiffingPerson is a fairly prolific sockmaster - see latest SPIs. I came across him at List of surviving veterans of World War I where he has repeatedly tried to delete or blank it - one of his socks (which was subsequently blocked) raised an AfD very recently which resulted in a Snow Keep. Since then, he's twice blanked it from an IP and once from a near-certain new sock account. Looking at the SPIs, he seems to be obsessively making non-consensus changes to other articles too and causing quite a lot of work for others - mostly relating to the fighting in Libya, it seems. I'd like to propose a community ban so that his socks can be blocked on sight - no editing on Wikipedia at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the sockmaster, and his latest probable sock, TheOnlyRationalBeing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Avanu, I don't know where you have been for the past month. He has done nothing but make socks and vandalize pages. He isn't even trying to be constructive anymore. We are WAY beyond being nice at this point sorry. TL565 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He was never constructive, that isn't what my point was about. -- Avanu (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Summary of issue

    This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have reviewer rights, i feel he is abusing his reviewer rights. as he keeps removing my edits, and leaves warnings on my page, even though content i add is sourced (if thats what reviewer rights are???). The user has been on Wikipedia for about 1 month.

    I believe the user is censoring Wikipedia Islam related articles, every time i addressed his concerns with my edits, he adds a new reason why my edit should not be on wikipedia.

    What i want

    I want an admin to mediate or decide whether Adamrce was right to remove the content i added (the content was well sourced), and is about the opinion of the 4 school of Islamic thought on the rules of Jihad, to challenge the already existing rules of Jihad provided by the user Adamrce from bbc news. You can see the content i added here: Content i added in yellow

    Issue and evidence

    • User made a new section called “best Jihad”,Proof 1
    • There are many different interpretation on what the”best jihad” is. I notified the user that I will add alternative POV(points of view) to reflect the alternatie views, and asked whether he objects to this. He said “You're taking texture out of context”, so I doubt he would allow me to add it.Proof 2, the user called wiqi also said that if there are alternate views then i should add it here:Proof other users support altenrate view, where he said "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"
    • Then he (Adamrce) also added BBC’s opinion on the rules of Jihad here:Proof 3
    • BBC is not an Islamic source, so I added views of 2 of the 4 Islamic schools of thought Hanafi and Shaffi, user removed these views which were properly sourced, his reason was

      “I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. “

      Proof 3
    • But then I added the opinion of all 4 major schools of Islamic thought (the 4 schools make up 80%+ of the worlds Muslim population) to satisfy the user (who as shown above did not like only giving views of 2 schools), another reason i added the 4 views, was to reflect Wikipedias major world view policy, user removed it on the grounds that

    “All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded”

    “You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! “

    Proof 4

    “Please stop your removal till the dispute clears. FollowWP:BRD, as you were warned yesterday!!!”

    , which he wrote while reverting my edit here: Proof 5

    • But 3/4 sources I used where secondary sources, which also contain excerpts of a primary source with analysis on it, like this

    Rudolph Peter, Translation of Averores rules of Jihad

    • After this, I removed BBC POV on the rules of Jihad, since there was a dispute going on over it, but user reverted my removal of the disputed content. So basically, I am frustrated because he removes my edits on the grounds that there is a dispute, but keeps his edit claiming they can only be removed after dispute is settled.
    • He also added a message on my wikipedia page, claiming I am censoring Wikipedia and could get banned here, and sent me warnigns that i will get banned for adding back to content : Proof 5
    • I added it back with compromise. Again I added the opinion of the 4 schools with more secondary sources and reasons for war (which he wanted), an against whom war can be made. User still removed them! Proof 6
    • I would like Wikipedia admins to decide whether the content I added is acceptable, and whether Adamrce is right to remove alternate POV.
    • I dont want to get involved in edit warring with this user, and based on the warnings he has left on my wiki page, it seems he has powers to ban me? He only created an account 1 month or so ago

    --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources used

    User claimed he removed content because i need to use secondary sources, but the sources i used were secondary, the following sources were used:

    Secondary Source 1

    Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

    Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 165-72

    Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 166

    Primary source 1

    Reliance of the traveller: the classic manual of Islamic sacred law ʻUmdat al-salik

    Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

    Secondary source 2

    Used as primary source, as contains excerpts from a primary source Ǧihād aṣ-ṣaġīr:Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen ,By Thomas Tartsch, Pg98

    Secondary source 3

    Excerpted from Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam: The Chapters on Jihad from Averroes' Legal Handbook "Bidayat al-mudjtahid," trans. and annotated by Rudolph Peters (Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 9-25

    Secondary source 4

    Contains primary sources also, is an analysis by a US government backed institution, regarding rules of war in Islam Non Combatants in Muslims Legal thought,Page 15

    Comments

    As a note, I have informed the user that this discussion has been opened. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it's fairly evident that both the reporter and the other user are engaged in an edit war, I've blocked both for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin observation Are blocked edtiors not supposed to remove block notices from their page except when expired/unblocked? Croben Problem? 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he reverted to having the warnings and notice. Well... My question still stands, if someone could answer it. Croben Problem? 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:REMOVE, "Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices ... may not be removed by the user" - SudoGhost (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I'll leave a note on his talkpage to make sure he knows. Croben Problem? 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? As long as they don't request an unblock, removing a block notice is the same as acknowledging it and waiting it out. It's only the denied unblock request that can't be removed, and that template even states as such (pretty sure it does). Leave 'em alone. 64.85.214.12 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the IP is correct, actually. The removal of block notices isn't prohibited by WP:REMOVE, the text that SudoGhost quoted above omits that and nothing else in the guideline says otherwise. Any admin or other editor who wants to see if a person has an active block just has to look at their edit history, it will say so right at the top. -- Atama頭 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct, it seems I misread 'ban' for 'block', my apologies. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there are good groundings for this complain. It seems that the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is too uncompromising, with the objections is not entirely consistent, for there to be a development of the article where alternative well-sourced POV may contribute to the article and the debate. So in my opinion this has not been handled reasonably. And talking about doubtful sources, Proof 1 relies on references from www.khilafah.com, which seems to be from a sort of Hizb ut-Tahrir inclined webside, so maybe some double standard is also involved here? Davidelah (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I also find it highly dubious to create a section called "Best Jihad" based entirely on a quote on what the best jihad is. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof that user constantly changes reasons for removing properly sourced content
    • 1)First he claimed he removed content because i only added 2 major opinions and that its not fair that i did not add the views of the other schools of islam here (note that there are only 4 major schools of Sunni Islam, see Madh'hab article)
    • 2) After adding opinion of the 2 other schools, user removed data, now claiming "“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source!", and also said "All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded" here
    • 3) All the sources were secondary sources, but to satisfy the user, i added more secondary sources and reasons for war, then user claimed "You're taking texture out of context"original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes" here
    I came to conclusion that this user will never allow alternate views , he keeps changing reasons for removing content, now his reasons is that there is a dispute and cant add content until dispute settled, dispute is only between me and him, and no one else, and i think davidelah has disputed with him on the same topic also (before me)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Now i have added a properly referenced alternate opinion to the "best jihad" section, that user created recently. But user reverted my edit claiming "fixed misleading paraphrasing, according to the source; the whole section is about war, but I'm not sure if I got the sequence right" he said this, here, another user called "wiqi" stated , "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"here, but Adamrce has problems adding alternate views, not only that. The info that he added(thats currently on that section) references www.khilafa.com, which is a website of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is accused of supprting terrorism, He keeps complaining about using proper sources *sigh*. Yet source i added was a secondary source of a book by a famous muslim scholar called Ibn Nuhaas, who analyses a primary source called the hadiths,this is the book . --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's no secret that there's four major schools of Islamic thought, and it would be very useful to include summaries of their views on Jihad. It appears to me we have one editor who would like to do this and another editor who prefers the "western pop" version. Given the plaintiff's willingness to improve subject coverage, sources, and content and the defendant's obstinacy, I think we should warn Adamrce sternly to be more reasonable or be gone and award Misconceptions2 a Barnstar each for patience, scholarship, and perseverance. Rklawton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you got an understanding about the debate, sir. You, for yourself, said summaries.
    (1) The same discussion has been opened before. My main concern was not on the content nor the source. The two users were trying to prove that Jihad is to attack. The BBC source said that warfare Jihad is only allowed when under attack, which the four schools agree with that too; however, the editor was ignoring the content that explains the conditions in his source (i.e. in Shaffi: either attacked or surrounded by an enemy oppressing toward a war) and only inserted the parts that relate to a war. I insisted to discuss the topic before inserting, as it might be mislead to the readers. The user ignored most of my continues comments, and re-added the content after changing my least concerns. My main objective was to lead to a mutual agreed content on the talkpage, not the article. I wouldn't object on the schools if they were fairly inserted as a NPOV. I suggested to open a sandbox to fix the content together or get a third opinion, but I just don't think, in my opinion, that the editing should be done on the main article (especially as the inserted selection of content was picked based on a pov).
    (2) The editor inserted a source that said "highest Jihad" solely talking about war and phrased it to "best Jihad", so I changed the edited phrasing from "best Jihad" to make it identical to the source, "highest Jihad'. Is that pushing my POV?
    (3) The only dispute I got about my "Best Jihad" insertion is: "reverted Adamrce, there are many different quotes from muhammad about what the best jihad is". Another user put it back. I just put that source as a news article, but I would of inserted an alternative source if they ever objected (it already has another source referenced, btw).
    Hopefully someone can take a look at what was going on, instead of deciding based on the selected number of claims AdvertAdam talk 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you removed the alternate view i added to the "best jihad" section on the grounds that it uses the word "highest", not "best".Then i could just as easily change the title of that section to "Highest and Best Jihad", so then you would have no reason to remove it? Or would you then have another reason to remove it. In my opinion, your arguments for removing content is putting you in a bad light here.
    • I added the rules of warfare, but you did not like it, because you wanted the reasons for war. Which i added also. You clearly have in your head the idea that Jihad is only in defence, and that the 4 schools of Islam agree with you. Even the Islam article mentions [here] that , there are scholars who believe that Jihad is also offensive and to conquer. This is indicated in the following hadith of Muhammad, which i can also add to wikipedia with a secondary source, but you would remove:

    On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us." Sahih Bukhari, 5,59,435

    • the secondary source to back this up would be:

    The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger (pg 134)...It is meaningless to talk about the holy war as only defensive, otherwise, what did the prophet mean when he said, "from now on even if they don’t invade you, you must invade them. (Pg242)
    [Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti - "Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", Pg. 73, English edition, published by Azhar University of Egypt (1988)]

    • As for your claim that the 4 schools agree with your view that Jihad is only defensive, read the yellow part. Does it really seem that the 4 schools agree with you. I think you removed it because they dont agree with you. Here is a pic just so you know that i did add reasons for war and have highlighted the necessary part to show you they dont agree with you.
    • You gave a quote from the reliance of the traveller, to prove that the 4 schools agree with you. The reliance of the traveller is only 1 school, not 4. But the book does not agree with you either " section 9.8 "objectives of jihad", it says:

      The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.8

    • In section 9.9 it says:

    The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.9

    --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On the 4 schools issue, I think there is a misunderstanding of what an Islamic school of jurisprudence is supposed to be. Roughly speaking, schools of jurisprudence are concerned with more general issues, like methods of interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion of one scholar which may or may not be common or acceptable to other scholars and followers of the same school. So instead of quoting individual scholars, I suggest that Misconceptions2 should find secondary sources that a) survey the opinions of multiple scholars of one school, and b) determine which points that most scholars agree upon. Wiqi(55) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What you are suggesting is impossible, where can i get such surveys from, the scholars of the past are not alive (do you know any organisation that takes such surveys, i believe you just dont want these rules on wikipedia). Also, you are trying to be technical, by claiming "interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion". Of course it is, so are the rules on Sunnah and Qiyas, those are opinions of scholars and schools, just like the rules of Jihad. I want to add these "opinions" of the scholars on the grounds ofNotability, as they do represent their schools.

    If you would like, i can also add the opinions of the founders of those schools on the rules of Jihad, but those opinions are FAR FAR more extreme. You can find some here. Non Combatants in Islam- By the Hudson think tank , if i added some of their opinions on jihad (like allowing the killing of non combatants indiscriminately), would you remove it?-Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is simple really. "Reliance of the Traveler" is just one book of Shafi'i jurisprudence out of many, all of which are still actively being studied (some even considered more important than the Reliance). So what does the other Shafi'i books say about the rules of jihad? If you can't answer this simple question, then you should only cite secondary sources and not selectively quoting one primary source and ignoring all others (which violates WP:NOR). In any case, I suggest taking this discussion back to Talk:Jihad, as we are off topic here. Wiqi(55) 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In Talk:Jihad, there was an endless discussion (even Adamrce acknowledged this). This can only be sorted by admin intervention. Furthermroe, i DID cite mainly secondary sources which were analysing those primary sources, see above. Ok you tell me in your opinion what are the most important books of those 4 schools of Islam, and i will cite them with secondary sources, i also hope you dont remove them. I am going to great lengths to satisfy you and Adamrce (i doubt i will ever satisfy Adamrce).I think it is best that i just cite the views of the founders of the 4 schools

    All i want is a resolution from admins about the actions of Adamrce. Since he does not allow alternate views--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an opinion on the procedures:

    I'm User:Adamrce, so I hope you don't get confused with my signature. The only pov I'm pushing, which I think is legitimate, is to keep the discussion on the talk-page or soap box, not the main article as it could mislead readers during editing; where anyone can invite admins, mediators, third opinions...etc, because this topic is tagged with controversial. I hope any admin can comment on this point, as I've invited the disputer to build a soapbox together many times with no hope. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these claims here, but I'll answer some so no-one thinks I'm avoiding this discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I've stopped editing everything.

    • Misconceptions2, you have no right, at all, to change the wording to your own intentions. I did not remove your contribution as you claim, but corrected the wording to match the source. It said "Highest Jihad" not "Best Jihad". However, you reverted it back to the wrong interpretation and User:Wiqi55 corrected it, again. I hope you're satisfied.
    • Yes, your source says that the Muslims fight the non-Muslims until they pay tax or become Muslims in-order to live in peace, BECAUSE a section before it said that it is when their enemies surround them calling for war!!! We can't fix this wording on the article, which I suggested many times to open a soapbox to work on it together. Again, you can't just pick the statements you like and ignore the rest.

    I'm not sure if we're allowed to finish this discussion here, so I can answer all disputes. AdvertAdam talk 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please (i have been as compromising as i can, and have done everything to satify you), i really dont have the stomach to argue with you any further. Clearly any scholarly opinions that goes against your idea that "Jihad is defensive and is done only to bring peace", will be removed by you, with whatever excuse you think of (even if it meets all the rules of wiki, yes this is an accusation which i have provided proof for right at top). I would like an admin to read what has already been said and help us end this arguement. All i want is an admin to decide wether Adamrce was right to remove alternate views (and only keep bbc opinions of the rules of warefare in islam), i dont have anything else to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also AdamRce, i will consider this issue resolved if you just tell me what is wrong with my edits. Is it that i dont add any secondary sources, is it that all my sources are unreliable... from your point of view? What is it that makes u remove the edits, and what do i have to do, such that, you wont remove the edits of the alternate views on the rules of warfare?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We're not here to satisfy ourselves, but should all work together to satisfy the readers. You and another editor had a couple claims on me, and a third user called my sources "western pop" (even though I had Arabic sources and lived in the Middle-East for a long time, too). I've stopped editing for three days waiting for this claim to close. I already explained my points here, so we should wait for an admin's decision. Keeping the discussion going will just slow things down, I guess. I have 300 pages on my watch-list, so each day is a disaster for me to follow-up. All points are clear here and I hope an admin jumps in soon :). I know that I'm already unblocked, but I just don't want to keep editing if I was doing anything wrong. I already learned my lesson about the edit war and double-checked how to avoid it. Peace everyone and good luck AdvertAdam talk 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    request for page freeze , with sourced content i added

    I talked to an admin on live chat and they suggested that i should request a page freeze, including the content i added on the alternate view. on the rules of warefare [see here]

    Will any admins consider? I would close this AN/I, if Adamrce would just tell me what i have to do such that he wont remove the content i added. i already asked the question above, but user avoided question--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Either, I'm not speaking English, or you're not reading English.
    I avoided your last question for one simple reason; I've answered it already: two times here, two times on your talkpage (where you deleted them), two times on the article's talkpage, and I think another time on another article's discussion page. You gave your side of the story and I gave mine, so I was asking for an admin to comment and thought that keeping the same repeated discussion going will slow things down.
    I'll repeat for the last time. I suggested that we can open a soapbox to work on that edit and link the soapbox to the discussion page, because it's a large content and any error is misleading to the readers. Those edits might take some time to get ordered. It really is as simple as that. You never commented nor listened to my suggestions. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already discussed with you enough, no need for soap box. you will keep argueing with me. just tell everyone (or if you already have, please repeat), what i must do, such that you wont revert my edits. Just tell me what you find wrong with my edits ! (also i have been told that the AN/I will take 14 days at least to settle, so stick around for next 10 days please)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A soapbox is a place where we can both make edits without misleading readers, and it can be under your control (on your account) while inviting editors to join with us. If you don't like it, fine. I have a lot of contribution to do, which I will continue. This topic can be discussed here till it's done, if that's what you want; even though we won't be able to insert any content here.
    These are primary sources, based on what many editors told you before (not just me). Therefore, we need to summarize it fairly, not just pick what you like. What I had in mind, is to work on each source at a time. You can add the picky sentences you love, then I need to add a summary regarding the reasons for the war (as explanation in my first edit in the "Requesting an opinion on the procedures" section above. I also have to mention that each book doesn't represent the whole sector of Islam, like Hanaffi, as each book only represents a single scholars' opinion. So, there's many books for each sect, as told to you by another user, too. I'm just trying to make you aware of the things that you misunderstand, because you're not a Muslim nor have any experiences in Muslim sources (in my opinion). I know you're gonna say that you supplied secondary source, but your inserted quotations are from a primary source; so we need to be double careful! Take care ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Who said they are all primary sources , can you tell me. Also, why wont you tell me whats wrong with my edits, you just said i pick out sentences i like. the section was about rules of warfare. so i took the rules of warfare from the books (was i supposed to take out other non related quotes???). all sources except 1, where secondary (if you had checked above). anyway, i will be re adding the rules of warfare, you can add reasons. which you said you want to do. and i will see if you remove it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about Suggest a Bot

    Hi, I just received an email from this bot that makes no sense to me. Clicking on difs that are in the email is removing items from my watchlist. Are anyone else receiving this email? I have asked the person Nettrom about this email plus I informed them of this AN/i report here. Something just doesn't seem right about the email. Why didn't s/he just talk to me on my user page about the changes being requested? I will send the email to any administrator who request it. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a little confused... what was the email about? The Bot shouldn't be sending email (having checked it's request for approval), but I haven't seen anyone else mention it. --Errant (chat!) 12:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like me to send it to you? I thought the same thing. Something is weird about this since it says it's changing my page and some other things. I'll email it to you if you would like. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, mail it :) --Errant (chat!) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok it's sent to you. I'm kind of freaked out about this so I appreciate your help. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha! I know what this is. It is not the bot sending you email. The Mediawiki system has an inbuilt ability to send you an email notification whenever your talk page is edited :) This has not previously been enabled on Wikipedia but it was enabled the other day. The setting defaulted to "on" for everyone. If you want you can turn it off by going to preferences and de-selecting the relevant option at the bottom of the page. The links at the bottom, including the one which unwatched the page for you are just helper links left over from the fact that it is using a "watchlist notification" template. --Errant (chat!) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember checking this but I assume you mean this, E-mail me when my user talk page is changed . I unchecked it and appreciate your help a lot. I thought someone might be messing with me and I am so relieved that's not the case. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but when I received this it was hard for me to do. I am sorry now that I didn't assume good faith about it. Thank you again for you help. I feel really stupid now for freaking out over it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's any consolation, I was puzzled when I got the same emails - "What's this stuff that I didn't ask for?" I eventually found the checkbox in the prefs and disabled it, and assumed I must have switched it on some time ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Chronie; no worries, it was enabled automatically for everyone (I'm not sure who decided that). But has not been widely announced - hence confusion. I have pinged the foundation-l list to find out if there are plans to make people aware of this change. --Errant (chat!) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I was also thrown for a loop when I received one of these yesterday. Thus, Chronie and I are not going to be the only ones who are wondering what is going on. Might it be a good idea to add one of those message boxes like we do when donation time or voting for arbcom comes around letting editors know what has occurred. It might also be worth considering not defaulting new features to "on" when they are added - another message box could inform users about new functions added and let us decide whether we want to use it or not. Of course, these are just a suggestions and my thanks to ErrantX for clearing things up. After seeing the edit conflict I see that you have also already started some of the process that I am suggesting EX but I thought I would post this anyway for others to see - thanks againMarnetteD | Talk 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please wp:TROUT the person who made the decision to turn this on by default? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Talk_emails --Errant (chat!) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checking in... FYI, I had a look at SuggestBot's source code, and it has no ability whatsoever to email anybody, at the moment. I'm happy to see this got sorted out, understand the confusion. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was uncharitable ...and unwise. Skomorokh 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I think turning it on was really not a good idea. How many emails? How many electrons needlessly displaced? What strain on our servers? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See my post above, under the topic "Possible bug in archives?". I think that the slow performance of the site might coincide with turning on this feature. In fact I'm almost certain of it. -- Atama頭 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. It's really, really aggravating. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm in favour FWIW, beats the hacky method I was using before to get notifications to my Gmail. But anyways; I added a watchlist notice because that seems to be the simplest way to tell people --Errant (chat!) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with having the feature. Engaging it and defaulting to "on" was a poor choice, oing so without notifying anyone about it was troutable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But am I the only one whose pedia is not wikying as fast as it ought to? I get stuck just about every other edit and have to reload. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have to stop and reload long pages (such as this one) before they come in all the way. Annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bad enough that I'm probably going to use Wikipedia very little, if at all, until they get around to fixing it. This is getting ridiculous. Technical problems, I can live with; long-term unacknowledged technical problems are really frustrating. -- Atama頭 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we are all happy that a long wanted feature like email notifications were enabled at last. Nemo 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    <--I don't need email notifications, personally. BTW, a couple of weeks ago there were recurring technical problems, and I PayPalled $20 to the foundation--I thought that would have taken care of it. Anyway, I would like to know if these issues are related. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, you !work for Wikipedia, and you pay them?? Where can I get in on this racket? As Yakov would say, "What a country!!". --64.85.221.213 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TVFAN24

    TVFAN24 has been on ANI's radar a couple times, previously for violation of SOCK, among other things, one of which being POINTed editing and going against consensus. TVFAN24 was put on probation and mentorship by User:Wgfinley, who was serving as her mentor. The behavior that got her blocked in the first place began again, tendentious editing on television station, soap opera and other articles. User:Deconstructhis tried to curb this behavior on the television side, but TVFAN24 filed a MedCom request, with pure lies saying Deconstructhis was the only editor with a problem. Actually it is consensus, but TVFAN24 was asking to go around that. The MedCom request was declined per that. Her mentor though considered it a content dispute and supported TVFAN24's editing. Tonight was the final straw though. TVFAN24 asked on my talk page, if it was "ok and not against policy if I start making articles for every person to those few pages for ones that do not have one and then if they can be added back to the list." Of course, this was completely POINTed editing and creation of non-notable articles to circumvent consensus. TVFAN24 created two articles, both of which are sub-stubs, both of which don't meet the GNG and both of which are meant to circumvent consensus. I CSD'd both as A7. Since her mentor, Wgfinley, is unwilling or unable to help and reign his mentee in, I am requesting that TVFAN24's behavior be dealt with here at ANI. I would like the indef block (or even a 24 hour one) put back in place while the ANI thread is ongoing. This behavior needs to stop and stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified all three user's named above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TVFAN's probation was a year ago for socking, I haven't seen any socking issues arise in this time and I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand. I mentored her on that issue, I'm not her father that you can come tattle on her. You accused TVFAN of tendentious editing, she filed a mediation request as a way to work out the dispute with you and others. You didn't feel it was in good faith and refused.
    TVFAN obviously has an interest in this area, that applies to a lot of people on WP. She created the Goode article, you had a a speedy delete request on it in 14 minutes [1] and that request was processed two hours later. As I told you previously, the line on hounding is a precarious one, you are close to crossing it (14 minutes?). She has been compiling lists of some of these personnel, in some cases, like this one, she adds them to a list and they don't have an article so you object if she makes one. In others where they are added to the list without an article you revert it incorrectly calling it vandalism [2] and then revert her again without any reason or discussion on the talk page [3]. Which is it?
    You are content to bring up her block of a year ago that has nothing to do with this issue yet you've been previously blocked and on probation for reverting content disputes and calling them vandalism as you have here. You're choosing to take the conflict to other venues and escalate it instead of discussing it working out any differences. You've mocked her for any attempt to try to talk to you about it [4] [5]. You and Deconstructthis have a position about these TV station articles (which you are entitled to have) that is not held by TVFAN and others (which they are entitled to have) - it is the age old WP:CRUFT argument. You refused mediating the matter and are now coming to AN/I for more would appear to be forum shopping.
    Please take a closer look at WP:CON, in particular the section on using talk pages to work out disputes and issues. If you have an issue with notability of something that's posted then by all means put that on the talk page, give that person some time to address the issue (preferably more than 14 minutes) and if he/she doesn't then put it up for deletion as you have. If she created a massive amount of stubs on these issues I would consider that a problem. I don't see two, one of which she had all of two hours to improve on, as a problem. --WGFinley (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn. Anywho, this is what I mean by Wgfinley having no problem with TVFAN24's behavior. Obviously, another mentor needs to be in on this or admins taking over where Wgfinley is apprently unwilling and unable to deal with the matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that once again, it appears to me that the onus of responsibility in contending with TVFAN24's continuing editing practices is apparently being construed as some form of personal animus between two or three editors and TVFAN24 and an alleged lack of "prior discussion" on issues. I'd like to suggest that a broad assessment of the situation based on the evidence we have on hand indicates otherwise. In fact, I contend that this editor is wilfully rejecting the outcome of ample prior discussion on adding unreferenced BLP list material, which has occurred here, as well as on their own talk page and the talk page of other editors, the TV station project noticeboard and via the advice of their mentor Wgfinley, who appears to have specifically advised them *not* to engage in editing practices involving the adding of *specifically* this type of unreferenced material to articles. I'd like to address some issues raised by Wgfinley in their above post. Approximately a year ago, after Wgfinley lifted an indefinite block for socking and voluntarily agreed to mentor TVFAN24 on this matter, a number of "sandbox" pages were established so that TVFAN24 would be provided the opportunity to be tutored specifically on the need for providing references when adding BLP material to articles. The pages were created, and the unreferenced material that was being disputed in the TV station articles was transferred to them; with the expectation that references would be created fort he entries, at which point, the entries could be legitimately re-added to the articles. At that time, Wgfinley actively coached TVFAN24 on the need for that kind of support, if BLP list list was material being added [6] and TVFAN24 appears to have freely accepted that condition [7],[8] as a prerequisite for continuing to edit and openly agreed to only add BLP list material in cases where such referencing was simultaneously provided by them. If you visit those same sandbox lists today, and examine the differences, it appears that, apart from a few minor differences, in my opinion little effort has been made at all to utilize them for their stated original purpose [9],[10],[11],[12],[13], in fact, for the most part they appear to have been mostly ignored by TVFAN24 for that purpose. In January of 2011, TVFAN24 began unilaterally bulk re-adding exactly the same unreferenced BLP material to Chicago area television station articles, without any prior discussion on the relevant article talk pages beforehand at all. Please take note this occurence appears to have transpired while both Wgfinley and myself were on short Wikibreaks at the beginning of the year.[14],[15],[16],[17]. These re-additions were subsequently removed as unreferenced. Recently; in fact just this past weekend, TVFAN24 deemed it appropriate to launch a formal request for mediation in these matters, in an apparent attempt to once again precipitate the opportunity to re-add exactly the same unreferenced materials to these articles. That request was subsequently rejected by the clerk. For those interested, my personal reaction to this filing can be viewed on my talk page. I have clearly made up my own mind on this issue and make no pretense whatsoever to objectivity in the matter; I'm quite content to accept the decision of the community in this regard, as well as accepting any "lumps" I might have coming to me. In closing, I'd like to request that Wgfinley attempt to refrain from "personalizing" this dispute, apart from where the evidence leads and also that "harassment" can take on different forms, *none* of which are acceptable from experienced editors. I'd be happy to answer any questions in regard to these matters from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the clumsily composed posting above, I'm really pressed for time today and simply wanted to attempt to contextualize and balance the situation while I had a chance. My opinion is that editing issues surrounding TVFAN24 are an ongoing matter and again in my opinion, that repeatedly having to deal with those issues is a serious waste of time and editing resources. It appears to me that "abetting" these problematic practices is a possible practical concern as well and should be dealt with. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it curious that both of you have an abundant number of things to say HERE but couldn't do mediation. She even apologized [18] for making these two articles without any prompting from me. Maybe she would learn from mistakes if either of you gave her a chance instead of waiting to pounce within 14 minutes of anything she does. --WGFinley (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm...to be straightforward with you, in my opinion this response looks to me like additional diversionary rhetoric and another instance of the creation of what appears to be some sort of "firewall" around the editing practices of the person who you're mentoring. You can choose to compartmentalize the problems surrounding this editor's past practices and attribute the base difficulties to a small number of "other editors", but to do so, I think, ignores the longer view available in the situation; which appears to be continuing to present. In my opinion, TVFAN24's editing history speaks for itself and further, I think in many instances tends toward deliberate obfuscation. A quick scan of the totality of their talk page [19] and the involvement (and rejection) of some of those practices by a number of other editors (including other administrators)[20] appears to indicate that the problems are 'wider' than what you're attempting to convey here today and involve far more than a "14 minute" response time to the posting of a purportedly non-notable sub-stub article or an "apology" that occurred last evening. Just to be clear about that, although you've subsequently lumped me in with Neutralhomer in that regard; a fairer practice might be to try and restrain your criticism to to the relevant party; Neutralhomer is quite capable of speaking for himself. You've made comments in the past regarding your claimed inability to 'rein in' this situation; citing your involvement as TVFAN24's mentor as a rationale for non-action. I can understand aspects of that argument and to be sure, you can't literally stand over their shoulder while they're actually editing; however it seems to me that in your capacity as an administrator, as well as a mentor, it is reasonable for you to completely step aside and allow other administrators to objectively perform their duties as they see fit, without attempting to influence the situation. In my personal estimation, you failed in that respect both last summer and to a lesser extent in late autumn, when you directly and unilaterally overturned the decisions of other administrators in regard to blocks applied against TVFAN24. I can't help but wonder about the "enabling" potentials of those occurrences. I believe, that a further instance of what I'm alleging to be "non-objective intervention" regarding this editor occurred last weekend when; although recusing yourself from the specifics of the mediation request filed by TVFAN24; felt it necessary to recommend on the comment page that the request constituted a 'good issue' for the mediation process itself. Frankly, in my opinion, considering that you yourself are a formal mediation committee member in Wikipedia, I think you overstepped and left yourself open to a perception of potential undue influence in the matter. The real question in my mind, is where do we go from here? thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So open an RfC/U, or go to mediation. Annoying Neutralhomer and creating some articles of questionable notability isn't grounds for a block. Fences&Windows 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating articles of questionable notability shouldn't be allowed in the first place. I wouldn't create an article about myself, I'm not notable enough to have an article, even if you can find references that say I exist and I do this or that. Unreferenced material, especially that of BLP nature, really bothers me. It degrades what Wikipedia should be about... notability and references. Those policies aren't there just for a few editors to follow, they are there for all editors to stick to. That makes Wikipedia more trustworthy and accurate. I'm not going to fully dive into this discussion from this point on but I stand with Neutralhomer and Deconstructthis 100 percent. Why should one editor get away with causing so much hubbub, when others are banned indefinitely for one issue? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by User:Δ

    User:Δ has a troubled history for his habit of content policing (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ). He has been trying to get images deleted from Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah on the basis of putative 'non-free content overuse', although in fact it appears that all images may in fact be free, and in any case the older ones most certainly are free.

    I tagged images such as this one: [21] as public domain since it was published in 1952 in Indonesia, and according to Indonesian copyright law, the maximum copyright term is 50 years from publication. He has just reverted this with the intent that the files be deleted tomorrow: [22].

    I notified him on his talk page that he is vandalising the encylopedia by tagging clear public domain images for deletion, see contributions: [23], and he responded by immediately deleting/archiving my notice and taking no action. He has been reported several times in recent days for breaching 3RR over his content policing actions, and I have no intention in getting into a revert war with him over this, so I am reporting here. Indocopy (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When you refuse to listen, remove image sourcing and are disruptive you will be reverted. You replaced all of the information on the image description pages with a generic template. I could have gone through and tagged them all as no-source. I have not breached 3RR as you have been told multiple times before. Enforcing NFC is exempt from that. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack which Im brushing off. ΔT The only constant 09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came very close to handing out some blocks here - Edit Warring is a bright line Δ, you should know that! However - both pages are protected (one from a few days ago), please resolve the dispute on talk pages as to whether any of these images are out of copyright yet, or come up with a compromise non-free usage. --Errant (chat!) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive tried, but been ignored. ΔT The only constant 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show where you have tried and have been ignored, I do not believe this is the case. Indocopy (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErrantX, if non-free images are used without a proper rationale, then such a rationale should be provided before the images are (re-)included. Reverting edits without providing that proper rationale first is a form of disruption, and as such exempt from 3RR. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to include the images. I am sure that Δ is aware of the bright line, as is Indocopy about the regulations of NFC. You are right, the dispute has to be resolved on talkpages, or a proper selection has to be made - not by changing licensing information or reverting images back in without having proper rationales. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to listen??? I'm not the one who just deleted comments from his talk page without action/discussion.
    The template is not generic, it is one I personally created for these images. The content is more than 50 years old and is therefore public domain, and were correctly tagged as such 6 days ago, now you are reverting them in what appears to be an attempt to get free content deleted based on an 'unused non-free image' tag. This is vandalism, nothing more.
    Your behaviour is highly disruptive, if you had a problem with my image tagging you could have notified me and explained any issues you had, but nope you just revert (after six days!) and don't say anything, and edit war over and over and over again.Indocopy (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There has recently been some discussion over Commons about this subject.[24][25] I feel it would be best to take it there. —BETTIA— talk 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I rather disagree. I have a simple complaint here. I tagged numerous images as public domain, which they are unquestionably are, being older than the 50-year term, and this was reverted by Delta who refused to discuss the matter. It is not a copyright matter, it is a complaint about Delta's obstructive behaviour in (a) edit warring and (b) not discussing. Indocopy (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll need to cite where "older than the 50-year term" makes them public domain. In the USA, at least, that's no longer the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah I did that, that's why this is vandalism. I created Template:PD-Indonesia, in accordance with numerous (Category:Public_domain_copyright_templates_by_country) similar templates on Wikipedia, and then tagged the image accordingly, as I explained in my original post (above). The copyright law in Indonesia is clearly hyperlinked from the template and hence from the image that Delta disrupted reverted without cause and refusing to discuss it. Indocopy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not vandalism. You definitely need to stop using that word, which has a very specific meaning here, in this context. On a side note - the bank note in the photo was issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960? Does that affect things? This whole bank notes issue is largely unresolved. --Errant (chat!) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no photos, only scans, there is an important difference in copyright terms, scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do.
    As for 'the banknote in the photo being issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960?', nope I've no idea where you get that idea from, although equally I'm not sure what image you are referring to? The banknotes issue might be 'largely [or partly] unresolved', but when you take 50+-year-old images that are clearly in the public domain and you edit them such that they will be auto-deleted within 24 hours, and then refuse to discuss the matter, well I think it's legitimate to regard that as 'vandalism'. Indocopy (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "...scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do..."
    Wait, what? Where do you get the assertion that a scan of a work enjoys different copyright status to a photograph of a work? Book publishers might want to have a word about that... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indocopy; asserting a violation of 3RR because you believe you're right and Δ is wrong when there's been no consensus that you are right, in a situation regarding copyright is improper. As Dirk noted, the burden is on you. Fail that burden, and those policing your edits are not in violation of 3RR. Attempting to force your way by rampant reversions is not the way forward. If you can't convince a body towards consensus that a given set of images are free license/public domain, edit warring won't work either. Be patient, wait for consensus to develop, and stop edit warring. We've had enough blasts about this pattern of edits that are entirely avoidable if you simply choose to wait it out. We take copyright seriously here, and no amount of edit warring is going to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, no, I disagree. This is not a case that unquestionably violates the free-content policy. The only thing that can be enforced in this case is common consensus (which seems to be slowly emerging). So both parties here are in violation of WP:EW and 3RR still applies. --Errant (chat!) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-admin comment) NFCC states that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. A valid rationale was provided, fulfilling the burden of proof. Even if the user wishing to remove it has a valid counter-argument, it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, thus 3RR applies, so far as I can tell. - SudoGhost™ 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SudoGhost is correct. I agree with these images removals FWIW, but there is nothing there that is valid as an exclusion under 3RR. Edit warring is a bright line with few exceptions. --Errant (chat!) 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No ErrantX and SudoGhost, there is not a rationale for using so many of these images. That qualifies as overuse, which we, per our m:Mission should try to minimise, as we are trying to write a free encyclopedia here. Someone has questioned the use of so many of them, so the burden of proof is on the person who is re-inserting them. Be it 1, or be it all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding, if someone questions the rationale, then the rationale is not unquestioned anymore, and hence it can not be a valid rationale until those questions are answered - the burden of proof is on the one wishing to (re-)insert them. Its painful, but if there is a vandal making some silly removal of an image one would even have to answer that rationale - 'I think it does' is not good enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All true. However it still does not count as an exception. The proper response is not to edit war but to report the user rv-ing or to request protection of the article until matters are resolved. --Errant (chat!) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the other option is to edit war against them.... no, no it certainly is not. Where on earth did you get that from :) I'm not trying to be awkward - just pointing out that a less laid back admin might well have handed out blocks here. --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Logical rationale has been given on the article's talk page that the images are PD (among other things), which means it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy. I'm not aware that a questioned rationale is not a valid one, nor of any policy that states that. Show me a rationale that is never questioned, because that seems unlikely. The talk page itself shows that it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, and there is an ongoing discussion as to that very question, with valid rationales being given by those who wish for the images to be used.
    If you ask ten editors if it violates NFCC, and six say yes, but four say no, and give very good, logical reasons why it doesn't, that seems to be the very reason the policy says unquestionably violates the free-content policy instead of the other way around, images can be removed unless those images unquestionably do not violate the free-content policy. - SudoGhost™ 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, so much for WP:BURDEN. It's been officially vacated. Facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Totally unrelated. It is definitely not appropriate to use WP:BURDEN as a rationale to edit war, it is not an exclusion. That the edits failed WP:BURDEN is a matter for the talk page & other dispute resolution (i.e. here, RFPP, etc.) --Errant (chat!) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Well, that PD is not that unquestionable I am afraid. That some thing is not under a copyright anymore does not make them PD. But well. Yes, bingo, SudoGhost: images get removed unless they unquestionably do not violate the non-free-content policy. I am sorry, there is no negotiation there, if they violate the non-free-content policy, or in other words, if they they violate copyright, then they have to go until the opposite is proven. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, you might want to check out the Wikipedia page on public domain. 'Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired' Indocopy (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not accurate. We suspend all tenants of WP:NFCC policy as soon as anyone disagrees with them. WP:BURDEN is also suspended. Didn't you know that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be glib. I am trying to helpfully explain a better process than edit warring, because all that will happen is eventually someone will be blocked for NFCC reasons (which in this case IMO are being reasonably questioned, though it looks like the removal will prove valid) and there will be a massive fucking fall out etc etc. Just use the right process. That is all :)

    --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you misunderstood, I was saying the opposite. The 3RR exemption is not Removal of content that might violate the non-free content policy., but says Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. I did not add the emphasis to unquestionably, it's presented that way in WP:3RR. Seems to me the policy-writer thought that part important, for reasons such as this, I can't think of a reason to bold that word unless it was important. As per the policy as written, and the spirit of the policy, Δ violated 3RR. If he didn't, then who possibly could? That unquestionably certainly isn't there for giggles. - SudoGhost™ 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing the point

    In response to Hammersoft et al above, I did not come here to assert a violation of 3RR, I came here to point out that Delta has vandalised public domain images (being older than 50 years, in accordance with Indonesian law), and then removed my attempt at discussion, and given his past history was liable to edit war to revert them, so I had no alternative but to flag it here having exhausted other angles to resolve this. There is no one 'set of images' here, there are many different scans of banknotes dating in publication date from 1945 up to 2010, and after earlier Delta-initiated dramas, he eventually conceded that those images published in the name of 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republik Indonesia Serikat' and 'Indonesia' are free content in accordance with Indonesian law, and these were tagged accordingly. Subsequently I also tagged scans of those banknotes published prior to 1 January 1961 as PD-Indonesia, since they are unquivocally public domain according to Indonesian law. The status of those more recent banknotes is not the subject of this AN/I report, and I would suggest that be discussed at a different venue - I posted here ONLY because Delta vandalised the >50 year-old, public domain images and refused to discuss the fact that he had done so or to revert the same; accordingly the comments about NFCC/WP:BURDEN while germane to Delta's wider pattern of putative misbehaviour overcomplicate what is in fact a simple problem of him reverting valid PD tags on old images.Indocopy (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And you've been told that vandalism is a very very specific thing here, and thats not what Delta did. When you stop using that term, maybe we can advance the discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to resolve this is to have someone with media copyright knowledge r.e. bank notes take a look. There are a number of issues which concern me that they may not be free images. But that is an issue for the talk pages - is there any admin action still needed? --Errant (chat!) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh yes, the 50+ year-old images, which have been tagged for deletion by Delta tomorrow, which apparently I'm not allowed to call vandalism, should be reverted en-masse - I'm not sure how to do this, and would like it to be made clear that Delta should not revert these when his block expires Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indocopy - to reply to your message further up the thread. The original image uploader noted that the scanned note (thanks for pointing out that) was issued between 1995 and 2008 (check the history). --Errant (chat!) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a permanent link to the relevant version, I'm not quite sure what we are looking at here. Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a simple copy/paste issue caused by doing many uploads with the same text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080701000000&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Sumbuddi Indocopy (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh. Look at the original revision for one of the images. Note the uploaders comment: Indonesian currency issued 1998-2005. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In reference to that specific image, the original uploader marked it wrong -- that note was not issued between 1998 and 2005 -- it was issued in 1953. See here : [26], looking for better examples. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't think for a moment that Δ is attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is pretty strict on what is considered vandalism, and accusing someone of vandalism when they haven't vandalized anything isn't the nicest thing, and tends to only cause problems. - SudoGhost™ 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's true, it's a shame therefore that Delta, whose behaviour wih me from the beginning has been aggressive and obnoxious started off by inappropriately calling my Good Faith edits, made prior to registering, vandalism. [27] Incivility tends to breed the same, he uses abusive language [28] threatens people with blocks, destroys people's hard work and refuses to discuss the matter, has made only minimal contribution to the copyright discussion except saying 'no', and then wonders why he gets blocked and people accuse him of 'vandalism'.Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you get that one memo? "Vandalism" is any edit in which you disagree with, period. –MuZemike 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to worry everyone, Indocopy has remained very civil throughout all of this. This isn't spillage of multiple debates in multiple venues. Can we just trout slap the hell out of this and close this thread? Nothing productive is coming from it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How does troutslapping resolve the copyright concerns? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that 50+-year-old images are public domain in Indonesia is something that Delta refused to discuss, having previously reverted the correctly applied PD-Indonesia template. So er, no, no discussion elsewhere. Again, 'missing the point'. Indocopy (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion is happening elsewhere regarding the images and their tags, and further your assertion of the inviolability of the 50+ year old images being PD has been contested. I'm sorry you've found people disagreeing with you, but that's part of the reality of a community developed resource. Regardless, WP:AN/I isn't the place to be determining the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I tagged the >50-year images as PD, and Delta reverted this without discussion, and then refused to revert and/or justify when asked to do so. That is not (or should not be at any rate) part of developing a community-developed resource. Hence AN/I was and remains the appropriate venue for signposting destructive behaviour.
    Further, the fact is these 50+-year old images ARE PD in Indonesia, that fact is inviolable, and if you believe otherwise, well I suggest you, or indeed anyone else that might agree with you, cites something to contradict the copyright law of Indonesia, which was prior to Delta's destruction, helpfully linked from the images. Because there has been zero, just sweet FA, posted to say otherwise, so what this amounts to is disruption, it's disruptive to say 'x is not public domain' or even 'there is an ongoing debate about whether x is public domain', without providing anything to contradict the evidence that it is, but instead, disingenuously, claim that this should be discussed elsewhere, when there is in fact nothing to discuss.
    Now, in view of the disruption caused, which has not been and cannot be justified, I have requested, and continue to request, that the reverts to these PD images be rolled back and we can move on. Of course you seem to be enjoying this pointless battle over a collection of half-century-old demonetised banknotes, far exceeding the attention paid to 99.99% of other images on Wikipedia, including many of much more obviously dubious status, so I daresay you will have a ready riposte???Indocopy (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Indocopy .. I, for one, dispute that those images are PD, and that the copyright is actually gone (the copyright document you linked to is unclear whether currency falls under the group that looses copyright .. or under a group which never looses copyright. And then still .. loosing copyright (or IP, as you noted elsewhere) does not automatically make things public domain). If it is disputed, then the original one may be more accurate. Maybe time to find a specialist to really solve it? And tagging such images wrongly is certainly not the way to go. Things are non-free until proven otherwise. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, indeed. Time to do something about it, Indocopy? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the items are out of copyright, being 50+ years old, they are by definition public domain. This is really not rocket science, and I do apologise but I've had quite enough of being asked to prove that the Pope is Catholic - I am done here. Delete the images, trash the article, I care not, I will mirror it myself - not a problem, I should have bailed on this nonsense rather earlier, but never mind - it's never too late to say goodbye.
    You have a nice day now. Indocopy (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly asseting something which others disagree with doesn't mean the they will suddenly sit up and say, "Wow, you're right." You need to find further evidence to prove your claim. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh .. no. First of all, I doubt if currency is in the category of material that loses its copyright after 50 years .. ánd there are other legal laws than only the copyright that protect images and make them non-free (see e.g. logos .. the copyright may be gone, or they may be too simple for copyright, but they are still trademarked and non-free). So I dispute the PD status .. but maybe a copyright expert should look at it.
    You are of course free to host the page yourself .. you are not bound to minimal non-free use, as Wikipedia is. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The key question is not "Are these images more than 50 years old?", it's "were they in the public domain in Indonesia in 1996?", to which the answer appears to be an unambiguous "no". Because of this, they are copyrighted in the United States for another 40 years or so (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, section "Works first published outside the US", footnote 20, and List of parties to international copyright agreements). Since Wikipedia needs to follow US copyright law, the fact that the images may be in the public domain in Indonesia is irrelevant. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MYSPACEy users

    Resolved

    Three users (User:Fikri Miftahul Rahmat, User:Ferry Deniswara, User:Diantika Rahmat Galih Permana) turned their userpages into something similar to athlete articles. All their contributions are limited to their userspace with exception of Fikri who created an article of himself (Fikri Miftahul Rahmat). It was speedily deleted. The three users link to each other as "family members" at their user talk. The same person may be behind the three. Moray An Par (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, I left the uw-userpage template on their talk pages, as well as a link to WP:FAKEARTICLE. I just noticed that they were not notified of this discussion, so I'll leave them a note about this too. :) - SudoGhost™ 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a side note, is it a good idea to have kids under 18 posting personal photos of themselves on Wikipedia, even if it's in the Userspace? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a good idea at all, although I'm not aware of any policy against it. However, there is a policy against non-free images in the userspace, and that image doesn't state if it is non-free or not. From Wikipedia:User pages#Images: Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning and, if not used in a Wikipedia article will be deleted entirely. - SudoGhost™ 12:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the image as per Wikipedia:User pages#Images, because it is lacking a free content license. - SudoGhost™ 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have concerns over usernames here. I'm pretty sure they may impersonate or promote non-notable materiel to Wikipedia. hmssolent\Let's convene 02:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I ran into Fikri Miftahul Rahmat and it was a mess trying to clean up after him as evidenced by his move log and all of the different locations where his user talk page ended up going. However, with these editors being young, I think they just don't know or understand what Wikipedia is all about. It seems fairly common for young editors to think Wikipedia is Facebook. Their user pages should probably be deleted through an MfD for being fake articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to wait until after I was sure they were able to read the talk pages, but User:Fikri Miftahul Rahmat is reinserting the image and continuing to make his user page look like an article, so I went ahead and tagged them for MfD. - SudoGhost™ 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They just got blocked for being sockpuppets. Looking back at the edit history of the primary account, he's been at it for awhile. Looks like a serial vanity article creator. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbiela8293

    Dbiela8293 (talk · contribs) keeps adding an unsourced "real name" to the article for Crissy Moran which I keep removing on WP:BLP grounds. I was going to finally put something on their talk page when I checked their contributions. They've created an identical article under the name Christina McMillan which is the same name that they've been adding to the Moran article. Could some admin please delete the McMillan article ASAP per WP:BLP? I was going to put it up for CSD but I can't really find a CSD reasoning that fits this particular case. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate article Christina McMillan Speedy Deleted as CSD:A10 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've added a request to stop the unsourced additions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dbiela8293's talk page is littered with warnings related to Crissy Moran. One may assume they are an overzealous fan, but their motivation for adding Moran's alleged real name is irrelevant if it is not sourced. Given the recent publicity around "Porn Wikileaks", we should expect to see more of this kind of activity on BLPs of porn performers. Given that the user has not responded to any of the warnings left for them, I suggest that a block may get their attention and prevent further BLP violations. In a related observation, that particular BLP should not exist in the first place (and is here only due to some diligent vote-stacking at AfD and DRV). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but for the fact that they have not edited since this thread was started this morning. I want to see their response before deciding if/how long to block. One more such incident, though, and I'd be inclined to indef. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They've just added the unsourced claim about her birth name again, so I have blocked for 24 hours (I only remembered about this report here after I'd done it) - anyone is free to adjust the block as they see fit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators/Editors help needed to resolve the War Crime Article on Sri Lanka

    Sorry to bring this issue here, but please help to resolve on the Talk Page of the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.Hillcountries (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What action do you want admins to take? The talk page is TL;DR. If there is a specific problem, please use diffs. Looks like a (heated) content dispute. If you want more eyes on the article, try a Request for comment. Looks like User:Exxolon is trying to offer a Suggestion, see how that pans out. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Corner benchmark disrupting WT:Norway (2)

    So, this thread went into the archives without any action. The user continues to post irrelevant lists at WT:NORWAY, and restores them each time I've tried to delete them. Would an administrator please take an appropriate action here? Many thanks in advance, Eisfbnore talk 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think they are a sock (as stated in the archived thread), open an WP:SPI. If they continue to repost the lists after you and others have removed them, report them to WP:AN3 (BUT you might want to start putting {{uw-3rr}} warnings on their talk page before reporting). This user seems to have a misunderstand of the connection between the en- and no-wikis. One more observation, their talk page does not seem to be utilized too much; since your 1st thread was archived w/o input, that might be a hint to try to talk directly to the user first (which I know can be a waste of time, but will then at least justify further action by an admin). Best. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we go again. Do I really have to start a discussion over at AN3 for this? --Eisfbnore talk 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    99.174.160.188 and 99.174.178.143

    This user has violated 3RR on the Revisionist Western page and refuses to explain why he is reverting the constructive edits of myself and another user. I feel a warning is necessary.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I would like to point out that my IP address changed and, obviously, their IP address changed as well. I have been editing Wikipedia for years under multiple different IP addresses.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a content dispute. The whole list is unsourced, so technically the removal is justified, although they should provide a reason of some sort. Note, warnings don't need to come from admins, anyone can and should warn, including IPs; but you might want to try to discuss this on their talk page first before warning. If it continues, the appropriate noticeboard for edit warring is WP:AN3. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Long time disruptive IP editor

    64.136.197.17 (talk · contribs) - This obviously static IP-editor has been blocked two times already for changing the nationality to "Jewish", and inserting "Jewish" in ethnicity in various BLPs were it is clearly not relevant.

    Now its at it again: 1, 2. The reason stated for these edits are because, and I quote: "We need to know how many jews on the Supreme Court, US Congress, etc. The head of the IMF being a Jew is directly relevant. He is a Jew international banker.". This is clearly a tendentious editor, with a leaning towards anti-semitism, who on account of the previous blocks, should know how to edit in a neutral fashion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently it is a deliberate long term strategy of disruption spread over several IPs, if one is to believe this message. Topic ban? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am outraged, sir! (/fakeoutrage) Glad to see there is a leash on this sort of behaviour though. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility from User:Bryonmorrigan

    Wrong venue. Take to user Rfc if you wish, but it would be better to try to learn to work with others with less confrontational approach. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am usually civil on here, but it's editors like User:Bryonmorrigan that bring out the worst in me. There is a relatively minor dispute at David Barton (author) as to whether he should be labeled a legitimate historian or not. I'll admit I may have egged him on, but Bryonmorrigan has repeatedly made uncivil and/or POV-motivated comments on the talk page here:

    • [29] "I personally feel that he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier, but I've been able to reign in my personal feelings enough to just put, "writer, activist" instead of "flagrant propagandist liar" or something...and the Christian Nationalists making these edits should attempt to keep a similar amount of neutrality when editing."
    • [30] Says I am a POV-pusher because of the userboxes on my page when he has just as many controversial userboxes on his page.
    • [31] "his 'theories' are just as absurd and based on half-truths and deliberate distortions." May or may not be true, but he doesn't have anything to back it up.
    • [32] Says I am a "Christian nationalist" and am thereby discredited - "Finally, your own profile "outs" you as a "Christian Nationalist," so the shoe fits."
    • [33] Then, he linked to the subsection on Christian nationalism - I didn't know what it was - and said "tell me I'm wrong" that I, myself, am one. Since this was inappropriate for the article talk page, I responded on his page here saying I suppose I do agree with this Christian nationalism, but asking him not to use it to discredit me.
    • [34] After I did so, he wrote on the article talk page, "And I see now that a Right-Wing Extremist editor is going to try and delete all criticism. Charming." This is not only uncivil and uncalled for ("right wing extremist"), but flat out wrong - I have only made a handful of edits to the article, and they were either fixing words to avoid as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), fixing references, adding a source calling him a historian, and reverting Bryonmorrigan's reversions.

    I'm not the innocent victim here, but I just felt the need to call attention to this before it goes any further. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not referring to you, but rather the other editor that made a huge deletion of all of the links criticizing Barton. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter who it is, you're not being civil. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the link issue itself, it is highly inappropriate to keep a list of random criticisms in the external links of a WP:BLP. External links are informational and encyclopedic; it would be chaos if we put all sorts of criticisms in any BLP. See Barack Obama#External links for a proper example. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What action do you want admins to take here? You stated the offenses but requested no specific actions, and I can only see a squabble between a lefty and a righty. This is why userboxen are unproductive. Are you just looking for a moderator? You already started an RfC on the talk page. WP:WQA seems more appropriate. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There doesn't have to be any action, I just want to make sure people are aware of what's going on and to give myself and Byronmorrigan a venue to calm down. That's what typically results from ANI notices, from my experience anyway. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misuse of this board, then. This is a "look at me" post. WQA is for cooling down (well, it's better than here). Have you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot? You seem to label people rather quickly and take a tone with them, you also seem to escalate things rather than disengaging. I'm not saying Bryonmorrigan is clean here, but you posted this. You're always posting like this. It's those damn userboxen. The best way to deal with this, seeing as you are in the ideological minority on Wikipedia (not mocking, only stating the regrettably obvious), is to man up and grow some skin. Look at this graphic, you need to stay in the top 3 sections, yet you continuously drift to the bottom 3 sections and try to make yourself the victim. You need to stop making your mission so obvious and follow the rules. Try dropping this and continue with the RfC. But check the drama at the door ignore any insults and mud slung at you or in your direction. Ignore, ignore, ignore and stay on topic. Please. No disrespect intended. Can we close this thread then? --64.85.221.213 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing. I believe in "full disclosure," which is really what he's got a problem with. I stated that I find Barton to be a fraud, and listed why...on the TALK PAGE...then advocated NEUTRALITY. NYyankee51, and others, are making POV edits. They're just as "partisan" as I, but want to pretend otherwise...while making clearly POV edits. NYyankee51 made the claim that my edits were POV, based solely on my Talk Page comments, even though my TP comments were intended to show what I would have stated in the article if I were being POV. It appears to have gone over his head. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a POV issue, we could easily resolve it. There's no need for personal attacks and frantic comments. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here as the accused "right-wing extremist" editor. For the record, I am a registered Democrat, albeit an extremely disappointed one. In any event, Bryon's behaviour is extremely disturbing. It's patent personal attack. From WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." I disagree with the IP. This is the proper venue for this issue. Bryon's unacceptable behavior is directed at multiple editors spread over multiple articles, the latest being Christian terrorism. He is attacking users he believes are conservatives, and users he believes are Christians. It has gone beyond WP:WQA, and it must stop now. Bryon is relatively new to Wikipedia, so I am not advocating a block at this point. But the community must impress upon him that in this forum we only talk about content, never editors.Lionel (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits expose your bias, and anyone who is familiar with even the basics of American history or political science understands that there have been "Right-Wing Extremists" in the Democratic Party since the beginning (See Ku Klux Klan). When editors make nothing except partisan, POV edits, and never cite references to back up these edits, then their motives should be questioned. One thing you CANNOT accuse me of is not having the references to back up my edits, as I always make sure that they are well-sourced and supported by a great deal of evidence. The Christian terrorism page is a perfect example, as I've put a huge amount of references on the India section, including peer-reviewed, academic journals, news articles from the BBC and Indian sources, books, etc....but one editor, who never posts a single reference to rebut any of this, just keeps saying essentially, "I don't believe it. This is just made up to make Christians look bad." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the value of this exercise, but Byronmorrigan has attacked me as well on talk:Christian terrorism. Ultimately, the article has been improved by both my comments and his. But ultimately, there is a lot of unnecessary screaming in between that is personalized.
    The editorial problem is the lack of an efficient judicial system in a third world country, forcing editors to rely on primary media reports which are written in tabloid fashion to appeal to one segment of the population. They are not credible to a neutral reader and have to be heavily edited to be included. Bryonmorrigan professes outrage at me when this happens, but tolerates the change and continues to improve the article. The essay, WP:TIGER, may apply here.
    While I have been happy with the result which is often credible to both sides, I would like to skip the subjective analysis of my psyche and motives in between! If this discussion leads to that, it will be worth it. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revision deletion questions

    An IP made this edit to Nancy Cartwright, with an edit summary suggesting that Cartwright did not want information about the death of a former boyfriend included. That edit summary has now been hidden, although it does not appear to meet any of the criteria for revision deletion. It is unclear to me why the edit summary was hidden but I have checked the logs and no entry appears for this revision deletion. So, my questions are:

    1. Why was this edit summary hidden?
    2. Who hid the edit summary?
    3. Why does this not appear in the deletion log?

    Can some helpful admin look into this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear in the log because it has been Oversighted, not RevDel'd (not even admins can see it). There was probably an OTRS request (just a guess, but I see no other context). If you think it needs to be reviewed you need to contact the audit sub-comittee --Errant (chat!) 00:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, we call it suppression rather than oversight, because a true oversight (using the original tool) wouldn't show up in the page history. Only the edit summary was suppressed for that edit; it contained non-public personal information. The actual edit itself was not suppressed. Risker (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it may have been revision hidden before it was suppressed, but perhaps I am wrong. At any rate, the edit summary prior to oversighting was "Nancy Cartwright has requested SEVERAL times that this portion (that I have edited) be taken down IMMEDIATELY. Please call with any questions" and a phone number which I have redacted in case that is the reason for oversight. Googling that number reveals it to be the phone number for Cartwright's management. The issue seems to a passage inserted into the article by User:Cirt about the death of a former boyfriend. Given that the section on Cartwright's personal life is a total of five paragraphs (counting the disputed section), it seems that the IP may have a point about including this material. Whats more, the section uses a Scientology publication as a reference, which seems unusual given that there appears to be a long-standing general consensus that Scientology publications are not reliable sources. To remove the edit summary in this case makes it appear that the IP was simply vandalizing the article rather than attempting to explain their actions (in fact, Cirt gave them a warning for blanking). I can see no reason for suppressing this edit summary - can someone clarify the rationale and who requested the oversight? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Phone numbers are routinely removed and suppressed because they are not verifiably associated with the editor inserting the information. When the only thing that needs to be suppressed is the edit summary, that is all that is suppressed; the edit itself did not qualify. I have already supplied the rationale above. We do not supply the names of individuals who request oversight or suppression, and I am rather disturbed that you would ask. As to the paragraph in question, I have removed it from the article as an editorial decision: if there's no information verifying that they even married, the person's religious beliefs and death are completely irrelevant to this article. Risker (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, although I am unsure why you would be disturbed by my question about who requested the suppression. I have asked for material to be oversighted in the past. If I had asked for something as seemingly banal as this suppression was, I would not be the least bit bothered that anyone knew I had done so. If it is policy not to divulge such information, that is fine, but the question itself seems harmless. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might feel differently if it was a personal attack or attempted outing/disclosure of personal information directed at you, or if there was reason to indicate that the editor whose edit were suppressed may direct unwanted attention toward you as the requestor. Since these are both commonplace issues when it comes to suppression, as are requests from the targeted individual, it does concern me that the question would arise in a widely read public forum. The majority of requests for suppression arrive by email, and these are treated confidentially. Risker (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I might feel differently if the situation were different, yes, but it I am speaking of this specific case. I understand that you are not going to answer my question and I understand why you are not going to answer it. I do not understand why you are concerned that I would ask the question or why my choice of venue is relevant. Recall that my original question was about the mysterious disappearance of an edit summary and no entry in the deletion log so I could not simply ask the admin why that explanatory edit summary was deleted. It seemed reasonable to ask here, given that it would also bring more eyes to that article. As you know, there are some special issues with BLPs of high-profile Scientologists such as Cartwright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally our approach to suppression is encouraged to be low-key (i.e. don't raise specific questions quite so publicly). This, of course, has transparency issues - which is the reason for the Audit committee. Ideally if you have questions about a supression they are the people to approach to clarify your concerns. --Errant (chat!) 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but sometimes a public discussion like this one can be helpful in fostering greater understanding of a process and the reasons for the process. And for raising questions about the process. For example, Risker alludes to the confidentially of emails, but does not explicitly state that requests made for oversight can not or will not be disclosed. Clearly this is not the place for that discussion, but it does highlight that there are some unknown or undocumented parts of a process that is necessarily prone to concerns of transparency. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with a rangeblock

    I need help with a rangeblock for an IP hopping edit warrior (and suspected IPsock). 75.47.151.87 (talk · contribs) and 75.47.157.136 (talk · contribs) and 75.47.146.105 (talk · contribs). Unfortunately the netmask calculator I usually use is down. Could someone provide the netmask or take care of this please? Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did the rangeblock. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative review has been requested on a set of edits

    This is covering a number of general topics at the moment, so it's getting posted here rather than a specific sub-board.

    The current issue deals with recent edits to Flash (Barry Allen). The edits in question are: #428656737 - 428668034 (4 total), 428668034, 429318135, 429330125, 429330275.

    Ancillary to this are: User talk:CmdrClow#Edit summaries, User talk:J Greb#Re: Edit Summaries which are immediatly related to the edits; Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Final Crisis image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Flash: Rebirth #2 as image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 (which is a long one) which are a history of the talk page discussion of this issue; and WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, the relavent project level guide line.

    At this point the issues that have been raised amount to:

    CmdrClow indicated he wanted administrative advice/review so I figure it might as well get kicked over here and take what may come. I've indicated to the other editor that I've done this in my response to them on my talk page. I'll also see the notice template on their talk page.

    - J Greb (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reposting here since this rolled off of AN without comment... - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order: post-archival editing

    Resolved
     – All set, page restored to archived condition Sswonk (talk)

    Not sure what to do in the case of three editors commenting at a discussion of the block of Sarah777, when the discussion had already been archived. My feeling is that all three edits should be reverted and the discussion restored to its archived state, since per watchlists the late additions may not have been seen by a majority of participants. That would mean that the "conclusion" and "winding down" of the thread has a coda that was not part of the discussion, but simply post-archival edits and opinions which skew the final stable version of the thread. Here are the diffs: [35], [36], and [37]. AGF for the editors; however, my view is that these edits should be removed from the archive. Please act to do so and comment here if that view is correct. I have not contacted the editors, this is somewhat minor but if that is thought necessary please let me know. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I know it doesn't follow a literal reading of the rules, but I think the second diff, in which HighKing graciously acknowledges an error on his part and makes no other comment, should be re-instated. Kanguole 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, not that HighKing was gracious but that a post-archival edit should be made and allowed to stand; it is a classic slippery slope. If we make allowances, there may occur debates on whether a time limit for redactions, edits and comments exists, if a gracious revision is allowed to stand but a grumpy one is not, etc. It is best to simply leave the page as it was originally archived and not invite discussions over such issues. Sswonk (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Damiens.rf Conduct

    Request a block for Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing, violation of consensus, violation of WP:3RR, and WP:CIVIL:

    Calling one user an "arrogant bastard" in the edit summary

    Calling another user a "psychologically afflicted individual" and suffering from dementia in the edit summary followed by "Guy, you're sick as hell. Find someone to help you."

    False accusations of vandalism

    Edit warring + violation of 3RR despite two lengthy discussions to keep the image IAW WP:NFCC: [38][39][40][41]

    Frivolous image deletion nominations (unanimous decisions to keep; just recent ones): [42][43][44]

    Snide/rude remarks: [45][46][47][48][49][50]

    Cutting off any/all discussion and WP policies don't apply due to his greatness: "[Grow] up and stop posting...on my talk [page]. I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." [51]

    Given that his last block for incivility was 1 week, I suggest increasing the block to longer (2-3 weeks? 1 month?). — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a dubious claim indeed that the arrogant bastard edit summary was directed at a specific person as an insult. OAKED Arrogant Bastard Ale - is the name of a delicious beer from the brewing company that article is about. Also Damian and Dreadstar have some kind of issue with each other and the dispute appears as a two way street. I also notice that User:BQZip01's image uploads have been given a good going over by Damian - perhaps they should all just keep out of each others talkpages/way and take each other off their watchlists. No one will make any friends here by nominating users favorite non free/not used uploads for deletion, but I don't see need for a block at least not just yet - more than a week? - next step is a month. If I was him I would get a new less contentious project to work on instead of file deletion nominations or my crystal ball sees more editng restrictions in the near future for Damian. If Damian is being disruptive in the file deletion nominations and nominating multiple files without basis then perhaps a editing restriction to stop him nominating files for deletion is in order? Off2riorob (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really as much of a 'two-way street' as it appears. I've never been uncivil to Damiens. Where we've had conflicts is on articles like Simón Díaz, Yoani Sánchez, Footvolley, Slocum (westerns), Duck universe and many others - check out the editing history on those, Damiens deletes huge swaths of content, then edit wars to keep it out while it's being sourced and copy edited - very frustrating. This was my first encounter with Damiens, completely inappropriate; and to top it off, he edit warred with me 'during the exact moments I was in process of improving the article', he couldn't seem to stand that I was adding content and sources. He does this same thing all the time.
    I took Damien's talk page off my watchlist over a month ago and completely disengaged with him, but he couldn't leave it alone and kept poking the hornets’ nest, harassing me, sticking his nose into discussions that didn't concern him [52], edit warring on my talk page to put his comment back - even editing one of my clearly marked no-edit archives (which I've since deleted), then nominated for a fourth time an image he knew I was involved with, then nominated two more of my image uploads.
    Even though he has said on occasion that between the two of us, we can clean up Wikipedia (him tagging and deleting, me following, re-adding and sourcing) I'm sure I've annoyed him by going around cleaning up after him. And frankly, it's not something I've wanted to continue doing, I had hoped he'd learn something and maybe start finding sources instead of tagging and deleting - to no avail. This added to his persistent assumptions of bad faith, uncivil remarks, and personal attacks counters any good work he may do in the image area, at least imho. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, what good reason is there, exactly, to put "arrogant bastard" in that edit summary? He's made comments before about 'self-aggrandizing' content added by others when he removes it - generally when it's about awards or prizes with selfpub sources. I'll have to try and find those diffs. IMHO he was either calling the editor who added the content that or possibly even referring to the subject of the article, since it was self-sourced. I think it was a clever way of making an inflammatory edit summary and getting away with it. Either way, it's poor behavior...and to encourage it with his history is a mistake. Dreadstar ☥ 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to really even look at the civility thing, although I do find that he has an assumption of bad faith issue (he places preemptive harshly worded rebukes on FfDs). What I wanted to jump in and say though is that while Damiens isn't the most pleasant person to work with at FfD, his batting average is very, very high. The three "Frivolous image deletion nominations" were not frivolous, and even if they were, represented three in dozens and dozens of FfDs. Few people are willing to sort though the massive quantity of images we have and weed out the crap. If he really made the quote about being essential then someone needs to trout him a bit, but at the same time, he has a point; he does a lot more good than harm at FfD. The proposer here is going for pile on, and in this issue, he's missed the mark completely. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing. Damiens' last block for civility was in 2009. Again, this is pile one, and it's not very convincing. I recommend that the admins take this thread with a heavy pinch of salt. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressing each point brought up:

    Arrogant bastard is the name of the ale It sure is, but it isn't even remotely necessary in the edit summary and, given his snide remarks in other edit summaries, appears to be directed at an editor
    My images have been given a once over Yep. Sure have. If you'll note though, I supported all but one of these deletions
    An FFD editing restriction is in order I'll happily roll with community consensus on this one if another alternative is brought up.
    Not going to look at the whole civility thing...he has an assumption of bad faith. He isn't the most pleasant to work with ??? That's the problem I'm trying to address. It really confuses me when you say you aren't even going to look at the diffs. If you aren't even going to look at the "evidence", then why bother responding?
    3 out of dozens of FFDs The problem is that he doesn't bother to make distinctions and just nominates everything that he believes doesn't meet policy; in reality, the images met policy from the beginning and he is trying to impose his beliefs as if they are policy. Please note that I just picked 3 out of the last few week of closures where no one thought deletion was in order. I can certainly find more.
    Last block was in 2009 It was the last day of 2009 and there have been blocks since then for other offenses that a veteran editor should know to avoid. He is also currently under a topic ban...which he violated...

    In any case, thanks for the inputs. We'll see if others respond. — BQZip01 — talk 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I have only recently crossed paths with Damiens. He's clearly quite intelligent and knows exactly how to ruffle feathers for entertainment when he wants, so I'd like to hear what he has to say. Saying that an editor suffers from dementia is never called for.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My limited experience of Damiens.rf has been uniformly negative. I'm frankly glad it was me, rather than a new editor, who was on the target of this profanity-laced, xenophobic edit summary; we likely would have lost a new editor of such a display of pique. In the discussion that accompanied it, he actually tried to tell me that NOR requires him to remove any and all material that is not already supported by an inline citation—even if he personally knows that a reliable source is available to support the material, despite that policy directly and repeatedly saying that it requires only the existence of a reliable source, not the naming of a reliable source. This is such an obviously counter-factual reading of the content policies that his ability to present it persistently as The Truth™, in the face of very frequent opposition and many efforts to clarify and explain the policies, still astounds me. He appears to be utterly incapable of hearing that the actual policies do not say what he believes they say. To be candid, I have actually wondered whether Wikipedia would be improved by completely removing this editor, as it appears that most of what he does is unhelpful or directly harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discovery by Damiens is an example of what he is up against. Damiens does have issues, and they need to be addressed, but to modify a page, and then use that to support your argument, is bound to cause problems when its discovered. I'm afraid that there are 2 sides to this story as there was with, ThreeE, CC and Hammersoft. Just a suggestion for BQ: In the future, you might want to avoid calling someone a dick, prior to filing an ANI complaint about their civility. 66.87.82.161 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come across Damiens a couple of times over the last couple of years, and I have to agree with the view that his personality is... "prickly". The "I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." attitude is also problematic. That being said, I don't see what a block would achieve here. Is a block going to change his personality, or something? Is what's really being sought here a ban? Why isn't an RFC/U being pursued?
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given what I consider a final warning for incivility. Ohms law's suggestion of an RfC/U is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do other admins agree with this "final warning" the above admin gave me?

    Have you independently verified the accusations BQzip made above, Fences? Or just take them as truth in the spirit of good faith? For instance, do you understand it's not truth that I have done "false accusations of vandalism?" Do you understand I have called anyone a "bastard", as implied by the accusation? Did you read the thread in which I called Dreadstar an afflicted individual to understand the situation? Do you understand it's not truth that I did "frivolous image deletion nominations?" Did you checked the timestamps of all these diffs? Do you also think I'm a DICK?

    I know I'm not popular at a ANI but I'm sick of being treated as I second class editor. I would have been blocked if I did what BQZIp did. I would have been blocked if I did what Dreadstar did. But much easier than investigating the situation is to check the size of everyone's block log and declare guilty the one with most blocks. --Damiens.rf 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attention wanted at Leonard Kaye (Leonard K. Collins)

    The article above has been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation for several hours now. In that time, the author of the article has asked for help on some social networking site to "contest" the deletion. The talk page of the article is now flooded with anonymous IPs requesting the article be kept, because "she wrote it, so it's legal."

    Apart from WP:COI and WP:MEAT concerns, I'd like an admin to delete the article and attempt to explain to the editor about how copyright works on Wikipedia, which is frankly an area I'm not of much expertise in. It's a bit frustrating to see a new editor resort to these sort of tactics, especially when it's being tagged for legal reasons. elektrikSHOOS 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article deleted by Slakr (talk), copyright issues explained to article author at WP:REFUND and on her talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks. This is starting to look a bit like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Sigh. Ah well. Mark as resolved? elektrikSHOOS 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it is resolved, Leonard Kaye (Leonard Kevin Collins) is a new article with a slightly different name. - SudoGhost™ 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This was also tagged as a potential copyvio by CSB, but the editor removed the tag. I'm replacing it and will be evaluating the tag shortly. elektrikSHOOS 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a copyright violation, at least not anymore. elektrikSHOOS 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request please

    Would an administrator please unprotect the talk page of Charles Whitman? I have an IP who informed me that they couldn't edit the talk page so instead of being able to discuss they are only able to revert which of course isn't good. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate it. I was surprised to learn that the talk page was protected when I read it at my talk page. Again thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nautilyus

    I and another editor have asked Nautilyus (talk · contribs) not to add raw urls to Google books but to use the citation method used in the article he is editing. My last post to his talk page repeated my request, pointed out that he needed to be willing to communicate with other editors which he has so far failed to do except on one article talk page [53] and that if he continued not to communicate and to add raw urls I'd start a discussion here. He's had a block for sock puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nautilyus/Archive but seems to still be editing through 85.166.142.229 (talk · contribs). Notifying. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw this discussion because I had this editor's talk page watchlisted after previously crossing swords, but, in his or her defence, would like to point out that not formatting references shouldn't be considered a hanging offence - the whole idea of a wiki is that it's a collaborative environment where people do what they can or want to do, so those who want references to be formatted better should simply format them themselves. It's much better to provide a raw URL than no reference at all. Refusal to communicate is the only real problem here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved admin needed

    Would an entirely uninvolved admin—preferably one familiar with the user RfC process—please look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer, and make a decision as to whether it has been properly certified? The focus of the RfC is alleged disruptive editing to articles, policies/guidelines, and talk pages. The certification section is here. The subject has disputed the certification here, and there is a discussion about it on talk here. A decision from an uninvolved admin to settle it one way or another would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done (not by me). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Easternshorebuff

    Not really sure if this board should be used for garden variety problem editors but here goes.

    Easternshorebuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA who's only interest appears to be removing any trace of political controversy from the Richard F. Colburn article. They've been at this for at least three years (maybe more as an IP) now despite multiple warnings and a reworking of the section they take offence to to make it more neutral. The section is typically deleted as 'not neccessary' [54] or 'irrelevant' [55] and the user has made no effort to discuss their problems with the section or understand why it's been re-added. They've made at least one attempt to protect the page [56], have made use of at least one sock/meatpuppet FactsOnlyCount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this diff [57] and have reverted at least one re-addition of content as 'vandalism' [58]. They don't violate 3RR at any point and tend to appear for a few days then disappear for a while, so whilst it's not really a problem reverting them all day long, this obviously isn't productive and it would be nice to find a more permanant solution y'know.

    Example diffs:[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68].

    N.B. The controversies section isn't perfect and a legitimate argument could be made regarding finding better sourcing and avoiding WP:UNDUE however WP:BRD is the way to deal with this not section blanking. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If the user is working only to "whitewash" or "sanitize" a politician's article, they're not attempting to improve the project as a whole. I'd say this is the correct venue, although WP:COIN might be a good alternative based on their editing history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point but whilst I can't strictly prove COI (although it's extremely likely), I can prove long-term disruption, whitewashing/censorship, tendentious editing, edit warring, SPA etc. and the relevant warnings on talk. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a look at the page, and removed one of the "controversies", because it was sourced to a press release from the subject of the insult. I'm not sure about the other one either, because there doesn't seem to have been much commentary on it beyond the Baltimore Sun article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that this posting has prompted a flurry of edits which have greatly improved the article, which is obviously a good thing, however the issue I'm raising hasn't really been addressed. Easternshorebuff's pattern of editing seems to suggest that he is not happy with any mention of controversies at all not for reasons of sourcing etc. but simply because doing so portrays Mr Colburn in a negative light. Could someone who can actually follow up on a warning perhaps explain this to him? Bob House 884 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll see how he reacts to the cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm not hopeful though. The last one lasted two weeks so keep it watchlisted I suppose. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Personal Attacks by Pfistermeister

    Despite their recent brush with ANI, User:Pfistermeister continues with the personal attacks in their edit summaries. Ample evidence here. Thanks for the help. Doniago (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask why no warnings have been given for what seem like blatant civility and NPA violations? I suspect that's the first step that should have happened. On that note though, this is not the first time. There's also 2 months ago[69], Feb 2008[70], and two instances of edit warring that have also been brought here - so, perhaps the warnings are a moot point anyway, as things have been made clear in the past about such behavior. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given awkward sentences like "This was very much seen as blatant censorship by Griffith in the light of there being nothing factually inaccurate in the film", it might be better to focus on improving your writing skills rather than harping on perceived insults. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, regardless of anyone's awkward sentences, personal attacks and civility issues should be dealt with. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, content is what actually matters. If I wrote a sentence like that and was called "stupid", I would be hard pressed to argue against that characterization, and instead of whining about it I would work on improving my writing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not totally sure what this has to do with the topic? (confused) Doniago (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content is what matters more than behind-the-scenes bickering. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out where he took a verbal shot at either of you specifically. Diff's, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think widespread incivility to editors is at least as serious a problem as content. I don't care how accurate an editor's contributions are if they're consistently incivil when communicating with their fellow editors. Also, I didn't realize that an editor needed to specifically attack me in order for me to report them for personal attacks. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't necessarily. I just wondered what stake you had in this relatively minor set of verbal shots (regardless of the subsequent block)? If you get it right, then you won't get insulted, and the readers won't get mis-led by false information nor repelled by amateurish writing. That seems simple enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone calls me an idiot, the first question I ask myself is not, "How dare they call me an idiot?" It's "Was I being an idiot?" If the answer is "Yes", then I work on fixing the problem. If the answer is "No", then I've got a counter-argument. Ya folla? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal stakes aside from I don't believe it's appropriate to leave edit summaries that are insulting, and we have a policy about that sort of thing. I think the only reason I got involved in this at all was because they reverted an edit to a page I was watching with a needlessly insulting summary way back when, and I've kept some tabs on them since. AFAIK aside from me leaving warnings on their Talk page we've not directly interacted...but then, they don't seem interested in having a dialog with anyone either.
    I don't see how insulting your fellow editors should be considered minor. It's obviously a direct violation of WP:NPA and while it may encourage editors to avoid being "stupid" in the future, it's just as likely to drive away editors who might be interested in constructive contributions, especially if we present the appearance of being perfectly willing to condone such behavior. There's such a thing as constructive criticism and helping editors to improve in their contributions rather than blasting them because they screwed up. WP:AGF and such. And if the editors Pfistermeister insulted are determined vandals, then insulting them is pointless in any case, aside from possibly encouraging them to continue being vandals because Trolling is more fun when you get a reaction.
    I understand your reasoning, I just feel that where it would lead would cause far more harm than good to the project. IMO, there are better ways. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the problem here is that Pfistermeister's abusive edit summaries are way out of proportion with the actual material he's complaining about - people get excoriated for what looks to me like errors which take a real expert to identify (and Pfistermeister certainly seems like a music expert), or relatively minor errors - anyone who doesn't know as much as he does and dares to make a mistake is open to his abuse. The recent "idiot" comment is relatively mild and wouldn't deserve a block on its own, but when you look back and see he has a tendency to lapse into much worse abuse - "clueless gobshite", "nut-jobs", "clueless amateur", "illiterate, illogical arse", "cretin", (and if you include Talk page comments, "ridiculous runt" and "arse-wipe"), I really think this latest block is completely justified - he must be prevented from reverting to form. (It's a real shame, because he is very knowledgeable, but we need to balance that against the harm his abuse is likely to do in driving away other editors) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully they'll take the hint this time. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff that Damiens is calling other editors (as noted a section or two above) is far worse than anything pointed to in this section. Yet he remains unblocked. Explanation, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a bit unsporting to take issue with a discussion that hasn't actually been resolved yet... Doniago (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. Calling an editor "stupid" is a tad rude but is a potentially verifiable fact. Calling them "a mentally-ill, out-of-wedlock child" is nothing but a personal attack, no wiggle room there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs I'm frankly puzzled by your aggressive defence of this editors edit summaries. They are obviously bloody rude and probably bitey. Anyway, "mentally ill out of wedlock child" is just as potentially verifiable as "stupid", if not more so.Fainites barleyscribs 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aggressively defending the editor. I just want to know why he was blocked so fast over content-related comments, whereas Damiens' far-worse comments are still being "discussed". A big, fat double-standard of some kind, right before our eyes. It does not speak well of the admin corps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Bugs...such commentary does NOT belong in an edit summary. For that matter, such commentary doesn't belong on Wikipedia as a project. My take is that such behavior doesn't just cross the WP:NPA line; it jumps right into the middle of WP:NPA and flings it around like mud pies. (Smelly ones.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block review

    As his response to the block was "Idiots", I've extended it to an indef block. He may be able to persuade an admin to reduce the block, or consensus may view this is too severe. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the block is right but could we give him one more chance to communicate on his talk page for a possible unblock request? If he abuses it, then immediately re-block per ROPE.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets of banned User:DiehardNFFLbarnone

    Resolved
     – Users blocked as sock/meatpuppets by User:ErrantX ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WarriorsRock (talk · contribs) and BigChrisPaulFan (talk · contribs) registered within 12 minutes of each other and are randomly undoing legitimate edits with bogus reasons, especially on Terrence Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is in line with DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs)'s modus operandi. Previous ANI reports: 1, 2. —LOL T/C 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is vandalizing pages (inserting incorrect information, as noted here[71], which contradicts the official NBA page here[72], and hiding it behind inappropriate edit summaries that in no way indicate what the editor is really doing. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a WP:DUCK set of socks to me, probably of DiehardNFFLbarnone based on edit history. So indeffed. --Errant (chat!) 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet storm

    Simon Wessely is under attack again, and the blocking of Catherine Sanderson (talk · contribs) has led to the invasion of sock- and meatpuppets. I would be grateful if folks could keep an eye on the article (and on my talkpage), although the relevant blocks are in place. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I dropped the banhammer on a new troll as well, for the charming contribution left here. AN/I may need semi-protection as well. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged hoaxes at St John's Jerusalem

    Resolved
     – Users blocked for adding hoax material to article. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been the target of multiple edits by User:Stellas4lunch, User:Bobadillaman, and IPs, adding largely nonsensical text and hoax information. It is done in a non-obvious way, by mixing information that may be true with edits that are patently untrue, and supposedly "sourced" from obscure offline sources. The most obvious sign of the hoax is the repetition of the names "Brown" and "Giles" in the text, the replacement of "naturalist" by "naturist", etc. etc. At this stage I've not been able to fully look into this, but am alerting admins to the problem at this early stage. It is likely that other articles may be involved, such as R v Brownhouse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reposting a comment I made in response to this allegation on the talk page:

    "As one of the editors whose good faith you are impugning, I take strong offence at the notion that any edit I have made is in any way part of a hoax and I would ask you to withdraw that remark. It is highly unlikely that many history sources, particularly those covering material pre-twentieth century history, will be on-line and the notion that they should be is consequently of little relevance. I suppose the frequency of the names Brown and Giles might be considered unusual, but it is, as I'm sure the briefest research would tell you, a highly unusual building. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)" I contest these allegations in their entirety and believe that there may be an issue of sock puppetry between Ghmyrtle (talk) and User:Snowded. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman look suspiciously like the same person to me. Look at the same concentration of articles, then in particular look at the activity of both accounts in late April and early May. Both accounts disappeared in mid-late April, then both reappeared on 4 May, one account returning 3 minutes after the other finished editing. There are similar suspicious patterns throughout their editing histories. O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it quite odd that Stellas4lunch, an editor with less than three hundred total edits and active for less than three months, would attempt to name two five-plus-year Wikipedia veterans as sockpuppets. Methinks I hear the unmistakable sound of a WP:BOOMERANG in flight... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding R v Brownhouse, the article names a "Giles Brownhouse" as a party in the case. The article is the only Google result for that name, no hits on Scholar, Books or News either. Please someone block the accounts immediately for this blatant hoax. O Fenian (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely a hoax. No such case as R v Brownhouse (I'm a lawyer I checked) which this editor created. All the Brown and Giles stuff in St John's Jerusalem is nonsense. eg Greek Philosopher Brontinus has been piped as Browntinus. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the problem arises either from arguments at English Defence League, or it's User:Irvine22 having fun at Snowded's expense again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about checking Westlaw with the given citation? Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whats the citation then? I'll have a look for kicks. I checked the Slapper reference (the latest version is on my desk) and it was completely bogus. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The nonsense started at the St Johns article a month ago when both editors started up within a few days of each other. It spread to EDL today so I don't think its Irvine22. We could do with a check user on both accounts although they may just be fellow EDL supports seeing what they can get away with the SAS link was a little obvious. Maybe just block the pair of them as disruptive. --Snowded TALK 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both already indef blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here too. And the Hastings Star-Gazette is a paper in Minnisota.Fainites barleyscribs 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also  Confirmed as Stellas4lunch:

    –MuZemike 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    artnet.com linkspam

    It appears that a series of accounts associated with artnet.com have been systematically spamming articles with links over the last few years and also deleting links to competing sites. I found three related accounts so far (User:69.167.111.2; User:216.119.245.2; and User:Astyaj) and deleted the inserted links, but I suspect there are more. The edits are too many to list individually, but you can find typical samples at [73], [74], [75], [76], and [77]; they also gave themselves a heck of a plug in art museum [78]. For more, click on any edit to an art-related article by one of these three accounts.

    Are there any tools you'd suggest to find further overlapping accounts here, or any further action I should take? Or is it just not worth bothering? Or am I perhaps acting wrongly by deleting these links? Artnet.com doesn't seem to be a terrible site for a reference, but the deletions of competitors bug me, as well as the evident commercial interest in upping their web traffic. Khazar (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally don't see any particular harm in mentioning being listed at artnet.com, other than the potential WP:LINKSPAM problem. I do, however, see huge problems arising from deleting competing sites' links. To me, that brings Wikipedia into a marketing WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's something to be avoided. Depending on how many IPs are involved and how pervasive the additions are, adding artnet.com to the blacklist might be an option, albeit a "nuclear" option. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the blacklist is a good idea, the magazine is a source used for articles. Fences&Windows 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think there are probably legitimate uses for their site; I started searching just for ArtNet and many references to the site were added by users who appeared at first glance legitimate (many edits, barnstars, DYK & GAs, etc.). What I've done for now is to remove all ArtNet references added by the suspected COI accounts on hopes that neutral editors will add them back in if they make a genuine contribution to the article. Khazar (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    More than two months of tag warring

    Could uninvolved admins please take a look at Kingdom of Germany? For more than two months there has been reverts over the inclusion of dispute tags, accompanied with bad faith assumptions and incivility. The content of this article has been continuously challenged since its creation in January 2007, more than four years ago! Several editors have defended this article since then. Aren't people allowed to dispute the articles content when they challenge it on the talk page? What else are dispute tags for? Sometimes these editors remove the tags when they aren't even responding on the talk page. One of the editors has admin status with whom I had disputes before which showed the exact same pattern so I hope admins not close to him can take a look. I'm not requesting for anyone to get blocked, just admins to decide if it's legitimate to remove tags like that. Grey Fox (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of ideologically motivated users with no interest in adding content to the article, nor much knowledge of the period they are discussing, dumping tags onto the articles, then demanding free history lessons in order to stop, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT afterwards. I guess everyone else will be expected to go on until those two users get bored, but frankly I'm inclined to leave them to do what they like. One page like this doesn't justify the wasted energy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel too good to even discuss the issues which have existed for more than four years why don't you withdraw from the article? Grey Fox (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Casual Admin (User:Courcelles) involved in reckless and unjustified use of tools

    I'm involved in a quiet little slow motion dispute with User:Tonyinman at Neil Diamond, I've added references from the singer's biography and from Courtney Hazlett an NBC reporter on the Today Show and from The NY Post Page Six column including direct quotations from the singer on the subject of the edit. My edit is reverted on sight, it has twice now been labeled Vandalism and the article is now locked with me being accused of intentional IP hopping (Socking?) and editing in violation of BLP. Not one word questioning or debating these ref's has been entered on the Talk page. Nothing at all. You want participation? How about a little common courtesy - these are Reliable Sources, multiple even, using direct quotes. And I'm the IP sock vandalizing the article in violation of BLP? Seriously? 99.40.189.143 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was unable to edit User:Courcelles Talk page to notify him of this discussion.99.40.189.143 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified him for you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP sources do not back up claim of involvement in street gangs. First ref is an unauthorized biography and the writer does not have a direct quote, nor is it clear if there is any material in this book to validate the material claim. This is insufficient for WP:BLP. Second and third refs are second hand and refer to an article in "Blender" (which is not sourced) where Diamond in fact states he was not part of street gangs and makes light of an inference in the interviewer's question that he was. This undermines the IPs assertion. On google searches it is not possible to find any other sources to corroborate the claims of gang membership. The unrealiabiltiy of the sources and BLP issues have been pointed out to the IP by more than one user, who has simply reintroduced the same material. The IP has also been asked on his talk page and in numerous RV comments to discuss the material on the article talk page and reach consensus but has failed to do so. isfutile:P (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to those involving themselves in this. NYP link does not state he was in a gang. It describes one instance that was his "first and last gang fight". One can get into a "gang fight" (fight with a gang) without needing to be in one. For a BLP, I suggest a clearer statement would be needed to consider NYP a valid source. On the first link (Google Books link), it is a biography (not autobiographical), which would seem to indicate this[79] applies. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside view; the sources are faulty in my eyes. We generally disregard Page Six completely as a source because of it's gossipy nature, the Today cite is basically citing a Blender article about the rumors and Diamond quickly brushing it off with a non-answer, and the book links screams unauthorized biography. The reversions were correct. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A; I did not accuse you of socking, I said you were IP hopping, which was entirely correct, as you have used at least 6 different IP's in two different /8 ranges in this incident. B; as above, the sources are rather poor, and you were drawing a major conclusion the sources themselves did not make. If someone else wants to unprotect, feel free, but nothing you've said makes me reconsider protecting the Diamond article for a second. Courcelles 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP Hopping? Please explain what my Internet provider has done to upset you. I've done nothing. Nor have I violated any rule or guideline, even in spirit - it's not even a grey area. Oh, and NBC News is never a "poor source". It's near the top of any Reliable Source list - except maybe for those who love to do original Research and find Truth. I guess Verifiability has no place here anymore. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that....and what exactly is a "casual admin"? Is that opposed to a formal one?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Casual, as in do what you want without much thought - justify it later. Easy to do - just look here. Does anyone even think for a second that an IP could have reverted a Wiki member on sight and disregarded RS references without once ever using the Talk page? Seriously? 99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Courcelles' action here. IP user, you must go to talk and generate a consensus to include the material you wish to add. Pending that, your edit-warring to reinstate questionable material on a living person is inappropriate and you should desist. --John (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is questionable about the Reliable Sources who quote the article subject? No One has questioned one thing yet - on the TALK PAGE. Why? My guess is because the Wiki Game is more important than Multiple Reliable Sources quoting the article's subject. Talk is the place to question - not reverting my edits as VANDALISM - which is exactly the edit comment used more than once. VANDALISM. The Wiki Way, Game them into submission, the rules can be always bent to justify anything. As here. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The MSNBC link provided pretty much says the exact same thing as the NYP article. The lead is simply rewritten in their own words. It's a sentence and a quote out of context. Regardless, it does NOT say that he is or was a gang member. I believe I covered that above in my discussion on the NYP article. Sorry, but I think you are a little hazy on how BLP rules, guidelines and policies work.
    • I submit no action (against Courcelles) needs to be taken (except, "thanks for doing a good job"), and IP anon should be directed to WP:BLP for further reading. If anon has questions, I would be glad to answer, if an uninvolved editor is wanted to discuss the matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV

    Hey, can someone grab their mop and mosey on over to AIV? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A small scattering of WP:MADEUP

    Does anybody remember Link Starbureiy / Egglepple?
    The problem may have returned, in a slightly different guise; today I noticed that some accounts have been adding this person's hoaxes to other articles:

    At the moment, four items are at AfD: United Under Economy, Ronald Ellis (American businessman), File:Clopen symbol.png, and Joey Koala. There were quite a few other tweaks to existing articles, for instance [80] [81]. Unfortunately, all contribs of the older accounts Onstardriver (talk · contribs) and Wikidowd (talk · contribs) have been deleted so I can't see them. The latter is blocked. Would it be possible for somebody to have a look, and confirm whether they are related to current activity/accounts, or whether other articles need to be checked? (If one dubious edit gets deleted, another account might have come back a few months later to reinsert the hoax). bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=429976906"