Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with the exact same wording

I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Wikipedia, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Wikipedia he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Wikipedia policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Wikipedia policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no mandate that we are forced to consider and contemplate one bit of trivia and plot summary differently from another bit of trivia and plot summary. What do you suggest he do? Write an individual summary noting the nuances separating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Gallo from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Van_Horn? Honestly, if people don't like this behavior of nomination they can file an RfC to see the community input, not ask for a bad from An/I because articles that are outside our inclusion criteria are being considered for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to accept the use of BRD and AFD as means to "force" one's views. These are all means to discussion. Now, I will admit that a step that usually is considered (but by no means required) is to discuss a redirect or a possibility of deletion on the article talk page. The problem is that when you deal with fiction you will encounter mini-cabals of editors that will defend such articles, making it impossible to get consensus even if the article fails policies. Bringing such articles to AFD as a first step may seem aggressive, but it also gets the participation of a much larger group of editors involved thus getting better consensus of the issues. Unfortunately, we lack any other type of process that is meant to gain larger input than just those that watch an article's page regularly (which is why AFD is sometimes called Articles for Discussion). There's no required process that TTN is violating here, it just may speak badly of the lack of process that we have for better discussion of such articles. Should TTN be blocked for that? Not unless everyone else that uses them is too. --MASEM 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see this kind of thing coming to ANI, especially being supported an admin that I generally respect. It is not TTN's fault that there are tens of thousands of bad articles on Wikipedia. His AFD nominations are generally on target, and the results of his AFDs are generally to merge, redirect, or delete. If the only way that policy can be formed in this area is by running enought stuff through AFD to generate changes to WP:OUTCOMES, that's sad, but nothing to block an editor for. TTN is not violating any policies or guidelines, and is not deserving of even a short block, much less a ban.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has this board (perhaps others) become tattle boards to try to get TTN in trouble? I've seen many of his video game nominations: and the articles are indeed cruft, clutter, game guide content, etc...in many cases. He can't redirect: because people will just undo it, and then tattle on him. But he can't put them in AFD either apparently, because people have had issues with him in the past. Frankly, I think people need to settle down. Other people nominate numerous articles for deletion, but they don't get tattled on. I believe this is a matter of "TTN has past issues, so let's just report it everytime he nominates things", which is a bit wrong. Also to comment about what Jayron said: I highly doubt TTN is trying to make up policies. There is already policies that back up what he nominates. He states what policies the article violates, and in most cases he is right. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just you at all. I really think that we need to consider establishing some kind of sanction for filing ANI or Arbcom reports on this topic. The block and sanction requests cause more trouble than the AFDs.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my humble opinion, the suggested sanctions in this thread are slightly excessive. If TTN is going to be restricted, it should be to limit the number of AfDs he is allowed to file in any 24 hour period to a reasonable number, perhaps 5 or 6. Similarly, the number of redirects could also be limited, if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that, aside from these AfDs, TTN continues to continue his pattern of willy-nilly, discussion-free merging. [1] (an article he had previously made into a redirect and was specifically named in the last arbcom decision against him) [2] [3] [4] &c. &c. &c. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to waste my time counting any more, but it looks like in the last 24 hours alone, he's redirected over two dozen articles without a word of discussion on any. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A good chuck of which, now that I'm checking, recently went through AfD as kept from lack of consensus. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm having trouble finding the policy that says redirection is a crime. Can you point it out for me? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • TTN has been blocked in the past for disruptive patterns of behavior, which continue unabated. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a crime to redirect, because TTN has had issues in the past. If it was any other editor: it would probably go unnoticed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nearly all of my hundreds (over a thousand?) of bold-mergers and bold-redirects went unnoticed, so it really must be TTN's name that makes bold-mergers and bold-redirects a crime. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a crime, obviously, but the mass removal of content that targets a very narrow range of communities is disruptive--particularly when it is an editor's entire raison d'être. I might feel differently if I had ever seen TTN do the work to provide references for any article or series of articles, anywhere, but he takes advantage of the fact that improving articles is quite a bit harder than blanking it with a redirect template, and keeping up with his redirects and AfDs would be a full time Wiki-job, leaving little left to actually do the work. Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the redirected articles already had a consensus to keep at AfD discussion at AfD with no consensus to delete.Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So one editor imposes his will, and everyone cries, "What shall we do? What shall we do?" This is an all-too familiar theme in wikipedia. Bullies get their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you and I agree on a lot, but you're WAY off base here. I suggest everybody read Thebainer's suggestion of where the fault lies at WP:RfArb, where this issue is currently. This smacks of forum shopping and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest the editors on the eternal crusade stop asking Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? and start working WITH TTN, not against him. 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except TTN's pattern of behavior is essentially one of directing the work of other editors, not even remotely in any way "working with them". As I said, if TTN ever worked to improve an article in a way that wasn't deleting something, or nominating it for deletion, or pointing out that someone (someone else, naturally) needs to come in and provide references, not in time, but NOW, then yeah, there would be grounds for that, but there isn't. Working "with" TTN is essentially agreeing to work "for" him. Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically the Betacommand approach: "I'm following policy, therefore no discussion is needed - nor wanted, as that will slow me down from my appointed deletionist mission." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfDs I spot checked looked ok, didn't see a snowy keep (or more than one or two keep comments throughout), lots of delete comments, sometimes merge comments instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly feel that we would benefit from a RFC/U on TTN. Enough people feel that his behavior (rather than the underlying content dispute) is unacceptable that we should provide a venue for them to give feedback. I'm wholeheartedly against (and so, evidently, are the arbs who commented on the requests for clarification/extension) just using AN/I to thwack TTN for what some editors feel is bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the underlying problems with his methods. the place to sort out a thorny content/conduct dispute is RFC, not Arbcom and not here. I don't want this to turn into an inclusionist/deletionist back and forth, because that benefits NO ONE. But I don't want to dismiss the concerns here as "content dispute". the right answer is an RFC. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that we'll get any new insight into TTN/deletionist/inclusionist conflict, but we can certainly try. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better than coming here and riling up people with the Scarlet "D" on his chest from that arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is finally an effective means to rid wikipedia of bad fiction articles with community consensus (AfD), and people are still badmouthing TTN to arbcom and AN/I in the hope to get him sanctioned again (even the first sanction was not as widely supported as some editors wish to believe). Is there also the possibility that not TTN is the problem, but the unwillingness of editors to collaborate outside of AfD (accept mergers and redirects or improve the articles to justify as a WP:SPINOUT) to prevent TTN's need to take those bad articles to AfD to get them merged/redirected/deleted just the same? Oh, by the way, wikipedia is a voluntary projects, and just like everyone has the right to add content only, all editors have the right to concentrate on removing content that is not inline with policies and guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If TTN has an issue with "bad" articles, he should note his legitimate concerns on the articles' talk pages. If the editors who created the content (or otherwise wish to retain it) don't respond to those legitimate concerns, TTN should be free to nominate for AfD without being sanctioned. On the other hand, if TNN is not attempting to engage the editors of the content he obhects to before mass nominating for AfD, that is a different story...Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal: if TTN is mass-nominating articles for deletion, and most of these are ending up being kept, then he's being disruptive, wasting a lot of editor time, and he should be asked to stop. (I find it a little strange that the community doesn't seem to agree that what he's doing is a problem, yet the proposed solution is to block him. If we aren't agreed, his behavior is marginal, not clearly offensive, and so response should be measured, not abrupt.) On the other hand, if most of these AfDs result in delete, he's serving the project, as long as the AfDs themselves don't show disruptive behavior. I find it a bit refreshing if the nominator sits back and doesn't comment any more, beyond his original reason, letting the community decide. It's tendentious argument at AfD that can be so poisonous. I'll note that if the nominator can mass-nominate with identical reason given, surely !voters can comment with the same comment. Lots of complaints were registered about User:Kmweber for that, but it was always found to be acceptable.

As to redirects, they are less disruptive than AfDs. It's an ordinary editorial decision. Again, his behavior in that process would be the issue: does he edit war (and BRD isn't edit warring)? Is he uncivil? Being "unresponsive," as some charged, is not offensive in itself. He puts his time where he thinks it's important. No response is not an uncivil response. If he reverts repeated without discussion, that's not lack of responsiveness, it's edit warring. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Being unresponsive is uncivil. It's the same as saying "F.U." to the questioner. The non-response says the questioner is inferior and thus unworthy of spending time responding to. "He puts his time where he thinks it's important." Responding to a question thus is "not important" - because the questioner is "not important" - because only TTN's view matters. How is that kind of behavior "civil"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that topics concerning TTN tend to get somewhat lengthy, if not heated. Perhaps a page concerning this should be created and a redirect placed here if only to give everyone more elbow room? HalfShadow 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nowhere near the size of the CENSEI megillah that developed here and stayed on this page.

• I opened some of these AfDs at random. Many are unanimous "delete"s so far (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Roysten Merchant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Tyrell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Beebe). Based on these and on what I have read here, I see no problems with TTN's nominations. If people disagree with them they can say so in the AfDs. I don't understand what all the fuss is about and I am, frankly, most astonished about Baseball Bugs' "Block him immediately" comment.  Sandstein  20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It was stated that he was doing something he had been warned not to do. If that is true, then he should be blocked immediately for misbehavior. If not, then that's another story. The opinion on whether he's behaving properly seems to be mixed. However, if he won't answer fair questions, then he's being uncivil, and a block might effect an attitude adjustment - or at least get him to answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's got a pretty big chain of unrevealed assumptions there. We have to assume that he was actually doing what he was warned not to do. We have to assume the warning came in good faith and from a neutral party. We have to assume that the matter at hand is something worth blocking. And, frankly, I don't agree with the "block because I think he has a 'tude" viewpoint. He isn't 13. We aren't effecting discipline here. I don't think a bold "block him immediately" was the right response to the stated complaint. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, he should be nominated for adminship, since he apparently knows what's best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't make this worse. He doesn't need a nobel prize. I'm just suggesting that coming to AN/I and treating his malfeasance as a certainty isn't the way to go. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that TTN is not only nominating for deletion and redirecting, he's also placing merge tags (example from today) which is hardly unilateral. As Sandstein says above, most of the AfDs seem to be reasonable, and as for the redirects - well, when I see TTN redirecting well-sourced articles with good third-party references and real-world notability, then I'll agree with the editors who repeatedly bring this to the drama boards. Black Kite 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is his exactly samely worded noms suggest that he is just indiscriminately nominating articles on fictional characters and television episodes which clearly he and a few others just do not like and that can/should be merged redirected instead. He is also nominating so many articles that it is overwhelming the deletion debate area. And he is showing no signs of actually checking for sources first. It actually takes some time to search for sources and incorporate them into articles. When he has done that? When he found sources and added them to articles? If people revert his redirects, gee, than maybe it’s because the consensus is that the articles are worthy and hey it seems only a portion of us even know about and find the deletion debates that only seem to last for a few days anyway. How does his cookie cutter nominations followed bye the same handful of others that flock to his discussions who slap down similarly repetitive “delete per TTN” or “delete as fancruft” nonsense rapidly across whatever debates this guy starts actually reflect what the community wants? At least the Protonk has the occasional keep worked in or when he argues to delete shows evidence of having looked for sources, but few of those who agree with him seem to make that effort to be objective and treat these discussions as individuals. What “contribution” do we get from [5], [6], [7], and so on? The same rapid fire posts that show no evidence of actually trying to find sources or offering anything new to the conversation. It’s like that from most of TTN’s defenders. He makes the same copy and paste nomination; a few of his allies show up and make the same copy and paste agreements with him (and what‘s classic is I get warned by someone who himself made a handful of copy and paste deletes not to make copy and paste keeps--what a farce!), maybe someone offers a counterpoint and actually provides sources or makes an effort to improve the article, but otherwise the same big brothers deciding for us is simply not right. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.2 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you forgot that you should be on 63.3.1.130, right? Because there isn't a connection between those two IP's, right?  :) Protonk (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this "vanishing" business is trickier than one would think. Deor (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can prove this particular shitstorm was caused by our vanished friend, I think it's a good argument for a nice long rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Someone was going to raise the issue eventually. Like I said above, if people are pissed about TTN's conduct, then we should have a RFC/U, not a backdoor attempt at a topic ban because he used to edit war over redirects and mergers. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any numbers about how his AFDs shake out? if they are 90% KEEP then he needs to reconsider what he's doing but if they are 90% delete, well.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I looked over the articles he put up for AfD, and they seem to deem that treatment. Most of the articles IMHO fail WP:Notability. What TTN does is another segment of keep WP clean. I, for example hit new articles with speedy delete tags, TTN just catches the articles further along the process, and puts them up for AfD. So, TTN is a cleanup warrior, not a vandal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redact my original proposal for sanctions After spending lots of time reviewing the entire situation, and reading people's comments, I no longer believe that TTN is commiting any real disruption worth sanctions at this time. I find his single-minded obsession with deleting the episode and character articles perplexing, but all of his nominations I agree should probably be deleted or merged into their parent articles. In the end, even though he is on this extensive mission, he has not as yet really done anything that I don't end up agreeing with. I think its easy to, given the history of this conflict, misinterpret the situation, but none of the individual actions he has taken has crossed the line. I apologize for perhaps starting the controversy this time, but I have carefully reconsidered my position. I don't really support his mission, but I also don't see any harm in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're OK with it, then that's the end of it. Leave him unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• No reason to block him. I've taken part in a few AfDs he has nominated. I found the nominations appropriate, and common closure is usually merge/redirect, sometimes delete. Examples:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Doll_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Lackey, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Tan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defensor_(Transformers), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doz, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexadecimal_(character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LarryBoy, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Funkhouser, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ro_Rowen, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tasp. The inclusionists that disagree with him are tying to subvert the AfD process by blocking or banning him, a typical kill the messenger reaction. VG ☎ 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might not see eye to eye with User:TTN, but I feel someone should offer a little balance. Disagree with his content decisions, but he isn't doing anything wrong. It would be different if he were breaking policy, ignoring warnings, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... or abusing the WP:3RR. But he isn't. Moreover, he's using the WP:BRD process as designed. First he boldly merges or boldly redirects. If someone reverts, he starts a merge or deletion discussion. Even if I don't agree with him all of the time, there's usually a consensus for deleting, redirecting, or merging... suggesting that he's not being reckless, let alone malicious. I think we should assume good faith. And there is no damage. People are entirely free to contest his edits, or his suggestions at discussion pages, and they often do. If he's acting in good faith and doing no damage, then what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, this was one of the reasons that I started the original Request for Clarification shortly after his restriction ended. I was concerned that TTN was ramping up activity in the arena of content removal again, and was hoping to get a clear indication from Arbcom on this, as they put the original restriction in place. First let me be clear that each action that TTN does, in isolation, I don't have a problem with. The mechanisms of raising AfDs, suggesting redirects and tagging potential mergis is part of the article peer review that makes WP work as a content development mechanism. Most of his statements are sensible, and most of his AfD suggestions are sound. So where does the trouble lie? Well, as I've always said, it's in the throughput. TTN does a lot of work in the content cleanup space, raising a large number of AfDs (I think it's been 30 in 24 hours, but I could be wrong) doing a lot of tagging and creating large numbers of redirects. It's this large volume of work that causes concern with other editors, and which I'd really encourage him to ease up on. To be clear, I don't see blocking as a solution here, because I don't think it's the appropriate tool. Instead, I'd ask TTN to slow down, to feed his work into the system at a slower rate and to be willing to liase with other editors to ensure that he works at a pace everyone feels comfortable with. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

lolwut? Telling him to slow down the article cleaning process is akin to asking a vandal-guardian to slow down the reverts he/she does, or a new-page patroller to slow down on the db-taging of articles. I know on an average day I tag 20 articles for speedy delete, and revert another 40 changes. Should I slow down? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a like-for-like comparison. Recent changes/New pages patrol is one area, with a high level of continuous edits happening. Merges, reverts and AfDs have a much lower volume. In a WP workday, I can easily raise 30 or 40 CSDs on NPP. I'd be alarmed if I was raising the same volume of AfDs, and I'd be concerned that I was flooding the process if I did. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just would like to see him follow BLD and discuss things more. When someone undoes a redirect of his, he generally just moves to AfD without discussion. When I merged more into an article than he did after a merge AfD result, he undid it without comment. BLD indicates its worth being bold if you think it's not controversial. If you know it's controversial (and undoing a good faith edit likely is) then discussion is the right thing.... Hobit (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • But AFD is a discussion mechanism; it just opens it up to more people than just those who watch the page (which will generally have a bias against deletion). --MASEM 04:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Bingo. To reinforce Masem's point, it's right there in the first ten words of WP:AFD: "AFD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". If the AFD reaches a consensus for deletion, there's no harm because everyone agrees the article doesn't belong here. And if the AFD doesn't reach a consensus, then there's no harm because the article continues to exist. For that reason, AFD is generally a good process, and it generally achieves a good result. Randomran (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So are you all saying that AfD is the right place to bring redirect disputes? Really? I trust you both, but I've seen people dragged through the mud for bringing a redirect discussion (where they want to undo the redirect) to AfD. But I'll try it and point to this discussion if you both think that's how it is supposed to work. Let me know. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You should only bring an article to AFD if you believe in good faith that the article fails our content guidelines and policies. But if you do, remember that it begins a discussion. It doesn't always mean deletion. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
          • So one side of the discussion has a mechanism to involve others, even when their (apparent) prefered outcome isn't to delete. But the other part of this discussion doesn't have that outlet? Ick. Historically not a problem because people don't normally bring a redirect discussion straight to AfD. But TTN is doing it on a massive scale... Hobit (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
            • You don't need to have a discussion to keep an article. That happens naturally, with dozens of editors improving it to meet our guidelines and policies, to rule out any sound reason for deletion. I'm not sure I understand what an "article for keep" discussion would accomplish, although there are mechanisms like peer review and the rescue tag to help improve articles that are in trouble. Randomran (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The nomination reason TTN keeps using is sometimes outright incorrect. Typically, he will state that the article consists of nothing but plot summary and original research. Well, for most of the articles he nominates, the plot summary may make up the majority of the article. But sentences regarding which actor played the character, are neither. An AFD nominator has an obligation to check that the assertions in the nomination are true, and TTN is not doing that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, for the most part, his nominations are decent. If he merges or redirects it just gets reverted, so he needs something to demonstrate a consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to beat the dead horse: Other editorial decisions (to merge, delete, etc.) don't go to AfD. Why does the "I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted" go to AfD? Isn't there something wrong with doing that without any attempt at communication? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Because it's the only avenue available. Generally the people that restore these redirects are anonymous IPs, and, no matter how you feel about anons, they are very difficult to communicate with. It's rarely possible to tell if messages on their talk pages are being read and ignored or simply going to some other cable modem user. Discussing a redirect on the talk page of an article is futile, as the people that read the talk page are generally restricted to those people that think its a worthwhile article. It's unfair to characterize the discussion as I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted. It's generally more like This article is completely lacking in any characteristic that would permit it to be kept, but there is a group of editors that refuses to recognize that. Should there be a better mechanism than AFD for getting a larger group of editors to discuss this? Certainly. Is it fair to criticize TTN for using the only effective mechanism that exists? Certainly not.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's two sides to every dispute. For the "you keep reverting my redirect", there's the "you keep reverting my keep". AFD is "we can't agree whether to keep or redirect. can we get an independent opinion?" Usually the consensus will decide to keep or delete the article on its merits. Randomran (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed 100%. But I ask again, is it acceptable to bring an article to AfD if you are on the "keep" side of that argument? My understanding is that it isn't. Heck, I don't think bringing it to AfD to try to pick between redirect and keep is considered acceptable. Do you disagree? I'm happy to try it. (note: I need to read kww's proposal which I haven't gotten to yet) Hobit (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I think it's kind of general knowledge that AFDs are a good way to solicit feedback from a wide variety of people, and the arbcom decision reflects that. But at the same time, I think it's reserved for situations when someone has a good faith belief that the article should be deleted. I myself have PRODed articles, and had someone revert saying "take it to AFD". That was a reasonable way to settle it. If it really is inappropriate to nominate an article for AFD that you really just want to keep (which I'm pretty sure it is), then I think it's entirely fair to revert a redirect and say "take it to AFD". After all, it would be pretty WP:POINTy for someone to redirect *again* after someone said "if you insist this article shouldn't exist, let's have an AFD". (A merge is a different story though.) Some of that might just be my opinion though. Randomran (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by Baseball Bugs

Resolved

 – no harassment (or harrassment), issue closed Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has a disagreement with me about whether something requires a source in the article E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. It's not the disagreement that concerns me. Based on past experience with him, he tends to want to continue messaging a person long after the issues have been discussed to an extreme. And he's following the same pattern here. I told him I did not care to repeatedly have his messages sent to my talk page, and that he should take up his concerns on Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. I even copied a few exchanges about our differences to that talk page and advised him to discuss the issue there instead of repeatedly making comments on my talk page. He refuses, and since my request has sent me these messages: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I believe he is about to step over the line on policies on WP:HARASS if he has not already done so. Everything will be fine if he will simply confine his comments about the issues of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎ to the article's talk page instead of my talk page. But I don't think he is willing to do that unless an admin discusses this with him. Thanks for any help. Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user has already spent far more time and energy copping an attitude than would have been required to simply answer my questions. He has now deleted three fair questions and comments from his talk page, so I'm done talking to him... hopefully permanently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the "past experience", to which he refers, goes all the way back to yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am now asking the same reasonable question of other users who I suspect have equal knowledge but a less obstinate attitude. The complaining editor clearly has no idea of what real harassment consists of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IF he is sincere about that, that would solve the problem. We'll see. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he'll stop. That's that then. Grsz^X 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harassment - rather I see attempts at discussion and an attempt by Ward3001 to avoid discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shh, you don't tell reporting editors that they were wrong. Grsz^X 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many cases where the complaining editors are the ones that ended up with indef-blocks. I don't think that's called for here, though. What I'm seeing is a guardianship of the E.T. page that borders on ownership. That's understandable, as I am pretty protective of certain pages also. The difference is that I'm always willing to talk to anyone who raises a question, and I don't try to dictate to them where they can ask those questions, as my talk page does not belong to me any more than an article's talk page does. And when I do ask them to refocus on an article's talk page, I actually continue the discussion there, instead of pushing it there so that I can ignore it and not have to see orange "new message" banners. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, I have simply asked for the discussion to occur on the article's talk page so that the entire Wikipedia community can be aware rather than Baseball Bugs repeatedly sending messages to me. I have expressed opinions on the article's talk page, let's see what others have to say. I just want the discussion confined to that talk page, not mine. I'm not avoiding discussion, I just want it in the right place. Ward3001 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages exist so users can send messages to each other. It's not outside his rights to want to contact you directly. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and he didn't ask, he ordered. I am not in the habit of following orders that aren't rule-based. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a kinder soul both answered my question and found a citation: [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not outside anyone rights to send a message. But when the debate pertains to an article, and the recipient of the messages (again and again and again) requests that the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page, then it becomes harrassment. Note as evidence of the proper venue for discussion that once the issue was moved to the article's talk page, the issue was almost immediately resolved. Baseball Bugs wasn't satisfied with addressing the issue pertaining to the artice (on the article's talk page). He had to repeatedly add comments to a user's talk page, long after the user requested that discussion occur on the article's talk page. His purpose wasn't to discuss the issue; that could have been done very easily on the article's talk page. His purpose was to harrass a user with whom he had a disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "ask", you ordered, despite the lack of any rule or authority to issue such an order. You are the one at fault here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a little perspective on the time frame involved. It was only when Baseball Bugs sent five messages to my talk page ([14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]) after I asked him to take it up on the article's talk page that I insisted that he cease harrassing me. I didn't begin the discussion by insisting on anything. I simply told him that I wished to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. It's quite a stretch to call that ordering him to do something. There was absolutely no reason he needed to send those messages to my talk page except harrassment. He could have taken the issue up on the article's talk page very easily because I had copied our entire discussion there and had informed him of such, but discussing the issue on the article's talk page wouldn't have been enough harrassment for me, would it? And he couldn't even stop at that. He had to throw in a personal attack in one of the edits. And speaking of ordering other editors, he didn't have any compunctions in the least about ordering me to put something on the article's talk page if I moved the discussion there in this edit. And I wish someone would explain how I was trying to "take ownership" of the article based on two edits in which I properly asked for a source. The last time I checked WP:OWN, asking for sources is not assuming ownership. This is not me "taking ownership" or "ordering" or any of the other descriptors that Baseball Bugs conveniently came up with after the fact. Once I moved the issue to the article's talk page, it was pure and simple harrassment. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also find it interesting that Baseball Bugs has had a couple of blocks for ... (take a guess: not simple vandalism, not 3RR, not those thing that don't directly involve other editors ... no he was blocked for) ... harrassing users. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 10 months ago. And it was for something more like actual harassment, not for asking fair questions on a user page despite being ordered not to by someone who thinks the user page is his personal property. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

10 months ago does not make it less of a pattern of behavior. If I am arrested for shoplifting for a third time, how much sympathy will the judge have if I say, "But the first two times were 10 months ago"? And you have utterly failed to explain why you had to ask "fair questions" on my talk page rather than the article's talk page after I moved the discussion there. You ignore that little detail because it's that particular issue that defines your behavior as harrassment. Why did it have to be on my talk page, when you could raise any issue with the whole community on the article's talk page? And, of course, your feeble reply will be that you wanted an answer from me rather than the whole community, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of responding to your questions from the article talk page (and it's my choice whether I want to reply to you despite your ordering me to reply), and placing your questions there might have generated opinions from editors in addition to me. If anyone was assuming ownership it was you, assuming that you owned my talk page (and even owning my editing rights) by harrassing me instead of placing your concerns where they belonged. Ward3001 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but once it was resolved Ward3001 could have just Cc'd the discussion over to the Talk page. I've done similar things in the past when I felt like a particular conversation needed to be visible in another place. No need to make a federal case out of it...

It's funny, when I saw the section header, I was all set to say, "Baseball Bugs can be kind of a dick sometimes, but when he is, he's almost always in the right." hahaha, no offense Bugs. But you weren't even being a dick this time! How disappointing. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I'm accused of something, such as harassment or wikistalking or disruption or edit-warring or of being a general pest or a jerk, I would at least like for the accusation to have some merit to it. I strongly object to lame accusations. Or at least I lamely object. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How exactly does this define as Harassment? ~ Troy (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He saw it as harassment because he ordered me to stop asking him questions on his talk page, which he is under the mistaken impression is his own property, and I ignored his order and continued to ask questions because I actually believed (AGF) that he might answer them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Truly odd ... on Wikipedia we try to discuss and resolve issues on each others Talk pages ... suddenly, the communication pillar of Wikipedia is harassment? Although, it might have been mildly humourous to see Bugs with a 24hr ban ... any post that has "lame", "jerk" and "dick" within a few words of each other deserves some action :-) BMW(drive) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky. :) Most users are open to reasonable discussion on their own talk pages. Some adopt an ownership attitude and try to manage the behavior of others or to stonewall them. One index for such behavior is User:Tecmobowl, who managed to get everyone mad at him for just such behavior and was eventually indef-blocked. In this case, the user's behavior is nowhere close to that, although I have confidence that with some effort he could at least get into Tecmobowl's neighborhood. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think there have been more comments here after the "resolved" posting than there were before it. So I'll stop commenting now (unless something new and different comes up) and hopefully this "resolved" thread will get archived soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More on Oxford Round Table

Resolved

 – no action needed here, community updated by this notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Referring back to the latest recent discusson about Oxford Round Table, I have created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting report. It seems to be a complex case. An experienced admin should investigate this case. AdjustShift (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU shows yet another highly likely sock. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

Not long ago, I complained here that User:Xasha is causing serious disruption and harm to the project, and that I believe meaningful action should be taken against him. Following my report, Xasha was blocked - his eighth block in the last four months. Unfortunately, he is right back to violating his topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

Right after returning from his block, Xasha immediately made several edits violating his topic ban. User:Gutza, an administrator, warned him and Xasha acknowledged receiving the warning. (I should add that he had a "very serious warning" on September 15.) However, since Gutza's warning, Xasha has only increased his edit-warring, every time violating his topic ban: see here, here and here for clear examples.

The implication is clear. Xasha is indeed, as I noted two weeks ago to his displeasure, "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher...He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content", instead disrupting the project time and again. He has proven beyond any doubt (if such doubt ever existed) that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear down others' work and use the project as a battleground. His repeated, brazen violation of his topic ban is galling. Will he be served up yet another "final warning" and continue to be allowed to thumb his nose at the community, or will the curtain finally come down on this charade? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see Biruitorul is trying to remove sources like The American Journal of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law and Charles Upson Clark because they don't support his POV, and since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them, he has to secure a block for me to make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources. Two of the linked pages (Balti and MASSR) are clearly outside the scope of the topic ban, and the inclusion of the addition of the sources mentioned above in History of Moldavia is disputable.Xasha (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block you for a month when I was interrupted by your message on my talkpage - which has enabled me to consider this further. Biruitorul, I think you need to open a request at WP:RfAR regarding this matter and see if the Arbs are willing to consider expanding/broadening the topic ban. While I think that a short block per the existing topic ban is legitimate it does not seem to have the deterring effect, so perhaps it should go back to ArbCom to see if further sanctions are worthwhile. As Xasha would need participate in any discussion I shall not block in this instance - but if another admin feels differently then I have no objection. (Please note that Xasha will request block exemption for his ip - since it is used by other editors. I understand this has been granted before, Xasha can supply the details.)

ps. Xasha, it doesn't matter about the quality of your references - you are violating your topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I never did in fact remove those sources, though of course they're being used to support a fringe POV, which is itself troubling. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You did support the version that excluded them by fixing its grammar. Also, what would be the motivation of two undeniably reputable Western institution and a US Romania-expert to support a POV? (which is no way fringe, just that is opposed by a large part of the often politically controlled Romanian historiography)Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't remove them and that's that. If you must know, a 1944 source may (may) be biased because the US and USSR were still allies, while Sinclair's "bilateral agreement" phrasing completely misses the point that it was done by force. However, that is not the point. What is the point is that you continue to brazenly defy your topic ban in the face of ArbCom consensus - and that is intolerable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I want to say this for the record.) In my opinion Xasha has proven time and again that he's a POV-pushing revert warrior who follows an agenda irrespective to Wikipedia etiquette, rules or policies, and that temporary measures fail to change anything. As such, I would even endorse a ban on this user, since it's obvious to me that nothing works as a deterrent. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which may be the case, but there is an existing ArbCom decision on this matter and if there needs to be a different remedy then it needs to go through that procedure first. However, if there is no desire for this then it is a case of escalating blocks until the topic ban runs out... I have no position in this matter other than to advise the options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unaware of this case here, I broough it over here. Dc76\^talk 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: users can be community banned, even if they've been through, or are going through an ArbCom case. Alternatively, ArbCom can modify the restrictions and/or impose a Committee ban on the user too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources? (isn't this rhetorical?) Is the aversion of those few users to the reputable source-supported perspective introduced by me enough to prevent me from further increasing the quality of Moldova-related Wikipedia articles?Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're only proving you still don't understand that you're under a topic ban, and that you shouldn't have touched those topics no matter what; you're further proving that you cannot follow the rules of this project, regardless of how many warnings and blocks you receive -- after several blocks, under a topic ban, on the administrators' noticeboard, you're still discussing editorial issues and making counter-accusations involving a Romanian cabal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that so far there is consensus for banning this user, since I haven't seen anyone opposing that. I'm not saying this will necessarily remain so, I just want to prevent this from being silently archived; if that happens at this point of the discussion, or before there is any opposition, then I will ban the user myself as per said consensus. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There no such thing. 3 opinionated Romanian users don't make a consensus.Xasha (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. But again, I'm not saying this consensus will necessarily stand until this section is archived, I'm only making sure everybody is aware of what will happen if there is no opposition. This is neither a warning nor a threat, I'm just making sure we all know where we currently stand. And incidentally that's very much in your favor, since an abrupt announcement of this sort is usually followed by rebuttals -- the alternative would have been quietly proceeding to banning you on the same grounds, but without this announcement. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you want to ban an opponent in a content dispute you're involved in based on an essay. Great! Xasha (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great idea, wikilawyering is the best thing you can do at this point! --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting the prospective abuse of administrative powers is just sensible, and warning admins against such thing can't be reasonably construed as wikilawyering.Xasha (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your rationale, aren't we writing on the same page? How exactly is your warning towards admins supposed to work when it's just next to the very announcement of said prospective abuse? Either you're assuming all admins reading the Administrators' noticeboard are plain stupid and need your explicit warning to figure out an abuse announced in plain view, or you're wikilawyering -- I don't see other options (but hey, I'm an admin, what do I know). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time you ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, so by "admins" I was talking about you. Also your choice of options isn't the most civil one.Xasha (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't answer to this particular thread of the conversation anymore, but I want to point out a few things for the record:

• I cannot, have not and will not use my admin powers within content disputes (feel free to prove otherwise). However, that is related to taking unilateral action by the admin's own accord -- this is totally different, I would simply enforce a community consensus. Incidentally, bans are never unilateral, so I couldn't have banned you on my own accord anyway (that would be an inexcusable policy breach).
• The essay I linked to above is explicitly "intended to supplement WP:Consensus"; as such, it is mentioned within the very body of WP:Consensus. Also, for anyone familiar with the policies in place that essay is not really necessary (the spirit of the Consensus policy is clear enough for experimented users). You are an experienced Wikipedian, therefore your clinging to that material's status as an essay is obvious wikilawyering.
• Finally, your last reply is fallacious in its entirety. This would actually be the first time I'd ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, and in addition I'm not in this case either. And my choice of options is actually not only civil, but indeed gentlemanly -- I chose to assume we admins were the stupid ones.

As I said, I will try not to follow up on this particular thread, unless I find your next answer erroneous enough to merit further clarifications. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← The point is that Xasha has continued to post on WP in violation of his topic ban. Whether the additions made to the article(s) were reliable or not, does not void this fact. Then to come and comment on this ANI about other editors, using phrases such as "since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them" and "make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources" or "a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users", continues to enforce the Arbcom decision of the necessity of imposing a topic ban of certain editors. When you consider the number of blocks placed on Xasha and his return each time to once again violate the topic ban, you can only conclude that he is not willing to abide by the communities decisions and will not change his editing habits. The only conclusion I can make from this activity is that a ban is indeed warranted and has been postponed longer than necessary. Blocking the user is not working to prevent his revisiting his topic ban once the block expires. It has become a pattern of disruption and abuse that needs to be stopped, not delayed for a short time, to once again start anew.--JavierMC 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In September 2008 the User Xasha hurt again his topic ban hurt (see this discussion), but the administrators were very generous with him and he was not punished (though it was not the first time he hurt his topic ban). Xasha also showed no signs of remorse and he refused to revert his disputed and forbidden edit. He only wrote that "You can't change the past. What is done is done." Now seeing that he carried forward his behavior (especially regarding his topic ban), my conclusion about this user is clear: Xasha is incorrigible. From this reason I request a full ban for Xasha. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to comment to this remark by Xasha: "You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources?" Yes, those sourses not only will but are already being added by Illythr. Except that he does that in a completely different manner from Xasha. And yes, Wikipedia would be improved by the addition of anything, even "Adolf Hitler/Joseph Stalin once said "..." ". Absolutely noone prevented Xasha to add the sources in the talk pages. Talk page activity on the banned subjects is ok. But, hey, that does not give internal satisfaction of a pinch just delievered in the face. Dc76\^talk 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stripping pictures from FA

An IP editor is stripping all the pictures from a featured article.[19][20] I have reason to believe this user is not making a good faith effort to improve the article. Could another administrator please look at this. I am not interested in edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures, and removing them is not vandalism[21] plus I'm pretty sure Image:Serp.png and Image:Baidu-July-2008.png fail NFCC as used in this article. — CharlotteWebb 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's now a discussion starting at Talk:Search engine optimization#images --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to concerns at the article talk page. I suggest continuing the discussion there. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CW: Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures Should be. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yar, find one that doesn't have pictures. Rules are one thing, customs are another. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in a quick search, but I remember seeing an FA nomination for some kind of rat which was rejected primarly because it didn't include a picture of the animal. Although the criteria state that an image isn't necessary, in practice, that doesn't seem to be the case. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd. Sarah 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have been helpful for Jehochman to point out that he has a strong COI on the Search engine optimization article, considering that he is an executive in an SEO firm, and has been involved in a trademark dispute which names the Wikipedia article as part of the suit.[22] In fact, Jehochman probably shouldn't be editing this article at all, let alone accusing others of vandalism. --Elonka 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's COI is fully disclosed at his user space. His work on that article raised it from a spam magnet to FA. He has complied with this website's guidelines and expectations in that regard. Getting back to the original point of the thread, I agree that summary removal of all images from an FA can be described as vandalism. It would be a different matter if images were in violation of non-free use policy or if some were arguably gratuitous. But simply stripping all images out is like deleting whole paragraphs or article sections: we don't do that unless there's good reason. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Jehochman's COI is "fully disclosed" at his user space, as I see nothing there about the trademark dispute, though it is helpful that he disclosed it at the talkpage of the article.[23] However, Durova, as you and I both know, perhaps it might be best if you too were to avoid issuing determinations on this matter, to avoid any complications involving COI? --Elonka 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, these insinuations are off-topic and inappropriate. This thread inquires whether wholesale removal of all images from an article, without edit summary, constitutes blanking vandalism. I agree that it does. And I give that opinion as the contributor of 110 featured pictures on Wikipedia and 25 featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons. Even if one were to accept your assertions at face value, the COI guideline certainly doesn't prevent editors from addressing vandalism. To the best of my knowledge you have done little work on the media side of Wikipedia content, which appears to reflect itself in the tangential nature of these comments. Please take greater care and avoid casting unwarranted aspersions upon the ethics of fellow Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Get a room. Let's focus on the article. — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This smells like a content dispute to me. I think that a much stronger fair use rationale could be offered for those images and that the google one could be replaced with free screenshots within the screenshot (see the 4chan article for an example), but I also think that removing these images without discussion isn't productive. My advice would be to take down the google one for now and make a more compelling rationale for the baidu one (along with modyfiying the article to support the rationale where possible). In general, I would just complete the WP:BRD process for the IP editor, rather than just reverting. I don't think jerechoman's COI is an issue here. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I support improving the illustrations if better alternatives are provided; however, I think the current pictures are better than no pictures.

If this is a bona fide content dispute, ANI isn't the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Interested editors can join the ongoing discussion at Talk:Search engine optimization. Jehochman ^Talk

Well, you could produce a similar results page on your own server using any of various free search engine software or you could just create a sandbox page that looks like real search engine results (but without containing the *cough cough* Google logo or anything else derived from or uncannily resembling Google's content) and take a screen-shot of it. This wouldn't demonstrate search engine optimization any more (or less) than the Google screenshot, but at least it wouldn't be fair use abuse.

Now, let's zoom out a little bit and look at the three images in this article, as objectively as we can. We've got not one but two search engine screenshots, one of which also contains Star Wars content copyrighted by 20th Century Fox/Lucasfilm. Also we have a photo of a dark auditorium but which focuses primarily on the Google logo.

How do any of these help me understand SEO? I don't see anything to indicate that the search results have been manipulated by SEO. (A screenshot of "miserable failure" or "out-of-touch executives" or some other infamous Google-bomb would be different...) Meaningful free images for this article might include example screenshots and diagrams of deceptive <meta> tags, hidden <div>, pay-per-click fraud, etc. and other techniques.

It is in no way vandalism to remove images which don't benefit the article. — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jehochman (talk · contribs) nor Durova (talk · contribs) should be working on the Search engine optimization article. Jehochman should not, because he's involved in a trademark dispute regarding the article, and it appears that he specifically modified the article[24] using a forum post as a source, and then used the Wikipedia article as a source in the trademark dispute.[25] Durova should not be working on the article, because she is an associate of Jehochman's. For example, look at this article she wrote, "SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider", where she even mentions Hochman in the first paragraph. So, yes, let's get the article fixed, but let's be careful that it's done only by uninvolved editors and administrators. --Elonka 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but it is only that. After all, it has been decided that Jossi (talk · contribs) can happily work on Prem Rawat, as his possible COIs have been noted. "Person X should not be working on the article, because she is an associate of person Y, who may have a COI"? Are you serious? How many degrees of separation do you think should apply here? "Person W should not be working on this article, because they once nominated person X for adminship, where person X is an associate of person Y, who may have a COI", ad infinitum? Achromatic (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well at least editors have not been actively deceptive about their involvement in the external dispute (unlike the infamous Nacktverkauf der Lederhosen controversy). If Mr. Hochman wasn't voluntarily using his real name, implying that he had a "COI" would probably be bannable as "outing". Interestingly both he and Durova have written quite a bit about the paradox created by these policies. I'm not overly concerned with his interests other than as the primary author of the article as it currently stands (featured but with three images whose relevance and compliance with policy are... disputed to say the least). Sure, citing oneself is poor form, but it may have been a matter of convenience rather than deliberate evidence manufacture as the edit was made a year and four months before suit was filed. As long as the ascella.net spam dated "Sun, 27 Jul 97 03:09:22" isn't a complete hoax I don't see a problem with mentioning it in the article, regardless of what purpose it serves elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Elonka has recently happily edited articles on products of her company, like HeroEngine, and on her colleagues, like Jennifer MacLean. I think Elonka should leave her personal feelings towards other wikipedians behind her. That way needless wikidramas can be avoided, which serve little or no purpose on this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mathsci. And for the record, I have never edited this article. I did not participate at its FAC and never posted to its talk page until last night. The publication Elonka cites is something I wrote for free as an extension of my Wikipedia volunteer work: I was attempting to deal with the spam problem at its source by educating SEO professionals about our site policies. One would hope that the WMF's most prolific contributor of featured pictures could answer a query about image use without enduring this sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

<--- Honestly, I think it would be best for Elonka to go left and Jehochman to go right and keep walking. Both seem to have some feelings toward each other based on what I am seeing. spryde | talk 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments discourage participation

"Don't you see your damn book you are so fond of is already cited in "References"! Stop re-adding it in "Further Reading"! Some common sense at last!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

The message above was the very first message I received on “talk” after beginning to participate in Wikipedia about a month ago. I've made scholarly contributions to several topics, all with appropriate references. The comment above was apparently in response to my restating a single scholarly reference in the "Further Reading" part of the "Law" page after someone unknown deleted it.

This person has apparently adopted an overly proprietary attitude towards said page, and considers it his/her property. "Further Reading" on that page consists of three sources unrelated to the one I placed there, and apparently is considered the private bookshelf of this individual. "References" on this topic consists of over 100 sources, which anyone seeking additional reading is unlikely to page through.

If this verbal abuse is typical of the kind of behavior and comments one can expect from Wikipdeia, I can spend my time on something else. I've published numerous articles in other printed encyclopedias, and can do that instead. Even editors need to have some respect for fundamental human dignity of other persons--all persons.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that some of the comments of Yannismarou (talk · contribs) at the Law article do appear to be a bit excessive.[26][27] Generally as soon as one is putting exclamation points into edit summaries, it may be time to take a break. --Elonka 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a WP:Civil issue there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If editors kept reverting each other well past 3RR, but were extremely polite in their edit messages, would that qualify as a Civil Edit War? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It would be an edit civil war.Dr.K. (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, guys?!!!! Are you serious?!!!!! What nonsense is this?!

This guy is obsessed with a damn book, and he insists in mentioning and referencing it, even if this book adds nothing to the article! This is his sentence: "Law must be viewed not as a body of static rules but as "a dynamic process by which rules are constantly changed, created, and molded to fit particular situations."" Why is this so necessary for the "Institutions" section?! Clearly needless IMO!

I rt him, telling that this book adds nothing to the article. But he insisted! I respected that, and I accepted the book, and the one sentence Mervyn added, although I still believe that this sentence is not a + for the article.

Since this book is now used as a source and it is cited (something I disagree with), I removed it from "Further Reading", and I moved it under "References". This is its proper place. To my surprise, and while I was trying to save this article from losing its star, I saw that Mervyn came back, and re-added this book to Further Reading, where it has no place.

Reading his thread here, I still see that he hasn't yet understood how a quality article works: A cited book is cited under "References"; not under "Further Reading". Now, if Mervyn cannot realize these simple things or if he cites in this erratic way sources in his other articles, it is not my problem. I do have the right to get angry, when I see absurd edits, and I do have the right to get angry with editors like him who IMO harm the article with their needless additions instead of helping it get better.

I also regard this ""Further Reading" on that page consists of three sources unrelated to the one I placed there, and apparently is considered the private bookshelf of this individual" as offensive, and I ask Mervyn to take it back, and apologize. Otherwise, I have the right to argue that he pursues a personal agenda, since his only contribution to the article is one sentence, and a quote from a particular book he seems so fond of.

This is my opinion about his edits and him, and I have the right both to express it and protect what I regard as a quality article. I do have the right to get ironic, and sarcastic, because there is no rule preventing me from expressing myself like that, if I remain civil, and I do remain civil, because I characterized a damn book "damn", and not an editor. But I have never been uncivil towards this editor and I thus regard this warning as a personal offense, which should be immediately reversed.

Finally, I feel sorry about Elonka's advice that I "should take a break". It indicates a complete lack of judgment (something I am not surprised of), respect and esteem for all the extensive work I've done in this article during the last two months. Taking a break, and letting the article lose its star is in her opinion the best option. OK, then! I am out of the article, if you don't want me there. Save it yourselves! I'll let anybody in the FARC know of your orders that I'll now follow. What a pity, by the way, what a pity ... --Yannismarou (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: you don't have the right to get angry, or to be incivil, no matter what you think of other editors - if it isn't polite, don't share it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have the right to get angry if I keep my anger within the Civility requirements.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou, no one is agreeing with you. Every single person who is commenting here, says that your comments were uncivil. Please take a step back and reconsider your actions here. Especially as you are an administrator, it is essential that you set a good example of behavior, since other editors look to administrators as rolemodels. So please, think about what is needed to de-escalate this situation. --Elonka 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you say that as a "rolemodel"?! Come on now! And you dare to remind me I am an administrator open to recall, when you showed no respect to this particular procedure?! But I did de-escalated. I followed your orders and stayed away from the article. By the way, respect my kind request, and stay away from my talk page. It is my right not to want you there, because I have no respect for you. You're not welcome! If you want to say anything about or against me, do it here. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou, I understand that you are probably under stress because the FA-class Law article is being reviewed, and that you are probably concerned that the article may lose its FA status (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Law). I sympathize with the stress of such a process. However, please take this as heartfelt advice: Can you even entertain the possibility that you might be so entwined with the article, that you might be regarding any negative edit to the article as an attack on yourself? To outside observers here, your actions appear uncivil, though you do not appear to be seeing it that way. So please, consider just taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile? I doubt that anything is going to happen quickly to the Law article in the meantime, and a break might help you to regain some perspective here. --Elonka 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I had no idea Yannismarou was an administrator. I agree with Elonka in the statement above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)It is the opinion of several editors that you have failed to do so. Don't get me wrong. As far as the content dispute is concerned, I'm behind you 100%, but I'm still concerned about your conduct. When you find yourself disagreeing with, or criticising, everyone who comments, you should consider the possibility that you might be misjudging the situation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is a clear disagreement about incivility between us. I strongly believe I was civil, and that Toddst's warning was offensive. You say the opposite. If it is your opinion that the Community shares, then I am sorry, but I feel very bad about that. If this is indeed what the Community believes, then we do not share the same ideas in serious issues, and I thus do not want to be an administrator. Full stop.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If an editor gets upset because their quality work is being destroyed by edits that violate WP:NPOV or WP:V, we should try to help them stop being upset by dealing with the content problem. We do have content policies and administrators are allowed to enforce them. It seems like tendentious editing is at the root of this problem. If we deal with that, any civility issues will also be dissipated. Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like it is approaching a 'two wrongs make a right' type argument. Civility is a unilateral requirement of Wikipedia, which applies even when 'the other side' is breaking it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, Sam Blacketer. I meant exactly what I said. Expert editors are a precious commodity. We should try to help them when they encounter difficulties, not drive them off the project. If somebody is frustrated by a tendentious editor and loses their cool, we should reassure them that their concerns will be addressed, ask them to remain civil, and then deal with the tendentious editing. I don't see that happening here, yet, on this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not mischaracterising what you wrote, but the first thing to do with a editor being incivil is that they must stop being incivil. It is no help to Yannismarou for anyone to give the impression that his incivility is tolerable due to his status as an expert, or because it was prompted by a severe editing dispute. That is the impression I got from your comment; it is not a case of 'putting words in your mouth' because I was not stating what you thought but asking for confirmation of whether my understanding was correct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was not completely clear. Editors occasionally become upset. All of us do. When you notice a colleague is getting upset, it is good to start by asking, "what's wrong?" Once we understand why Yannis is upset, then we can reassure them that the issue will be investigated. Once we are in possession of all the facts, then we can decide what to do. Showing a little empathy is a good way to get somebody to calm down and be more civil. In no way do I condone incivility, but when both sides are in the wrong, it does not make sense to criticize one while ignoring the other. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming this topic to "Expert discouraged from participation"? One cannot isolate an incident without at least having a look at the context of this dispute and the history behind it. Could everyone take into account that Yannismarou (as he states in his userpage) is a lawyer, hence an expert on the subject, and he is dealing with tendentious non-experts?--   Avg    20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the information at Mervyn's userpage: User:Mervyn Emrys, I do not think we should jump to the conclusion that he is a tendentious non-expert. --Elonka 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We can definitely jump to a conclusion about the quality of his contributions in Law, though, which have been limited to inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting this specific reference.--   Avg    20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we are really serious about civility we treat it as a two way street. If we respond to perceived incivility with incivility of our own then this is rather inconsistent, especially if we complain about it to a third party like ANI afterward. For example Mervyn responded to Yannismarou in his talk page "Who the hell are you to be deleting scholarly references from a list for "Further Reading" on any page? Do you think you are a god or something?". Is this civil? And why noone up to now has advised Mervyn about it? Dr.K. (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys is obviously a very new editor, who never even had a single edit to a talkpage, until he responded to Yannismarou's comment. New editors pick up their cues on how to behave, from more experienced editors. As near as I can tell, when Mervyn was inserting and re-inserting the reference, not a single editor took the time to post a note to him and explain to him what he was doing wrong, or how he could improve. Instead, he got one generic welcome message to his talkpage, and then the next message was a highly uncivil attack from Yannismarou, with an edit summary of "your damn book".[28] This is a violation of WP:BITE, and might have driven away a potentially very valuable expert contributor. Yannismarou, for his part, is already an experienced contributor, and an administrator. He should have known better than to treat other editors like that. What he should do at this point is offer a heartfelt apology to Mervyn Emrys, explain that he (Yannismarou) was stressed out over an FA review, and took it out on Mervyn when he shouldn't have. Mervyn would then (hopefully) graciously accept the apology, and Yannismarou and others could proceed to help tutor Mervyn Emrys on wiki-procedures. We could start by explaining about article talkpages, about revert wars, and about the FA process. We could also perhaps point Mervyn Emrys at other less embattled articles, which might be places that could really use an expert's attention. But trying to go after Mervyn as being uncivil, when he was just responding in kind to the first ever personal message that he had received from another Wikipedian, would not be the right way to approach this. --Elonka 21:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. (Note: I was about to make some sort of longer comment about how admins--no matter how productive--are not immune to WP:CIVIL and really ought to be held to a higher standard of civility, especially when under stress, especially when editing on contentious articles, and especially when dealing with earnest newbies...then I did a double-take, giggled a bit in spite of myself, and decided to go make a ham sandwich instead.) Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's suggestion sounds good. Mervyn wasn't to know that a book is normally removed from "further reading" if it's used in "References". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka please do not distort my remarks. I am not trying to go after anyone here. I think I have the right to express my opinion which is:

1. Wikipedia is not a kindergarten
2. Newbies or not, users are professionals in their real lives and they should know what civility is. Telling me that Mervyn took his cue from Yannismarou because he is a newbie doesn't wash. Mervyn is an intelligent professional. Being an intelligent professional and a newbie are not mutually exclusive. If you are an intelligent professional and a newbie and have a personality then you don't take your cues from anyone. Dr.K. (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overlook the fact that Yannis is already proven to be an extremely valued contributor. Pressuring them when they are upset is not a good way to show appreciation to a volunteer. By all means, let's have some uninvolved editors help Mervyn Emrys. That would be great. Yannis, if you have further problems with tendentious editing on this article, please report concerns to somebody uninvolved, preferably at one of the specialist noticeboards, such as WP:NPOVN, rather than losing your cool. It will be much simpler to deal with any tendentious editing if you don't cloud the matter with civility issues. I hope we can all get behind the idea that we are here to help and support our editors, not try to find reasons to beat them up and kick them out. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent approach. Dr.K. (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are enough people watching WP:NPOVN? Everyme 02:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tendentious and clueless editors can be very unnerving and they are never reigned in. More importantly, refusal to get the point is highly, highly uncivil as well, which is of course usually never mentioned by anyone ever, especially not by civility fascists. Everyme 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And? Two wrongs don't make a right, even in the case of an admin.

TLDR ranting in progress starting now. Administrators and valued contributors are not immune to WP:COOL and WP:CIVIL, and as a user above implied they should be held up to a higher standard of these policies, even under pressure, even under duress, etc. "Tendentious and clueless editors" have to learn somewhere, and the one in question here hadn't interacted with anyone up until Yannis' message, which may very well have screamed out to said "clueless editor" that it's okay to be a dick if you have an excuse for doing so. I see a lot of this going on at ANI, "valued contributors" violating WP:CIVIL et al and getting off the hook because of some excuse, and it really disgusts me. Richard Nixon was not let off the hook after the Watergate scandal; in other words, no matter how valued a member of our community is, we should not turn our backs and say "oh he's obviously under stress, it's okay." Suigetsu 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying to let Yannis off the hook. What some of us are saying is don't beat the stuffing out of Yannis while ignoring the possibility that he has a valid complaint. Just because a concern is expressed improperly does not mean that the concern is invalid. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and as to civil but clearly wrong editing vs "two wrongs don't make a right": One wrong doesn't make a right, either. Everyme 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Yannis' complaint is more than valid, and the editor in question should probably have some sort of action taken as well. Tendentious editing is admittedly a bitch, and I don't doubt for a second that the editor was asking for it. However, incivility shouldn't get off with a slap on the wrist either, and while we should take Yannis' complaint into consideration, we can't let it excuse his behavior in any way. Suigetsu

I agree. We should remove the cause of his distress. Everyme 03:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Suigetsu 03:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to punish, nor to preach. Can we talk to the disputants and suggest better modes of interaction? Hopefully they will listen to outside feedback and no further steps will be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) While your approach and words Jehochman are of the highest calibre and have the potential of diffusing this situation I think we have not examined what exactly in Yannis' comments is uncivil. Is it the reference to the book as damned? The inference of lack of common sense? Is it the exasperated tone? We have to investigate this further before any steps are taken. Dr.K. (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have something to offer. When I first arrived here, I acted stupidly (some say I still do). If I had received the same sort of greeting as Mervyn Emrys, I might not be here today. Criticism can be made in a non-derogatory way when dealing with a newcomer. All we need is recognition by Yannis that they can do better. The issue is not whether the comments met some minimum standard. Rather, we want to encourage people to do their very best at all times. Mervyn Emrys needs to be counseled about Wikipedia policies and practices. That's how I'd like to see things resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem still remains that we have not defined what constitutes incivility and what is simply an expression of understandable frustration. If we don't examine the boundaries of such behaviours then we cannot counsel others successfully because our undefined limits might not be accepted by them. As far as newbie encouragement while a worthy goal, and please don't ask me how I was welcomed in Wikipedia, we have to realise that we cannot expect anyone, and that includes administrators, to behave like Miss Manners especially if newbies engage in questionable editing practices. If we insist on such model behaviour, based on undefined criteria, we are going to create a stifling atmosphere which will be counterproductive in the long run. So I still think we have to examine what Yannis did and define exactly where he erred before we approach him. Dr.K. (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was very angry and nervous during all night because of this issue. After my last comment here yesterday (and I intentionally left, because I would indeed get incivil), I had taken my decision not only to resign from administrator, but to leave the project once for ever. Whether my comment to Mervyn was excessive or not (and it may have been, although I refuse to treat self-proclaimed publishers of numerous articles as newbies, because they obviously know the difference between "References" and "Further Reading"), there were a series of things that annoyed me, and I above exposed.

I finally decided to follow Jenochman's advice (whose cool and careful approach I applaud), and avoid any further interaction with the editor in question. Any future problems will be reported to an uninvolved third party. All this of course theoritically, because in praxis I do not intend to further edit the "Law" article. I do not get any joy out of it any more. And I am afraid I do not get any joy out of editing Wikipedia in general, at least for the time being. No reason to make things that do not offer us pleasure. If I ever feel differently, I'll come back.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll decide to stay. You are a valued contributor of good and important content who has markedly enriched the encyclopedia. Nobody's arguing otherwise. But I stand by my original statement; admins, like cops, absolutely must have a calm and businesslike attitude in their dealings with us lesser folks so that they don't blow a gasket one day and pistol-whip the teenager they catch scribbling dirty words on the wall. The difference is that a Wiki admin has the right, the luxury, and indeed (I would argue) the duty to withdraw from a situation that causes you to begin to lose your cool. Admins are people too. I know you are stressed, but why not call it a short, indeterminate Wiki-break instead of a semi-retirement? As Elonka aptly stated, "generally as soon as one is putting exclamation points into edit summaries, it may be time to take a break". Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 08:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it pathetic that a renowned wikipedian such as Yannismarou, who has contributed to human knowledge for more than two years and, moreover, is an administrator, has been more or less forced to retire from the WP because of some people’s inconsiderate comments. Some of his accusers were not even aware of the fact that he is an administrator. One of these people also happens to be an administrator and was talking about administrators setting a good example. My question is: what happens when one administrator accuses a fellow administrator of uncivility? Is that a specimen of good practice among administrators? I, as a mere editor, would like to express my deep concern about this incident. And I hope that this comment will not be considered as wikilawyering as this is not my intention. Hoping that WP will find an editor and an administrator as or even more competent than Yannismarou, I am putting a full stop to my thoughts… Pel thal (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thread is a perfect example of how the civility police tends to escalate things and just causes more bad blood rather than helping. Sure, Yannis blew a fuse, shouldn't have, yada yada, but if a third party really wanted to intervene about that in a helpful way, they could have just left him a friendly message: "hey, was that really necessary? that newcomer looks like he deserves a calmer tone..." or whatever; instead people kept beating him with sticks (ANI threads, blocking threats and whatnot.) This is just so depressingly dumb. If you know the guy is angry, just leave him alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach of "leaving angry editors alone". If they are abusing other editors, especially new editors (see WP:BITE), they need to be told to stop, to chill out and take a break. Yes, Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but that doesn't give anyone the right to go on a mastodon rampage. When just hitting "refresh" on the watchlist sends someone's blood pressure up, it's time to turn off the computer and go do something else for awhile. --Elonka 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So why wasn't "incivility" taken to WQA first instead, where there's less drama, and more attempts (at least by me) to say "now what did both sides really do here, and where do we go from here?" BMW(drive) 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And the result of this dispute is: 1) a renowned editor and administrator, who has promoted many articles to FA, has contributed to numerous articles etc is retiring, 2) a newcomer, who obviously does not have the common sense to understand the difference between "Further reading" and "References", is encouraged to do as he likes. Nice thinking! PS. I hope I'll not be banned for being sarcastic... Pel thal (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. User:Mervyn Emrys's main contribution to WP has so far been to coal mining,[29] where he copied and pasted the content of Pages 1-7 of

Hamilton, Michael S. (2006), Mining Environmental Policy: Comparing Indonesia and the US, Ashgate Publishing, ISBN 0754644936

directly into the article. (Michael S. Hamilton is professor of political science at the University of Southern Maine.) Is there a problem here? Mathsci (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Mervyn Emrys has a conflict of interest. We clearly have a copyright problem here. In the situation it seems conceivable that the author of the book might contact OTRS and formally release the copyright of the passage in question. Obviously this is only possible if the author of the book (rather than the publisher) actually still owns the copyrights of the published book. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Mervyn asserts in the edit summary [30] that the info came from a US Government source. Such material is public domain. Perhaps he and the author both got the same material from the same place. This should be checked before jumping to conclusions. We are off on multiple tangents here. I suggest we move discussions to each of the users' pages or the appropriate specialist noticeboard. I don't think any administrative actions are needed at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary is probably inaccurate, but the intent is clearly to add very useful scholarly information to the encyclopedia. The material is from the introduction (Chapter I) of the book by MS Hamilton; the book is cited at the bottom of the diff you provided. It is original writing and not marked as material that has appeared elsewhere in the book; nor is it indicated that it is in the public domain. [31] Wikipedians can draw ther own conclusions as to why Mervyn Emrys, "a professor of political science at a large public university", should be familiar with the writings of MS Hamilton, a professor of political science at the University of Southern Maine, a large public university. I am not suggesting any kind of conspiracy theory; I am just suggesting that an administrator, experienced in copyright, could give Mervyn Emrys some helpful guidance, possibly by private email, on ways of putting this material properly on wikipedia. Copying and pasting 7 pages is not the normal way of writing wikipedia articles, regardless of the source. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I had an interesting thought reading the above: substitute the name Yannismarou with Giano and how would people have responded to the situation? With patronizing calls to stop editing Wikipedia and abrupt warnings on his talk page? Ya, he needed to cool—a civility pile-on wasn't the way to do it. And all because of "damn" in an edit summary? Well, fuck. I hope the Featured article review doesn't lose one of its best editors over something so trivial. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just the one comment, but that at the time of the ANI thread there seemed to be an escalating pattern of behavior. Starting with the "your damn book" comment to a new editor,[32] and then other uncivil comments in edit summaries at the article, over what appeared to be extremely minor issues (a reference and a link).[33][34] When someone starts using exclamation points in edit summaries, it's probably time to take a break. His next comment into the ANI thread was again fairly excitable,[35] and his next reactions were to go and "resign" from the FA review,[36] and argue with User:Toddst1.[37] In short, Yannismarou seems to have been melting down in a high profile way, and it's not because of this ANI thread or anything that Mervyn did... This appears to have been building for awhile. I'm sorry to hear that Yannismarou has decided to retire, as I feel that that's an over-reaction as well (see meatball:GoodBye). I hope that once he cools off, he'll return, and will be able to come back to Wikipedia fresh and find something else to work on which he finds enjoyable. He's been a good editor in the past, he just seems to be going through a rough patch at the moment. --Elonka 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Resolved

Against Barack Obama here by 74.167.102.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It's a static IP. I've blocked the user. Can someone else follow up with law enforcement please? I have a RL commitment that I need to attend to or would do it myself. https://tips.fbi.gov/ would be where would start - I've had quick response on issues like this in the past from that site - they've called back within minutes. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I second this request - we should not take these kinds of threats lightly. Tvoz/talk 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've contacted them via the link Todd has provided with the url of the diff. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did the same thing now that I'm back. Thanks Eric. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service just called. Couldn't access the diff. It's kind of scary to think that the people guarding our leader can't pull up a web page. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← Did we provide the IP address and any other information that a checkuser can find? Tvoz/talk 06:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IP address and time is all they need. Yes, they have that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that this is the type of publicity wikipedia doesn't need. However, if someone actually gets nailed for this, such publicity might (I only say might) discourage future threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at Khan Noonien Singh

User:David_Fuchs has apparently taken ownership of the article in violation of WP:OWN. He and User:Juliancolton claim there is consensus to ignore validly sourced references from Star Trek: Enterprise, but the article talk page shows no discussion, much less consensus. Mr. Fuchs so far has taken an apparent attitude to the effect of "I'm an admin, you can't stop me, and you're a troll for opposing me." Please, objective admins look at this and prevent this abuse. Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Where shall we begin. The Star Trek: Enterprise addition is in my opinion not worth going into detail as it barely references the subject of the article; the content would be much better served in the referenced episode. Davidkevin has edit-warred to reinstate his revision, violating WP:3RR.[38] My past experiences with this user haven't been so great, with him continually adding unverifiable information to an article against WP:NOR and WP:RS, and then calling a level-headed editor who did a better job than me of explaining the issue my "crony". [39] I'd be happy to take up the editorial issue on the article's talk page, and see no reason this should be here. That is all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A.) I'm not edit-warring, as having hit the limit of changes (there's only one of me compared to the two of you to over-ride any article changes I make) I'm bringing it here as a first step in informal arbitration.

B.) Your pal called me a psychopath in his first sentence, so that's hardly "level-headed" on his part.

C.) If you actually had taken it up on the article talk page, as you have falsely claimed you have, and actually reached consensus, as you falsely claimed you had, and didn't challenge every difference of opinion with an attack and a chip-on-your-shoulder dare to oppose the Mighty You, I'd have no basis for a complaint for abuse of authority. Yet here we are.

I await an actual discussion of the issue either here or on the article's talk page. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started that discussion at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh. If everyone can agree to stop the edit war, this can be settled without bothering other admins further. Davidkevin hasn't violated 3RR yet, and David Fuchs is correct that the discussion of this belongs on the article's talk page, not AN/I. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the edit war itself, but not to put too fine a point on it, as for (A)? Wrong. Edit warring is any kind of back-and-forth editing where multiple parties attempt to get their own version of a page in place. All edit warring is lame, although in some cases even the reason for edit warring is lame. Edit warring is also disruptive editing, which can on occasion lead to a block, even if you have not passed the three revert rule, which is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Then the policy is weasel worded. Either "three" means "three", in which case admins are not allowed to play mind reader and decide they know what your intent is through special mental powers, or it doesn't mean "three" and any admin who doesn't like you for any reason from racism based on your name to how well you spell can block you for making any change to any article just by hanging the label "disruptive" on you.

If "three" doesn't really mean "three", then the rule needs another name instead of a false, Orwellian name. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Something ain't right here.

Special:Contributions/Marshall_Williams2

1. 15:56, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Sexual vanilla ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
2. 15:55, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Girly1024 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
3. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussy wetter ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
4. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker5 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 15:53, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussyboy ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
6. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
7. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly)

I welcomed all of these users. That's all. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a kid, uploading blurry pictures of stuff around his house, making rather useless contributions to articles, spamming user talk pages, and using welcome templates on series of sexually themed usernames who last edited months ago. If we AGF, this is where an experienced user should channel this persons energy into being useful. If we don't AGF, this is a waste of a lot of peoples time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm more concern about this incomplete prod of his. His work in mainspace is not that helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On another, unrelated note, shouldn't four and possibly five of those users be blocked for violating the username policy? None of them are, as far as I can see...Gladys J Cortez 07:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Crap. Nevermind. I has the dumb. (Aaaand--forgot to sign. I am going to sleep now before I make a further ass of myself in public.) Gladys J Cortez 07:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah, another overzealous kid. It's clear from his edits that he's in middle school, and while this gave me a bit of a chuckle (It's really not.), and he does make some decent edits, he should be told that WP isn't primarily for socializing. IFD all his images, and maybe take away access to automated tools so that it's not easy for him to try to delete Barack Obama and Stain. GlassCobra 07:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If this person continues to disrupt the community then they should be blocked. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And we need more pictures of dishwasher baskets on this site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know he was from San Jose ... he has a picture of the HP Pavillion on his userpage ... BMW(drive) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like telegraphing your whereabouts. Presumably he'll have the good sense not to list his parents' address and phone number on his user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since I already know what their truck and dishwasher basket look like...--Smashville^talk 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There can't be all that many red Ford trucks in San Jose, right? At least the photo did not include (1) the license plate and (2) the photographer's reflection. I could go there myself to investigate, but I don't know the way to San Jose. I may go wrong and lose my way. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the way to use ebay, though...does that count? --Smashville^talk 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wonder if I could get a red Ford pickup on eBay? I could make it a bundle of contradictions, with a gunrack in the back and a rebel flag license plate in front, and peace symbols and rainbow stickers everywhere. The perfect vehicle for any "California Redneck". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or the average Eagles fan. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Note: I hope the humour in my HP Pavillion comment didn't go to far over anyone's head. It was a picture of an HP Pavillion computer, and not the HP Pavillion where the San Jose Sharks play ... :P BMW(drive) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here's your red pickup on eBay[40] BMW(drive) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Thanks fer the tip! Now all I gotta do is see if they'll take a personal check. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your check has to be delivered in a dishwasher basket. --Smashville^talk 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Money laundering? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that why the last CEO of HP was canned? BMW(drive) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha! The plot thickens. Or something's thickening. Maybe it's the dishwasher detergent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying on topic, I notified him about this. Perhaps someone would be willing to adopt him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I welcomed all of these users. That's all. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA vandalism

Some extra eyes on the current TFA: USS New Jersey (BB-62) would be appreciated. The Coordinators of the MILHIST project have received information that the article is currently under an coordinated attack from 4chan. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected for an hour 17 minutes ago by John Reaves. Hopefully that will give them enough time to grow a brain. 211.30.16.21 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be optimistic. This is 4chan we're talking about, remember? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are they all being reverted to one revision? If so, delete that revision and all revisions using it after the time on the MP is up - Experience has taught me that doing so takes some wind out of a 4chan attack's sails. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. We can always re-protect it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lose interest then.Geni 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho dictatorial editing

• Two editors Jalal & Jayen466 are resisting the inclusion of material in the lede section of the Osho article.
• Discussion had led to a condition of lede stability that lasted a number of weeks. User Jayen466 then made this change [41].
• Semitransgenic reverted to this [42] and requested, via the edit comment, that any such changes be discussed on the talk page first.
• This led to the following revert [43] by Jalal and the following comment [44].
• Jalal claims that concensus for his reversion was arrived at and is citing the following as support [45] [46] [47]
• Semitransgenic again reverted to this [48]
• Jayen466 reverted to [49] and left the following statment saying I prefer the shorter version
• The users are forcing a WP:3RR stand off to desuade change, and have not reached concensus.
• An informal review relating to GA approval by Vassayana, on the 14th of August 2008, mentions that the lede is a bit too long and this is being cited as justification for excising from the lede material that is viewed as negative by both Jalal & Jayen466; despite the fact that efforts were made to address a wider range of sources and establish evidence of differing opinion: [50] [51].

This is simply one incident of many relating to a pattern of WP:TE by Jalal & Jayen466, but that's another issue, generally an attempt to hammer out a compromise takes place, but the users in question display WP:OWN particularly user Jayen466; making the inclusion of material that threatens the Osho follower endorsed official version difficult. Please note that Lewis F. Carter's, Cambridge University Press publication (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram, widely regarded as the most authoritative survey of the Osho Rajneesh movement, points out that Rajneesh representatives are consummate "histroical revisionists" and now deny that many of the events recorded here [his work] ever happened. Both factual events and interpretations of these are still disputed, even where evidence is overwhelming (p 118).Semitransgenic (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute. I had forgotten about that guy. Oregon has a reputation for being tolerant of all types of loonies, but this guy's crowd pushed the state's tolerance level pretty far. Have you tried talking to the other editors directly, about the most recent disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found that talking to the two in question is often futile, when there is a difference of opinion about content, and it's a 2:1 scenario, hence this post. The lengths that need to be taken to make the smallest contributions are tiring, see the source reviews I provided as an example. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• First, from the header of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution." This is a content dispute; Vassyana (talk · contribs) pointed out in his informal review that the lede needed "some trimming"; the previous GA review likewise commented on the lede being a bit long.

• Now, given that the last sentence of the second lede paragraph clearly states that there were problems with the government and the surrounding society, the addition to the 3rd para advocated by Semitransgenic (and no one else) does not add value and only makes the lede even longer than it already was.

• As for "dictatorial attitude": this accusation is part of a periodically recurring pattern of WP:NPA, WP:Civility and WP:AGF infractions by Semitransgenic (talk · contribs): [52] [53] [54] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#No_personal_attacks User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#How_about_some_mediation_and_general_cooling-off.3F Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive483#Editing_dispute_on_the_Noise_music_page [55] [56] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#RFC.

• I am sorry, Semi, but at the moment it just seems like every time you do not get your way, even over the slightest thing, it becomes a huge personal issue. This is not what Wikipedia is about. You have contributed much to the article, but so have I and others. Jayen466 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not a personal issue at all Jayen, simply a matter of dealing with the facts, some of which you are not comfortable with. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen if you really need to air my dirty laundry please keep the comments in context, cheers full comment Semitransgenic (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues have been hashed out in great detail on other parts of Wikipedia, so I won't repeat them here, except to mention that there is also a lot similar to-and-fro'ing from January 2008. For anyone with the time to search through the histories it is there. I will however add my opinion that I find Semitransgenic dictatorial and bullying and difficult to work with. It is up to him as to whether he wants to look at that. It is not only editors on the Osho article that have had this experience, so it is not just the subject matter that is controversial and disturbing to him.

As the Osho article stands, it is to all intents frozen as edits cannot be made without some sort of approval from Semitransgenic. This is the same situation as arose in January. The article had to be locked and administrators called in.

On the plus side, Semitransgenic has provided a lot of useful input and a certain balance to the article. His input is usually good, it's his attitude that is a little difficult. jalal (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote jalal on this: "As you are aware, that is a sword that cuts both ways." Semitransgenic (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which this board does not deal with. Please pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:3O or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If editors need a break to be able to sort out a DR process, we could protect the article for say 7 days to afford them some space and time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Jayen466 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mmmovie - userpage issues

User:Mmmovie, who has previously self-identified as Mark Bellinghaus, has added a userbox to his user page which is a misguided attempt to out me. I am not the person named. This is a slightly edited version of a userbox I have on my user page because of an off-wiki campaign by Bellinghaus to connect my account with a variety of unrelated persons following my nomination of his biography for deletion. Bellinghaus also refers to another of his off-wiki targets as a "crook". I would contact the user directly, but I believe that would only escalate things. Can someone please take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

True or not, attempting to out another user is beyond unacceptable. Indefblocked. Blueboy96 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Outing userbox ... is oversight required? BMW(drive) 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard-deleting all alleged personal references, true or not, would also seem to be called for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think oversighting is necessary (since the allegation has already been made in several places off-wiki), but I'm not the person identified by Bellinghaus, so I'm not sure it's my call. Thanks for the quick action on this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The name cited has a familiar ring to it, but I can't place it. I wonder if it's the real name of another user here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the off-wiki accusations, that person did create an account here in order to contact me. I don't believe they are currently active, and the username is very different. You may have seen the name on my user page, where I have a userbox stating that I am not them so that they are not held responsible for my actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like oversighting occurred. BMW(drive) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mmmovie has left a statement on their talk page, including, among other things, the same mistaken outing and the suggestion that the blocking admin is part of a conspiracy to support "a mean and sick fraud project which is out and created solely to defraud the paying public with some foolish fabrications". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with by Blueboy96. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kermanshahi / -The Bold Guy- / Last king of Frisia

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi and -

• Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• -The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently blocked Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs) for vandalism and he responded with an odd comment. Not sure what should be done about these or if someone else is more familiar with this. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange, never saw that before! Bearian (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He is now canvassing an article for GA nominations, for example [57][58][59] — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamang

The issue posted the other day about Tamang still stands - Archived without resolution in 483. User did change IPs. No apparent action was taken - We're now up to 6 reverts of the most blatant copyvio I've ever seen turn into a consistent issue. Can I please get someone to do something to prevent recurrence? Would semi-protection be out of the question? Would a block be effective? Not sure which to ask for, but some action must be taken. We should treat copyvios as something worse than vandalism if we want to maintain the appearance of good-faith in the face of legal threats. MrZaius^talk 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block will work as the IP keeps rotating. Given the increasing desire to post the copyright, I'll try a week-long semi and let's see if they stop. If more people could watch the article, that would help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by RonCram

RonCram (talk · contribs) has repeated several legal threats against Wikimedia and against the editors involved. The issue arose over his attempt to use Worldnetdaily as source for fringe claims in a WP:BLP. In response to consensus that Worldnetdaily could not be considered a reliable source for these claims he said "If the official position of Wikipedia is that WorldNetDaily is not RS, I will notify Joe Farah immediately. I don't know for certain but it would not surprise me if he chose to pursue legal action." [60] Following that statement, he was warned [61] about making legal threats. However he continued and escalated these threats: [62] [63] [64] [65] And this very specific threat: [66]

He seems to think that because he's not saying he will sue, rather he'll inform the owners of that website who will then sue, that he is off the hook for legal threats. My understanding is that this is not true. I know, of course, that his legal threats are ridiculous, but the worry is that it will have a chilling effect on other, less experienced, editors who are questioning his edits. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need to have a "bring it on" attitude and ignore such threats? If some Admins here declare that whatever Ron plans to do in his life outside of wikipedia is irrelevant and then post a link on the talk page to this decision then it seems to me that the matter would be settled. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Strikes me that his statements rather blatantly violate WP:NLT/WP:NPLT, if not in the wording of the policy, than certainly in the spirit thereof- NLT exists (at least in part) to prevent the very chilling effects that Loonymonkey speaks of from occurring, and threats to instigate another party to taking legal action shouldn't be treated any differently than direct legal threats. And in response to Count Iblis, we shouldn't overlook legal threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(font reduced to clarify RomCram isn't new) I'm against blocking relatively new accounts that don't know any better for making legal threats, but I'm in favor of blocking accounts of editors who have been here long enough to know better and who are repeatedly using legal threats as a bludgeon to get their way. Now, RonCram's legal threat is particularly silly, and I don't think any of the people he's arguing with are dumb enough to feel threatened, so I won't block him myself for the threats already made and listed above (although I won't raise a hand in his defense if someone else blocks him), but I will block him the next time he does something similar. On my way to his talk page now to say so, assuming someone else hasn't already blocked... --barneca (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec again)Actually, ignore my mention of WP:DOLT, I misquoted it here. My meaning was that we shouldn't just ignore the situation as it's primarily off-wiki. Ron can go ahead and inform whomever he pleases of whatever he pleases, but using the threat of causing a disruption of Wikipedia in order to gain the advantage in a dispute isn't really a "best practice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that he made these threats after he was template-warned about legal threats, so he can't really plead ignorance. Also, RonCram has been around since 2005 and has made thousands of edits, so it isn't really accurate to call it a "relatively new account." This is an experienced editor. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also posted on RonCram's talk page. Essentially I agree with barneca; no amount of wikilawyering is going to justify a continuation of this behaviour. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I may have been unclear. I don't think he's new, I was saying I think we block new accounts making legal threats too quickly, but he's not new, so even if this is skirting the letter of NLT, I'd be fine blocking him if he does it again, because he's not new and he knows better. Both SheffieldSteel and I have left notes on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a case where it's more important to pay attention to the intent of the policy rather than the letter of the policy.

All that aside though; I have a question of the ref being discussed. Where did that discussion take place? Was the concensus in regard to that specific article, or in regard to it being used as a source on all of Wikipedia? The reason I ask, is that it appears that the site is currently used as a ref or well over 1,000 articles ... so if concensus is that it should not be used as a WP:RS on all of Wikipedia, then we have a lot of cleanup to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That link is grabbing instances of that link on all namespaces, not just article namespace. While there are some cases where it's being used (Christian Exodus for example), a lot of those are in the Talk namespace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I did a quick scan, out of the first 100, only about 45 or so are in the article namespace. Using that as a means to estimate and rounding down, that still leaves over 400 articles that need to be evaluated and possibly cleaned up if the site should not be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good estimate; 507 links on 413 articles from the first 1000 entries on the ListSearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a sufficient metric, though. WorldNetDaily would be citable at articles about its own notable staff writers, such as Matt Sanchez, and might be acceptable as an external link on pages where it isn't used as a citation. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of citations that need to be taken down. I've been going through popular song articles taking out attempted citations to Angelfire, Blogspot, Tripod, etc. - low traffic stubs have a tendency to accumulate that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Three of them are links to a Pat Buchanan anti-gay screed, used as primary sources to describe lay Catholics' attitude regarding gay people. Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which statement we're talking about here - the editor has proposed so many, which as I recall tend to be fringe-y blogosphere style conspiracy theories and random criticisms. We also have many issues beyond legal threats. I know the editor was promoting a theory in two articles that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, and crying censorship, bullying, etc. at all attempts to close or consolidate the discussions. If Worldnet's articles are suspect it might not be a bad idea to do a spot check on the reliability of citations. It would be hard to make a statement that applies throughout Wikipedia based on the Obama article. Verifiability of hyper-notable political matters probably works a little differently than routine article editing. We often ask for more than one source, or a consensus among sources, on the theory that a lone source however reliable might have it wrong and may not satisfy weight concerns. If a guest writer writes a blurb about a furniture factory in a small town weekly newspaper in Ohio that is a reliable source, but we need better sourcing than the writer if the claim is that there is some truth after all to the rumor that Obama has a terrorist for a ghostwriter (or that he's Muslim, Arab, not born in America, the Messiah according to Farrakhan, participates in voter fraud, or any of the other comparable proposals that have come up in the past dayd). Certain publishers and authors may tend to be more reliable than others, but in the end sourcing is a case-by-case question of whether the specific work in question is reliable to verify the specific statement it purportedly supports in a given article. But in general blogs, highly partisan news organizations, small circulation papers, and opinion/editorial/commentary pieces (whether presented as such or as news) are poor sources for controversial factual claims about politicians in current elections. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a standard application of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel I should respond to this comment by Wikidemon. The work done by Cashill has been published in WorldNetDaily and National Review Online. Columnists in daily newspapers have picked up on this controversy and opined about it. I do not see how something that is discussed in RS such as these could be called fringe. This discussion here is really not about me. It is people who want to stifle the opinion's of others (professional journalists and columnists) during an election. RonCram (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about your editing on the Barack Obama-related pages. It was initially over your insisting that any discussion over the trustworthiness of World News Daily and Jack Cashill's opinion piece there would subject Wikipedia to legal liability. You have been told not to do that and I hope you got the message. From the perspective of editors of the Obama article, there is a problem with your pushing fringe theories such as the bizarre, poorly sourced accusation that Barack Obama's autobiography was in fact authored by Bill Ayers. You can argue all you want that your source is reliable, the theories are not fringe, that it's all true, and that other editors have no right to limit the discussion but that does not change the community's decision on the matter. Moreover, your hostile attitude towards the many long-term editors here who try to manage the talk page - re-opening closed discussions, crying censorship, accusing editors of agendas and bias - is unwelcome. If you persist you will be asked not to further edit the page. If you come back to the page, please do not agitate further for theories the community has dismissed as poorly sourced and fringe, and do not complain there about other editors and their way of handling discussions. This is very disruptive and it shuts down the normal functioning of the talk page to handle proposed improvements to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I was not arguing that "it was all true." I am arguing that WorldNetDaily, National Review Online and Cleveland Leader are RS, making the controversy mainstream. I am arguing that the controversy is relevant to the article and interesting to Wikipedia readers. RonCram (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a side issue perhaps, but if you view it that way nearly every disputable claim about a major political candidate is extraordinary in that sense. Did politician X do Y? Any answer either way would need a multitude of sources if challenged, or else it may be fringe, of no weight, or simply inaccurate. Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted for blocking for mis-stating the law, thus illegally practicing law. Corporations can not be defamed under NY law, common law, or Florida law. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All other points aside, I'm fairly sure "mis-stating the law" when one is making no claims to be a lawyer is not "illegally practicing law". Achromatic (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of the no legal threats policy isn't really about legal threats - it's about the use of coercive tactics to intimidate other contributors - basing an argument on instilling fear, rather than on its own merits. This is the essence of Roncram's actions. However, I don't believe it necessarily requires a block, as it's clear that nobody involved is actually frightened by the action - I think a stern reprimand would be fine. Dcoetzee 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron has a looooooong history of dodgy BLP stuff. It's been a while but I clearly recall his repeated statements that Michael Mann, a prominent client scientist, was unethical. (For the tip of the iceberg see e.g., Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_10 at the "User William M. Connolley (2)" entry). So this isn't a one-off episode but a firmly established pattern. I fear that if something is not done about Ron's behavior Wikipedia could eventually wind up with a real legal threat on its hands. Perhaps a BLP parole along the lines of the Privatemusings arbcom case would be in order. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you for inviting me to this fine site. I had a busy day at work and just turned off the presidential debate to find this interesting discussion. I especially enjoyed seeing this currently used as a ref. If you take this at face value you can see that the Wikipedia community believes WorldNetDaily is RS. But certain politically motivated editors have made claims that it is not. This is extremely problematic and purging Wikipedia of all WorldNetDaily citations would only make things worse. Regarding my comments about Michael Mann, they were based on this English translation article [67] from the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. Anyone who reads that article and understands it will see my comments about Mann were not out of line. RonCram (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats disrupt Wikipedia. We block to prevent other types of disruption, why don't we block to prevent this user from continuing to disrupt with his (fairly obvious) legal threats. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is to prevent disruption, not for punishment or sense of completion. Everyone deserves a chance to edit constructively. The legal threat is stale at this point, and the editor has been warned. If he avoids the subject or contributes in a collegial, civil, productive way he is welcome to edit as he wishes. But I do suggest that if he causes more disruption on the Obama pages by tendentiously proposing fringe theories, interfering with discussion process, or making legal threats anywhere on the project, someone needs to take stronger action. Wikidemon (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp, disruptive editor

Andycjp is a disruptive editor who refuses to abide by policies, guidelines and the intentions thereof. To criticism and advice s/he responds flippantly, aggressively ("Who do you think you are to be my judge and jury?", response to Ward2001 on 7 June 2008 ) or somewhat apologetically, while most of the negative behavior continues. The editor is extremely active, but very seldom on Talk pages.

The one behavior problem which apparently was solved in about February this year was the habit of marking virtually all edits as minor, though it was complained about again in June: diff and diff . I think that the "sarcastic edit summaries" complained about also have stopped. Perhaps actual "edit warring", too, after this: blocked - 24h - edit warring. Some edits are definitely justifiable and valuable.

One type of complaint I have not studied, as I don’t see it as the major issue here. (Others may chime in.) This involves pov religious edits and marking anything about evolution as npov, such as this diff in June. This recent edit may also be an example.

There are several types of disruptive editing here. Comments at Andycjp’s talk page show that the same types of problems have come up again and again throughout 2008:

• From January on (and on and on): creating wikilinks which "did not add content or meaning" and/or bluelinking just a part of a previous redlink, making the link totally meaningless. This continues. See, for example, the very recent edit to Barbara Mujica where the redlink Trailblazers Award was changed to Trailblazers Award, a totally uninteresting blue link in the context, see diff. Another recent (yesterday) example is here.

The editor has repeatedly been warned, with careful explanations, about the wikilinking "errors", for example here. In July, an admin warned: "Andy, some of your recent additions and removals of links seem to me to be perverse." Another typical example from July is in this edit (changing St Peter's Hospital, Bristol to St Peter's Hospital, Bristol; a link to the saint himself is just not applicable in this article).

• Another disruptive and damaging type of edit is removing the tag from statements of fact which still need a source/reference. This is typically done by removing a few non-essential words from a sentence, removing the tag at the same time. See: diff and diff from today. I have explained the problem with exactly these two edits on Andycjp’s today Talk page here (and promptly received a flippant reply).

This editor’s unwillingness to follow Wikipedia’s policy has been briefly discussed here at incident noticeboard before, and that conversation continued on a talk page, where Andycjp actually change the title of the section from Andycjp ignoring policy (cont’d) to just Andycjp, here.

It may be unwise to speculate about this editor’s motives, but s/he has offered one explanation/justification: here: "My theory with red links is that although they have the potential to create new articles, in practise they are often left uncared for, looking messy. [...] ... I can`t help feeling that a good blue link leading somewhere is on the whole better than a red link leading nowhere unless the red is of vital importance. I mean, wikipedia is enormous already, when are we going to stop? I guess it goes back to how finished WP ought to look."

In my opinion it is essential for the good of the encyclopedia that this editor be stopped, whether by mentoring, banning or whatever works. Repeated explanations have been tried and do not work.

I will inform several earlier involved editors as well as Andycjp about this report.

Hordaland (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his continued ignorance of WP:RED, whether deliberate or unintentional, is disturbing. He's had it explained to him as early as 11 July, but has continued the behavior until even yesterday today. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I don't know the ins and outs. My report stands. I'd been told to put it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism [68], but put it here by mistake. Now at AdminIntervention, they tell me it should have been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I am not going to put it a third place, so I'll remove the strike-out and leave it here. Sorry about the confusion. Hope in any case that the problem gets solved, as the unconstructive edits continue at a terrific pace. --Hordaland (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of the first scene of Ikiru. You're in the right place (I'm reasonably sure). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

There is a vigorous content dispute happening at Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure what the appropriate response is though, but perhaps another admin would like to do something? —EncMstr (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried already, without much success. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Those two again? (See WP:WQA) This may need an admin to press the "bang their heads together" button. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Button pressed x 2. The article history is a major train wreck and, hopefully, a little time off will get those two to quit. —Travis^talk 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the {{unblock}} requests fly, with one of them up to a 4th request now. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More Stephen Colbert

So it looks like Colbert is encouraging editing of the Bill O'Reilly "Papa Bear" article; he said he added that the host was a nobel prise winner, among other things. Can we have a unit go check on this please? JBackus13 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Was taken care of when it first aired last night. Grsz^X 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh i dont know cuz I just saw it again this morning at 10am. JBackus13 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's currently semi-protected which seems to have stopped all the Colbert-related vandalism for now. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Block requested for 72 hours for incivility and sneaky, hard to detect vandalism

Resolved

 – Editor has been informed that continuing to disrupt ANI and other editors with this silliness will result in a block. --barneca (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This person is inserting wrong information and hides it with hundreds of minor grammatical corrections. Request a 72 hour block to prevent damage to Wikipedia. During this time, we can search to find errors. I'm also asking that the editor stop editing for 3-4 days while damage control teams can be formed to investigate.

I've already spent an hour to find one error. It was where this editor said that Steve Fossett was a board member at Washington University long before he was 24 years old. This is misinformation.

Diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Fossett&diff=191756992&oldid=191756650

Discussion of why this is in error:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASteve_Fossett&diff=245505828&oldid=245080315

Offending user:

User:Hydrargyrum

Thank you. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You want someone blocked for 72 hours for an edit made in February? AniMate 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The worst scenario is that this is the worst kind of vandalism, something that destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. Blanking a page is easy to detect vandalism. It took MONTHS to discover this.

I have asked the editor to voluntarily stop editing for 3-4 days so we can assess his work. If not, temporary blocking to protect Wikipedia should be done. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The offending user has denied making such edit and is being nasty to me on my talk page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFossett%26Elvis&diff=245515324&oldid=245514118 )

At first, I thought the user may have made an honest mistake. If so, he would have said "Sorry, made an error". Instead, he is nasty to me and denies the black and white evidence that he has made the edit (see diff). Therefore, I now recommend blocking him for 72 hours for borderline incivility and for denying that he made the edit. Even his signature is sneaking (says Quicksilver but his user name is Hydrargyrum)

Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't sneaky to a chemist. See Mercury (element). —EncMstr (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit was made in February and the user changed "has been" to "was" on the article of a dead man. Not vandalism, not sneaky vandalism, it's correct. You don't speak of the dead in the present tense. They are not being "nasty" to you - they told you to go away and stop bothering them because you told them to leave Wikipedia for 3-4 days and are calling for a block on them for an edit they made in February. An edit that there is absolutely zero problem with. Again, dead people are referred to in past tense. --Smashville^talk 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User Fossett&Elvis is mistaken. He/She needs to check their facts and the editing history of Steve Fossett closer. He/She is accusing me of making edits that I never made. A closer inspection of the edit history for Steve Fossett will bear this out. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is no vandalism here. The day Fossett was declared legally dead, Hydrargyrum went through and changed a lot of verbs to past tense. In so doing, he changed "Fossett has been a member of the board" to "Fossett was a member", which due to sentence structure changed the entire meaning of the sentence. A mistake, yes. Intentional vandalism of the article? Sorry, I don't see it like that. I suggest some light reading. Arakunem^Talk 20:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD-Edit Conflicts a'plenty)Yeah, there doesn't seem to be anything to see here other than a very weird situation. Can we close this? Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fossett&Elvis' user page makes me concerned that he or she is considering harming themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this vandalism must not be closed. The solution is for the vandal to stop denying he made the edit. Say that he will voluntarily stop editing for a few days so we can check his work. Then no block is needed. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The user made a grammatical error eight months ago. We are not going to "check his edits". The user is clearly not vandalizing and not disrupting the project. --Smashville^talk 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A mistake it is not. The user denies making the edit. He did make it. That unrepentant attitude and incivility to me shows that he is no good. I think he was changing to past tense and got a funny idea to vandalize. If he was doing it in good faith, he would quickly admit it and say he is sorry. A vandal would deny he did it and change his user name/signature like this person. Do not shoot the messenger (me). I am reporting a real error and gave him a chance to fix it. Instead, he is denying it and fighting. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused him of adding misinformation in an edit, and he states that "he made no such edit" - in that he did not add misinformation. You have failed to assume good faith about his original edit, and are now failing to assume good faith about his response to your overzealous request for him to stop editing. Can you point to any other pieces of misinformation he has added? If not, I am pretty confident this was an honest, minor grammatical error. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3) You cannot be serious. It is not vandalism. Steve Fossett is dead and he is referred to in the past tense. This is your first warning to assume good faith. It is extremely clear in the edit summary what was done (and I still fail to see the problem...it looks like the original sentence was poorly written). --Smashville^talk 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There, I fixed the article. I don't see anything to indicate this was a malicious change. Can we all move along now? Arakunem^Talk 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were just written poorly, the user should have said "sorry, I wrote it poorly and didn't mean to introduce an error". Instead, he is hostile and denies making the edit.

Proposed solution

1. The other user promises to be civil and be nice to others. 2. The other user promises to edit carefully so as not to create wrong information. 3. The other user stops denying that he made the edit in the diff. 4. The other user voluntarily stops editing for 1-2 days. 5. To make the other user happy, I will stop editing for 1-2 days even though I found the wrong information, not wrote it. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that this was a mistaken edit that is the result of what was a poorly worded sentence to start. Please WP:AGF. Users should not be blocked on speculation that they "might be hiding sneaky vandalism". From my perspective, his reaction to a request to stop editing and/or to be banned is perfectly understandable, given that there is no evidence to prove malicious intent on his part. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Better idea. Please drop this matter completely. Every editor and admin that has looked at your complaint has found it groundless. Please stop, and return to working on the wiki and not trying to start an argument based on an eight-month old edit. Dayewalker (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) I think proposal #5 has some merit. AniMate 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC x4)Again, drop it. It was a grammatical error eight months ago. This is your second warning about not assuming good faith. Your persistence in having an editor banned over a clear nonmatter is becoming disruptive. --Smashville^talk 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the vandal's side. I found the wrong information. He denied and still denies doing it. A simple "sorry for the poorly worded edit, it was not intentional" would be solved it. Instead he attacks me and denies making the edit. I initially said it wasn't vandalism until he starting attacking me, which is just what a vandal would do.

The way it is now, most of you are siding with the incivility even though I gave him ample opportunity to give an excuse. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Final warning. Drop it now. You are being disruptive. This is getting ridiculous. --Smashville^talk 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If User:Fossett&Elvis had initially posted the diff cited above, instead of making this rather vague post, this could have been cleared up without any drama. It's all just a series of misunderstandings, and I think we should all carry on with our wiki-lives. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The original user changed the tense in a poorly written sentence. F&E didn't even post a diff to the users page. Just told him he vandalized it in February. Of course the user is going to deny vandalizing the page when he didn't vandalize it. Let's all move along. Continuing this is a total waste of everyone's time. --Smashville^talk 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the vandal's side. I found the wrong information. He denied and still denies doing it. A simple "sorry for the poorly worded edit, it was not intentional" would be solved it. Instead he attacks me and denies making the edit. I initially said it wasn't vandalism until he starting attacking me, which is just what a vandal would do.

The way it is now, most of you are siding with the incivility even though I gave him ample opportunity to give an excuse.

Again, the user should just admit doing it and say that it was not intentional. That would be the end and a resolved situation. Threatening me and letting him continue to deny making the edit is administrative abuse. Read this comment again. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait until the "damage control teams" are formed to fix the grammatical error in that one sentence. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I can see the user is very intelligently ignoring you. You are taking up a huge problem with an extremely minor change from months ago, and nobody seems to agree with you that it was in any way malicious or worthy of further action. Please drop it. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the user was hostile to me but you are taking his side. He continues to deny making the edit. He hasn't even said it was an error. Just you making an excuse for him.

I'm going to be a bit crude here since apparently nothing else will work.

Sit down and shut up. Your complaint has been ruled groundless, so stop trying to cause trouble. Jtrainor (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed vote

Support or oppose 1. The user denied making the edit but did make it. 2. Attempts to attack the user who discovered is wrong. 3. Let's continue with life. 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. support Fossett&Elvis (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now this is incredibly disruptive. You could have just dropped it instead of doing this whole proposal nonsense...especially considering the text you added directly before it. --Smashville^talk 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support block, a good trouting, and a shortlist of reading for User:Fossett&Elvis. Suggested links: How not to respond to vandalism, No personal attacks policy, Assume good faith policy, disruptive editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fossett&Elvis blocked/block review

I unarchived this because I have blocked F&E 72 hours for violating WP:NPA. Barneca gave him one more chance here and he violated it here. So...a little block review, please... --Smashville^talk 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely support block, F&E was warned so many times to drop it and continued to be disruptive despite a complete lack of support for his proposal. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support block. I'd dare say F&E was near trolling here with the repeated "demands". Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

yer, see above post SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support block; F&E was disruptive, was told to stop being disruptive numerous times, given a warning with a pretty big hint of finality, and chose to step across the line in the sand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support though the length is a bit extreme for a first time offense, despite it being the length of time he was requesting for a block of someone who changed "has been" to "was". AniMate 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, wouldn't a 12 to 24 hour "time out" be more appropriate here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I thought if he figured 72 hours was how long it would take someone else to stop being disruptive, then he was, in a way, telling us how long it would take him to stop being disruptive... --Smashville^talk 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Treament of User:Fossett&Elvis at ANI

User:Fossett&Elvis came to ANI with what appears to be a non-issue (see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Block requested for 72 hours for incivility and sneaky.2C hard to detect vandalism above). They are now justifiably blocked for the disruption that they caused, but I am concerned about how they were treated here. They appear to have been confused and agitated. Their user page has references to "life threatening medical conditions" and suicide.

I understand why they were blocked, but was there any need for comments like "sit down and shut up", particularly if there is reason to suspect that the user may be having difficulties (for language or other reasons) grasping what others are saying? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the information on this user's page as templates to be used in the event he came across someone with those conditions, and not as a cry for help or indication of a serious condition. Dayewalker (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reason to doubt his explaination of those statements that he made on your talk page? I agree that some here could have been more polite in their replies to him; but given his reply that those were templates that he created to be used quickly in case someone else made a suicide threat, and not issues in his own life, I'm curious if you have reason to re-evaluate those statements? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no specific reason to assume that the user has an intent to harm themselves, but it seems odd that a user barely one month old has those specific templates at the ready in case they need them. I have no way of knowing what was preventing their understanding of what everyone else was telling them, just the observation that something was. I'm simply trying to suggest that assuming good faith may in some cases mean asking if there might be something other than trolling involved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, F&E's userpage can be explained pretty easily in that he is showing those templates as things he created. As to the treatment above, I agree with you that it looks to have gotten a bit dicey. However, F&E opened with intimidation tactics; he told User:Hydrargyrum in rather plain terms to stop editing for 3-4 days while "we" form "damage control teams". That sort of language would scare the living hell out of an inexperienced editor. It implies rather bluntly that F&E is in charge of something at WP. That, with his ANI request and subsequent comments, come off rather poorly. After initial responses saying that there is no problem, F&E persisted in making accusations. At that point it looks a lot like intentional disruption. While I think some things could have been said better (passive voice ahoy), I don't think there's a big problem to correct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand why the user was blocked. I'm just wondering out loud if it could have been avoided by taking a different approach in this case. Wikipedia attracts a cross-section of society, and that includes people of with widely varying abilities and foibles. I agree, there's no big problem here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Am trying to explain matters to F&E. Hope it can be resolved without them retiring (or worse). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hm, I see your point Carbuncle. I think part of the problem is the fast pace of ANI; I'm rather new in discussing here, but I'm feeling the pressure (from edit conflicts and other editors saying the same thing) to respond quickly or to not bother. Thus, those initial responses may not have addressed F&E's points as directly as they should have. F&E may have assumed that the early responses to his complaint were dismissive and the responders didn't understand what he was trying to say. So he keeps restating it, convinced (and growing more so with each response) that he is correct. The end result is neither side will budge. F&E just took it too far. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is a textbook example of a failure to get the point. Now that F&E can’t post here, maybe he will have the time to reread the entire thread to see why things went so wrong. —Travis^talk 22:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Having read this long after it occurred, I have to say that F&E was treated properly in this situation. They received valid warnings, valid information, and valid advice. Language differences or not, they were given ample, clear information. I am sorry to see a block based on the whole situation, but I agree that hopefully they will read this and understand. BMW(drive) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to call this one closed. I wanted to at least get a second opinion on the user page, which I got. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

spamming by 70.171.215.119

This IP has been spamming links to some commercial entity into a variety of Neuroscience-related articles, as well as creating articles that are really advertisements. (contribs) The "commercial entity" is a bit nebulous—possibly a venture capital thing—but clearly a commercial entity of some sort. When I removed the spam from human brain, the IP put it back. I'm going to remove all the spam and AfD the advertisements (The Open Source Science Project and Research Microfinance), but I'll probably need an assist to keep the cruft from coming back. I have warned the IP about what I am doing. Looie496 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Microfinance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Open Source Science Project Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Me and user:Greekboy have had enough of user:Imbris's personal attacks. What was originally a dispute over a page has turned into insults, accusation, and inappropriate behavior. Imbris has accused user:Greekboy of being my sock [69] because Imbris feels like we cant be the same religion, live in america and like Eurovision. (Something that was a definate and un-needed personal attack the way he worded it) He also tells me that [70] i know nothing about Yugoslavia because I was not born there, and even adds "And Grk1011/Stephen is the master of the Universe (and this talk page also) :=)" as a concealed note after one of my responses so that the next person will read it.[71].

We are not the only ones having problems with Imbris, he gives anyone who edits an article having to do with Yugoslavia a hard time, bringing politics and irrelevant and original research into every discussion he engages in. There was a big debate about the Olympics as well, just read some of his edit summaries [72]. He always reverts everything back to the last version approved by him whether any edits since were acceptable or not [73] (reverts to bad grammar again [74]). He also adds mis-information about the Eurovision Song Contest, considering politics that have nothing to do with the contest [75] (According to contest, only one Yugoslavia in the contest).

He continues to put down the official site of the contest [76] and officially released books saying that IT people made the website and therefore it is unreliable, and the book is not written by a credible author?? We have had it with this user and he is making editing very stressful, which is why we have decided to submit a joint civility complaint. His POV edits and his childess personal attacks need to stop. I'm sure if you look at his edits, you will see that he can't do one thing without causing controversy; ignoring reliable sources for his own agenda.

Our goal is not to complain, but the personal attacks and such have made it very stressful to edit, with today's attack about being from the US the breaking point. We cannot just sit back as he goes around causing so many problems, so please help us and other editors out. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) & Greekboy (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking only a cursory look at this, User:Imbris is making some rather bold statements without any substantiation; a statement like "I belive that those three users deliberately post data based on dubious sources" isn't helpful anywhere without substantiation. Personal attacks... maybe... definitely ad hominem arguments- saying that because they are not from Yugoslavia that they are incapable of knowing as much/more about a Yugoslavian subject than native-born persons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The complaint of Greekboy and Grk1011/Stephen has nothing to do with my alleged disruptive editing but with an attempt to discredit my editing and in addition trying to shut me up.

Yes I commented about the similarity of approaches by those two editors but not accused them of sockpuppetry. I simply expressed my suspicion in that direction. This was obvious when Greekboy changed the comment of Sims2aholic8 to a support vote [77]

My sentence: "I do not know why Grk1011/Stephen who lives in USA thinks he knows better what happened in ESC 1992 than Dzole, Zvonko and me (editors who live or were born in Yugoslavia)." posted [78] do not presumes that Grk1011/Stephen do not know what happened in ESC 1992 but that it is obvious that he knows best.

The entire complaint is based on false reading my comments.

The comment made in a summary line, quoting "And Grk1011/Stephen is the master of the Universe (and this talk page also) :=)" was made because Grk1011/Stephen demanded that I do not reply on my talk page. This comment was ended by a smiley.

Also it is worthy of commenting that Grk1011 decided to quote what has happened a few months ago. Why dragging the alleged disruptive editing to the such extend if he did not react when those suspicions were made.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an official site "reliable"? is the best description of the merit of our dispute. Namely Grk1011 and his WikiProject Eurovision supporters insist (here) on a one source policy and the perfection of that single source.

I have successfully brought the Olympic editing to a compromise and if I have reverted some grammatical errors it was done because Grk1011 reverted the meaning of my previous edits. It is a completely different story when someone revert a meaningful edit (which contributes to overall correctness) and a mere grammatical or spelling error.

I will continue to defend my self from those numerous accusations by Grk1011 and Greekboy even if they themselves listed and used foul language and phrases without proper sourcing and with a hidden intent and agenda to discredit my person and not my editing.

Imbris (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about this, but this is not to "discredit your editing". I & Grk1011 have commented on the past about taking those remarks as personal attacks, and just today you re-wrote and insinuated that since Grk1011 is from the US and you and other user were born in Yugoslavia, that you know better than he does. As for your comment on vote change, as I said back then, all I did was move my comment up to where it was supposed to be, and add a vote tag in front of Sims' response, which he was obviously for. (but did not put as he did not know the procedure). He commented that he was for it after you accused too. It wasn't like I changed a no to a yes. But regardless, this is not about that. This is about your personal attacks about us being from the US and mentioning our religion, which was def. not needed. Just a couple of hours ago, Imbris posted a comment starting out with "Our Greek friend". ([79]) I way I read it, I see it as very unnecessary to mention nationality at all. Anyway, I will let Grk1011 speak for his own part too. Greekboy (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My intent is not to discredit Imbris, but his editing style is inappropriate. His idea that using the eurovision website would constitute a one source policy would be true if it wasn't the official website of the contest. It is only source that we cannot ignore. In response to misinterpreting Imbris comments, I didn't find his little note funny, it was because he has a habit of dragging conversations over several talk pages. I understand his quest to allow wikipedia to accurately reflect the situation of Yugoslavia, but that does not overwrite the history of an event. What happened at Eurovision did match up with the political situation of Yugoslavia at the time and Imbris will not accept this, insisting on writing what should have happened as if it did, all of which is original research. Our argument has been going on for well over 2 months and we cannot seem to settle the matter and now it is getting heated again. Like I said, I applaud Imbris for his intent, but it is irrelevant in terms of Eurovision and he just needs to stop. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review and contribs checking sought for 98.192.167.30

Could I ask for some more eyes on Special:Contributions/98.192.167.30? I've blocked the IP for a week for persistently making uncited and apparently false changes to various zoological articles, but I've also found at least a few edits that seem more or less factual. Even so, I'm tempted to just revert all of them, but I'd like some second opinions first. And is there anything else I can do besides waiting and reblocking if it continues? I'm not really used to handling this type of vandalism from what appears to be a random Comcast IP. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat

Infoart (talk · contribs) has made complaints and also passed on complaints from the Saatchi Gallery about the article Saatchi Gallery. See his text at Reply from InfoArt. He is complaining that the article is biased negatively against the gallery, which "would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action." Infoart says that I have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi" and that the Saatchi Gallery have asked that I should be barred "from making edits on any Saatchi related pages".

Infoart has written a considerable amount of editorial material for the Saatchi Gallery web site, and in early 2007 created around 150 articles on wiki about artists in the Saatchi collection, mainly by copying and pasting material (totally unsuitable in style and content for wiki) from the gallery site, each article having an external link to the Saatchi Gallery. See discussions on User talk:Infoart. At that point LessHeard vanU was close to blocking.[80] These articles could all have been speedy deleted as G11 advertising, but I felt they could be an asset to the project, and I organised a clean-up task force to salvage most of them, so I do not, as Infoart alleges have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi." At that time I received positive emails from the gallery and from Charles Saatchi.

More recently Infoart has made substantial edits to Saatchi Gallery removing negative (and solidly referenced) material and inserting content in a promotional tone about the new Saatchi Gallery, which has just opened.[81][82] My analysis of this is at Recent edits by User:Infoart.

The history of the gallery is one of controversy and contention, covered extensively in national and international media. Infoart's edits create a sanitised, revisionist history, leaving out major events, and present what seems to be the gallery's current PR stance.

Ty 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP that posted the legal threat, 81.159.113.122 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked (AO, ACB) by User:Orangemike. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've switched that to a 31-hour, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Ty's version, having watched the events on this & many other articles edited by Infoart, mostly from a distance. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

←The IP address is requesting an unblock, claiming that they were unfairly blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst not having unblocked, I have attempted to explain our position re independence of editing. It seems clear that although maybe not directly representing Saatchi's themselves, aligning with their position, and promulgating it, puts this IP in the (legal) situation of an authorised agent, and therefore WP:NLT applies equally. That's the situation in UK law, anyhow, until Saatchi's themselves resile from that situation. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've blocked his IP, but the offending IP edit was headed as a "Reply from InfoArt" (link above), and pretty clearly was - should you not block the username too? Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having observed and participated in the help project Ty initiated last year to revise, and keep dozens of otherwise deletable Saatchi related articles I back and endorse Ty's version of events as does Johnbod (talk · contribs) above....Modernist (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with Infoart extensively, although not as closely as Tyrenius, in the past past matter I have to admit to some confusion in respect of Infoarts latest editing; it does not seem to be the same character who both acknowledged and worked with the various editors to address the issues with the various artist bio's. That Infoart seemed to understand WP's position and desire to create appropriate articles. While I understand that the account is now editing the Saatchi Gallery article and is therefore likely more involved in its editing (and the wishes of the subject itself) it still seems to be a previously undisclosed aspect of this editors character. It is so different that I wonder if it is the same person editing from that account, or if the account (which was based within the Gallery, as far as can be ascertained) has been "passed onto" another individual with the same relationship to the Gallery. While this opens another can of worms (is it a Role Account?) I think an enquiry should be made to this account if they are indeed the same person who was involved in editing WP previously.

I also endorse Tyrenius' account of the prior situation, and also wonder if their previous access to Mr Saatchi might be of benefit in resolving this issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive rationale for the NLT block on the IP and also at Infoart. I have not blocked Infoart per se yet, and have no opinion on whether the account should be blocked along with the IP, but he has retracted the threat somewhat, and seems to be interested in pursueing the matter through the proper means (MGodwin) and not via talk page threats. Again, I have no opinion on any pending block on Infoart, but he seems to understand and wishes to abide by the letter and spirit of the NLT policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin on Template:Databases

I need an uninvolved administrator to review Template:Databases - Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has made some extremely questionable additions, I'm going to 3RR on reverting him if I do more, and his responses on the article talk page are not making any sense. This is an area I'm familiar with, and Ramu50 seems to be adding material which is completely inappropriate to the template. He's claiming deeper knowledge of computer architecture but not sourcing claims. This is an area which I've studied and worked in professionally and he seems to just be spouting nonsense so far. He could be a non-native-english-speaking research grad student who's just not communicating effectively in english or something, but he's not listening to me, and I can't protect the template when I'm involved in a content dispute on it etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably want to go instead to WP:3O for a third opinion, as this is more of a content dispute (there are several scalating venues in WP:DR, and 3O is one of the first ones). I left my own opinion on the talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not a grad student, but someone taking Math 12. He's buggered other people before on math and computing topics, generally acting against consensus, sometimes rudely. He seems to chill out quickly though. VG ☎ 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of activity

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if any editors here had an opinion on this blog by a currently blocked user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.233.200 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He can say what he wants elsewhere. Here, on the other hand...HalfShadow 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Can someone please semi-protect this new BLP? It's gotten a lot of problem edits from IPs. *** Crotalus *** 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7, a classic WP:BLP1E. --Rodhullandemu 02:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not go that far, but I think a merge to United States presidential election debates, 2008 should be considered. Keep in mind that a lot of people watching the debate may search for this term. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, I think. Any experienced Wikipedia user will be able to find the mergeable information in the history behind the protected redirect. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Or not any more...the previously-deleted history was just restored, and then the entire history was just deleted, all since the AfD close. Oh well. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete?? Check out this Google News search. The guy is already more notable than 90%+ of the biographies on Wikipedia. If this is to be deleted, it should be for AfD, and I believe the speedy and the associated wheel war to be wholly inappropriate. BLP1E notwithstanding, the guy has already been the subject of significant coverage in a debate watched by tens of millions, and has and will continue to be the subject of biographies like this one. At the risk of WP:CRYSTALling, you can bet this guy is going to make the news rounds, etc. Our readers will want to know who he is and to the extent we have info from reliable sources we should include it.Oren0 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We can cut down on process wonkery, please. So far he's only notable for being mentioned in a presidential debate 11 times. Classic WP:BLP1E. And yes, you are WP:CRYSTAL-balling. —kurykh 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's stick to the present. In addition to the short biography I already linked, he's been interviewed by Fox News and the AP. This easily meets the bar and certainly merits time for an article to develop and an AfD to decide the article's fate. The idea that we "can't assert notability" about him is ludicrous. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. You don't suddenly become notable because of an interview on Fox News or the AP. He is ultimately known for only one event. That is not notability, and it doesn't translate into notability. —kurykh 04:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, I support the current merger into the presidential debates article as the correct path to take. —kurykh 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is relevant here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not News is not a speedy deletion criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say it was a speedy deletion criteria? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't it might have made more sense if my comment had been not indented. It was more a general comment on the deletion log. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So where do you want to go from here? Recreate the article, send it through AfD, only to reach the same result? Shouldn't we try to be more productive around here? —kurykh 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that the debate article currently has more information about the individual than the original article did (or at least assuming there are no deleted difs also) that would be a waste of time. The most sensible thing to do for these articles is to let the dust settle, then think about merging or deletion or redirecting. Doing it in the middle of like this just wastes our time and is disruptive to people coming here for information (people seem to forget that we are trying to serve our readers here). But no, I would not suggest that going through the AfD at this time would be good (although I would prefer the redirects unprotected so if necessary we can easily redirect to a different section. This is a classic example of how using the tools just makes everything more difficult and creates drama). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be working fine; leave it for a week or three and then see if anyone still cares. --Masamage ♫ 05:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in the presidential debates article. This is attracting attentions because the presidential nominees brought it up multiple times and the media grabbed a hold of it. This is no different than any other subject that is brought up and then forgotten( ie: the new voters opinions). Put a sentence or two into the presidential debate article and leave it at that. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned user PoliticianTexas back again

As per [83] and numerous discussions here at ANI, PoliticianTexas has been community banned. He continues to sock as IPs here 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs) (confirmed on the SSP page) and tonight, here as 75.91.166.24 (talk · contribs). He makes the same edits to the same articles every time.

I came in late to this one, so last night I checked out his changes and crossed them with the references he puts in, and found there's nothing to them. I have no idea why this user continues to make these changes to these pages, but he keeps coming back. Could an admin step in and possibly semi-protect the pages or block the IP? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Which pages are he targeting? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NMAA District 2-AAAA ‎and Española Valley High School, it looks like. HalfShadow 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my link above didn't work. Correcting it now, thanks to HalfShadow for passing on the info. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm semi'ing. If you have a list of PT IPs, get on the blower to a CU and ask if a rangeblock's feasible. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rokkafellah

Rokkafellah (talk · contribs) - On Armenian Genocide. To put it mildly... Removes entire sections and sources, pushes denialist POV, adds non-neutral unsourced edits. Previously proposed renaming the article to 'Armenian Genocide Theory'. Here is the latest change. The article has been placed under 1RR per Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbcom case. Rokkafellah has made 8 revers from Oct 12 - 15. VartanM (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for DE. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whippletheduck's block extended

Because Whippletheduck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was persistent in their unblock requests that they are still determined to make edits like this after their 48-hour block expires, indicating serious problems with understanding of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT, I've extended it to indef. Posting here for review. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think I would have just let him sit out the 48 hours and see if he does jump right back into the same edits - he does sound like he's trying to conform even if he's not really got the hang of it. But I'm not going to disagree with your extension of the block as he has been distinctly disruptive despite repeated warnings. Even if the block had been left at 48hr, I think it would have been with the distinct implication of 'any further edit-warring and you're gone'. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tylerdotcom13 - unacceptable block

Uhhh... WTF. Tylerdotcom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) why was this vandalism-only account blocked for only 48 hours? Please do note that the people being trolled by this vandal have a long history of being attacked. This is obviously a throwaway sockpuppet used for harassment and there is absolutely NO need to allow this person to repeat the attacks a mere 2 days from now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say the reason probably is that he started out with seemingly good intentions and then got angry when his article was deleted. The 48 hours was intended to stop his behavior and give him a chance to chill. If he starts again, report him to WP:AIV and quick action should be taken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

...which is hardly a valid excuse.

1. 07:05, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'faggocity')
2. 07:04, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Freedom of speech bitch')
3. 07:03, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'douche')
4. 07:03, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'this man has sex with goats he gives them head')
5. 07:02, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎
6. 07:01, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Anthony Appleyard ‎ (←Replaced content with 'You kill freedom of speech and fun This man fucks goats, I have proof')
7. 07:00, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Get a life and stop supporting the Nazi faggot Shadowlynk')
8. 06:58, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Nazi Faggot go fuck your own face')
9. 06:58, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Nazi Faggot, Go fuck your own face :)')

...anyone who behaves in this manner should be permanently blocked. Period. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:SkierRMH as the blocking admin for input. FWIW I'd indef block. We neither need nor want editors who make those kinds of attacks. More grief than benefit IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it should have been an indef block, but I agree with Bugs; if he comes back, he'll be speedily blocked. I'm sure the blocking admin just erred on the side of caution, and I see no problem with that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... WTF. Why didn't you go to the blocking admin first instead of trying to create maXX drama at AN/I? John Reaves 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If he vandalises again when he returns, he can be reblocked. There is no impending doom from this situation. Also, in the future, please post a WP:CIVIL note at the talk page of the admin who issued the block. Running to ANI to shout "zOMG an admin fooked up again" isn't very helpful. Although it is refreshing to see the complaint go in the direction of an admin being too "lenient". 99% of the time, the rediculous complaints here are about admins abusing their power, not using it cautiously and deliberatively!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Last king of Frisia

Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs)

This user is canvassing for Pier Gerlofs Donia to be promoted to GA with the text:

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. It is well referenced article of brilliant prose and both the Rambling man and user talk:Jimbo Wales agree it should be a Good Article.

I dropped him a note on his talk page, but since then he has spammed another 25+ user talk pages. He has recently been blocked for vandalism & this feels like trolling. --Nate1481 10:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dropped him a not" looks like a typo, but in a case like this, it still works. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What typo? :) but agreed it could work. --Nate1481 10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"What hump?" I like the "dropped him a NOT" idea. I might start using that. And here's another oddity: When you see (rollback) at first glance (at least to my semi-dsylexic eyes) it looks like "trollback". And that works too. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have learnt the error of his ways [84]. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is more complex than that, please see above thread on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kermanshahi_.2F_-The_Bold_Guy-_.2F_Last_king_of_Frisia. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we don't block editors who have made (several) mistakes but then say they'll stop. If they carry on we block, not before. Pedro :  Chat  10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see this, as I'm one of the lucky recipients of his request and was wondering what to do about it! I'll ignore it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the mind to rollback all the unanswered requests that have been made however. Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked for 31 hours for disruption. I'm sure the editor expected no less. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And the response is interesting. [85] Pedro :  Chat  10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"You can run but you can't hide"? Who's he talking to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And relevant to the checkuser request, [86] and [87] which are his attempts to involve Jimbo in it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy in RL now - no objection to any admin reducing or extending my block - just a note. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, this account Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs) is obvious block evasion of an indef block on Angela from the Blue (talk · contribs), among others from the prior case history. IMO this user and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be indef-blocked for sock abuse and block evasion. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long, and the short, and the tall! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Now Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) is complaining, see his talk page. What do others think? Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at WP:AN3RR

Resolved

 – User blocked.

Boonsan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing a report from the 3RR noticeboard after being told not to: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. I think we need a block for disruption or some other method of preventing this disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history it looks like he's broken 3RR on the 3RR noticeboard, going to 6/7RR instead. Block needed IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by FisherQueen. Kind of ironic, getting blocked because you edit warred at AN3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That almost deserves a place on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars --Nate1481 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What else but from an edit war over a nationalistic/Balkins topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)