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

Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" ([1]). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa [2]), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic [fictional] content). If Wikipedia is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Wikipedia will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Wikipedia) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Wikipedia, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from [3] would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit[4] that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago.[5][6] --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And now A Man In Black has protected the Jagd Doga page on his revision. Why bother editing articles in the first place when having a fundamental disagreement with a sysop simply results in being blocked and the pages protected from editing? MalikCarr (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as copyvio is being accused relevant to the Jagd Doga article, (e.g. "lifted verbatim" from websites/books) I'm going to plaster the Google test into the relevant discussions. If, as AMIB claims, these figures are "lifted verbatim" from a given source, wouldn't they show up when pasted verbatim (and cleared of Wikipedia formatting, obviously) into Google? MalikCarr (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "beam saber with heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip, hand-carried in use" - The version Malik reverted to before the page was protected.
• "beam saber with heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip, hand-carried in use" - The first version with the infobox Malik added in February '07. Note the copy-pasted stat block at the bottom of the page.
• "beam saber with attached heat knife, stored in recharge rack in right hip armor, hand-carried in use" - MAHQ's profile.

I really can't be arsed to go through line by line, but every line but the first is copied from MAHQ, with slight shortening to go into an infobox. The whole "mounted on whatever" is MAHQ's trademark in these profiles; generally, rather than just copying from an original guide they're also adding commentary based on watching/reading the work in question. It's difficult to accept "synthesized from a variety of sources" when there are two sources: sites like Gundamofficial or Japanese equivalents or licensed guides (or unauthorized fansites), all of which will have exactly identical blocks of weaponry, or (the unauthorized fansite) MAHQ, which has these same blocks but also adds some commentary. Reviewing a "variety of sources" and then producing something with commentary identical to MAHQ's strikes me as unlikely.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you'll be insisting the sky is green right now, too. There's only so many ways to say "it has two vulcan guns in its head", and if you arrive at the same conclusion as a polling of available sources, I would shudder to think if this were to mean you were in violation of one of the central tenets of Wikipedia. You also seem to know quite a bit about Gundam fandom and MAHQ as well, which means you should also know that the placement of fixed weaponry has been previously described in some Japanese products (e.g. MS Illustrated 2003 - I don't speak Japanese but the kanji is pretty easy to recognize when you see it every so often). But honestly, if you'd actually rather I copy-paste it from an official source and leave it at that, then fine. I don't think that's the best way to avoid copyvio, but then again I'm apparently not the expert on that. The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview of the subject in question - when it comes to a mobile weapon, the subject of a demonstrably notable media and product franchise with widely available and relevant figures, then a basic covering of those from a general standpoint is both warranted and a perfectly encyclopedic entry, in spite of what you've been arguing for the last year and some change. This copyvio paranoia is simply the latest facet of that gem, which the edit histories of these items will reveal to anyone with a hint of objectivity. MalikCarr (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The links speak for themselves. The various MA Illustrated guides don't go into this level of detail; this particular style is characteristic of MAHQ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Wikipedia:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Wikipedia:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Wikipedia articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Wikipedia, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bit where I'm blocking people over that, or in any way using any administrative tool? My talk page, the article talk, the project talk, WP:RFC, and any other appropriate place for dispute resolution remains unfilled with your comments on that article. This is not the "Burn AMIB in effigy" discussion; I have a talk page for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: [7] Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question and one I'd like to see answered. I started this thread due to AMIB blatantly pissing on the blocking policy and now he's moved on to the protection policy. When will he stop rampaging over wikipedia policy and being a one man army to enforce his preferred version? There is no consensus that the material that is being added is a copyvio other than AMIB's repeated "because I said so" rants. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate admin conduct. Instead of performing blocks when he is involved in the dispute, he should raise the issue for consideration by other admins, and blocks should be performed if other administrators agree that copyright-violating edit warring is taking place. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no room for discussion on this matter, as A Man In Black has established that he is the arbiter of what content should and should not be allowed within the articles in question. Circumstances such as this are why I have been taking an increasingly inactive role in editing articles as of late - there is no compromise, and as a great statesman once wrote, compromise is the essence of diplomacy. I believe the bitter and caustic history of these content disputes and edit wars (I cannot count how many 3RR violations I have filed - are not policies enforced equally on all Wikipedians?), which anyone can review with a bit of digging, will speak for themselves as to the level of diplomacy that has existed here.

Or, if that's "tl;dr" as was once ascribed to my position, I am not trying to damage Wikipedia, and I would be very pleased if you would stop insisting that I am. Thank you kindly. MalikCarr (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor comes back from block and resumes replacing copyvio into articles

Jtrainor has returned from block and immediately resumed replacing copyvio into articles. The most egregious case is in RGM-89 Jegan. It's 6K of text copied directly from a fan site (which in turn copied it from licensed guides, but their notation, such as the weapon mount locations, is particular.)

Compare this edit and this, this, this, etc. It's blatantly obviously copy-pasted. This was part of reverting every single edit I made to Gundam articles, so I'm inclined to say he doesn't really care.

If it is inappropriate for me to be handling this, I would appreciate if someone else could. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor's attitude here is absolutely unacceptable. After the recent set of blocks, I asked AMIB to not get involved and to start a wider discussion (see his talk page). I don't think AMIB has done that, but he has been discussing things more. I also told Jtrainor above, to start a wider discussion to settle the question of what is and isn't a copyright violation (in fairness, I should have explicitly stated that on his talk page - he may not have seen my comment above). Still, in my view the edits by Jtrainor above are clear copyright violations, and Jtrainor is, as AMIB said before, engaging in brinkmanship and has resumed edit warring. More to the point, Jehochman and Phil Knight clearly warned Jtrainor on his talk page that he would be blocked if he resumed edit warring. In my view, as Jtrainor has gone back to the disputed articles and reverted the disputed content back in, a block for 48 hours is warranted here. I will double-check what has happened here and then block. Any admin should feel free to unblock or increase the block length following discussion here, as I won't be around in the day tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on WP:CP, and the Jagd Doga article (which has a much smaller amount of copyvio content) is currently in discussion here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't actually block, as that might send things off the deep end. Jtrainor's last edit was 12 hours ago and he did seem to stop after Jehochman warned him at 17:00 (this was a warning in response to the edits you pointed out above, I think), and none of Jtrainor's copyvio edits have survived, as far as I can see. I am going to leave him a stern warning instead, and insist that he stop reverting and discuss these edits before making them. If he starts edit warring again tomorrow, someone should block him. If things get out of hand, the articles might need protecting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for Jtrainor (unlike GundamsRus (talk · contribs) once alleged, he is not my sockpuppet) as far as the Jegan goes, but equating him to be a villain in this regard (which he may well be, all things considered) while A Man In Black's continued insistence on his position in the Jagd Doga is overlooked strikes me as being rather one-sided. We've tried mediation before, we've tried civil discussion, and zero ground has been made between the relevant parties. MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And MalikCarr reverts copyvio into an article a third time, immediately after coming off a block for doing so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you still use your admin tools in conflicts in which you are a party.... [8] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the least disruptive route to prevent replacement of copyvio, and even reverted my own incidental edits. You'd rather I block MalikCarr? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd rather you walk away from the articles. You don't seem to get that your stubborness over this has passed beyond annoying and is bordering on disruptive. Your complete disregard of Wikipedia's blocking policy, by blocking two users that you were involved in a content dispute with, should cause anyone to question whether you should continue to carry the mop. You don't use the tools on a page where you are involved on. Don't they teach that first in the newbie admin school? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What a suprise, more edit warring on AMIB's part, and now protecting the article. There have been people hauled before Arbcom for less. Also, now there are two admins on my talk page yelling at me. It's nice to see that the rules only apply to us peons, while admins are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're only screwing with nobodies. Jtrainor (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said on your talk page: What we are trying to do is get the two of you to talk and stop edit warring. Part of that was me telling AMIB to stop blocking people where he was involved in a long-running dispute, and to post at ANI instead. That is what he did. I realise he also protected a page, but at least other options are being explored. At the end of the day, if me, Jehochman and Phil Knight had not got involved, AMIB would have blocked you again. You may feel we are preventing you from editing the way you want to, but what we are saying is stop, take a deep breath, and go and discuss the issues involved here. If you and AMIB can't get anywhere with discussion, then try and get others involved in the discussion, or take the discussion to a noticeboard or request for comments. What is not acceptable is to either carry on reverting and edit warring, or to just let thing lie for a bit and then carry on reverting and adding in the disputed text and stats. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other venues are open to us. We've gone through official mediation before and that produced absolutely nothing. If we just wanted to stop the edit war, then we should stop questioning AMIB's edits and give him discretion over the articles. I do not believe there's a virtue in peace that is obtained by compromising on the greater values at hand, that being to make the best encyclopedia articles possible, which I do not believe AMIB is producing. Let it not be said that I think he's a bad person on Wikipedia - I simply find it frustrating that this content dispute has resulted in Jtrainor, myself, and other members of WP:Gundam branded with the worst accusations of being destructive to the project because there are contrary opinions to a sysop. MalikCarr (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The absurd part of all of this is that the edit war, and claimed copyvio issue, could have been solved by simply rewriting or reformatting the armaments stats. The fact that AMIB's reaction was to simply delete them outright gives evidence that he was purposely antagonizing the Gundam Wikiproject. But Jtrainor and the others were also partly responsible for not reformatting the stats as well. --Farix (Talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I have been rewriting the stats so they're as generic as possible, and more importantly, aren't directly lifted from any one source. MAHQ and MS Illustrated 2003 like to have these ridiculously long strings of model numbers and power outputs and crap and making it abundantly clear which weapons are default and which are optional, while GundamOfficial.com and Gundam: The Official Guide use very minimalistic blocks that don't even mention where the fixed armaments are on the MS' body. I felt that some middleground between the two, while reducing space as much as possible to fit nicely in an infobox, would be the best course of action for the generalist Wikipedia. But what do I know, I'm a copyright-violating, POV-pushing, Wikipedia-hating vandal. MalikCarr (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

AMIB has now messed with an article in my sandbox. This is a clear attempt to escalate matters and provoke me. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Again? If I remember correctly (it has been a while), this wouldn't be the first time that's happened. I'm not sure if we can conclude he's trying to provoke you, but it does cast some shadows on his motivations and objectives in this dispute if you ask me. Something is surely afoot, though. MalikCarr (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you both still at the "he's wrong and I'm right" stage? I advised Jtrainor at least, and AMIB as well, to talk to each other about why you disagree over what is and isn't a copyright violation in these cases, and if you still disagree to get opinions from other people. I know you don't think AMIB will listen, but as Jehochman said on your (Jtrainor's) talk page, you won't get anywhere until you have tried talking to AMIB. If you have talked before and got nowhere, please provide detailed diffs. FWIW, I think AMIB should have left you a courtesy note explaining why he was removing text from your sandbox. Communicating via edit summaries is not going to get either of you anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While you have asked AMIB to ask for a second opinion on if certain text violates Wikipeidia's copyright and non-free use policies and guidelines, he still continues to remove the disputed text before receiving the second opinion.[9] AMIB seems to be unwilling to compromise in this situation and wait for others to weigh in on the copyright violation issue. Such behavior is disruptive, no matter what the final outcome is. --Farix (Talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you ask for a second opinion somewhere neutral (i.e. not the Gundam project), then you can show that to AMIB. It doesn't matter which one of you starts the wider discussion, as long as it gets started. Until that discussion has taken place, it would be best to err on the side of caution and keep the content removed until we are sure it is OK (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is why we went through mediation courtesy of AGK. The impetus behind the grievance was different then, but it was still the same grievance, and that produced nothing. I don't see why trying again would produce any new results. MalikCarr (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that the next stage of dispute resolution would be an Arbitration case (WP:RFARB)? That might not get the result you are looking for. My advice would be to try mediation again. As far as I can tell, the previous mediation got as far as each side presenting their case, and then it got withdrawn. For anyone else reading, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. As it is, this thread has drifted up ANI, and is now sitting at the top of ANI still unresolved. Partly because no-one else has got involved. My assessment, so far, is that while some discussion has taken place, things don't seem any closer to being resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sandbox part of the dispute seems resolved now. See here. Other parts of the dispute have not been resolved. RGM-89 Jegan is still listed at WP:CP awaiting resolution there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka’s ban of ScienceApologist and Martinphi from WP:FRINGE

Unresolved

• Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi by MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive school project?

Articles in need of review after editing (in either 2007 or 2008) by students of Dr Graham Meikle at the Department of Media at Macquarie University

Graham Meikle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deleted per WP:CSD#IAR; borderline A7, and subject requested deletion. --barneca (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Lelia Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Terry Flew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Internet activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Citizen journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Media influence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Video game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Video game culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Telegraph (Kolkata) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2007 edits reverted. No 2008 edits. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Telegraphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cleaned up. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Text messaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Technological determinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mass communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User-generated content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Writing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neil Postman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mass media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) News broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Printing press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mobile phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Social determinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Telephony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Media ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Second Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hacker (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) M-learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Multimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mass society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Daguerreotype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2007 edits remain in the article, but appear on their face to be neutral and verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Photojournalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) File sharing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Digital photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2008 edits reverted. No 2007 edits. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Web 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Susan Sontag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Online newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Smart mob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2008 edits reverted. 2007 edits reverted here and here. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stuart Carruthers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Participatory culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Perry Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Facebook Markup Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Claude S. Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Short message service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The medium is the message (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marshall McLuhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Video game controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hacker ethic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hackers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Video game industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Technological convergence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Microcomputer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Silicon Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vidding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) History of copyright law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Online game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bill Henson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2008 edits reverted here and here. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Online dating service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — reverted here Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Ubiquitous computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Denis McQuail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Xbox Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Internet censorship in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Social network service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Personal computer game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gaming PC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tech Model Railroad Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Global Village (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Camera phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mobile Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Media hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hypertext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Social aspects of television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Internet access (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hacker (hobbyist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mod (computer gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) History of video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Movable type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Collective intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Photographer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Information overload (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Telesthesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Culture jamming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Location-based service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paparazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — 2008 edits reverted. No 2007 edits. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Artificial intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Swarm intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Second nature (culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — New article, prod'd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC) PC baang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Redirected to existing PC bang. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Who Controls the Internet? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joshua Meyrowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manuel Castells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• How about fixing the problem for good for the Win of all? A Wikiproject "School Projects" with good ways to proceed, sandboxes, curricula for secondary and college courses, and teacher guides? I mean, it would provide (a) a good frame in which school projects can be made good for the school and not disruptive, (b) encouragement for educators to perceive WP as a valuable resource and (c) training for future editors!

  My training in education is minimal, but I'll give whatever help might be needed; I'm sure we can summon some enthusiasm and participation from educators for this. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • There is such a project at Wikipedia:School and university projects, but it only works if instructors know about it and follow the suggestions. In this case, it looks like guidance about WP was lacking and students are unfamiliar with WP policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing this is a course in media studies. Some of the hardest hit articles are Broadcasting. Social aspects of television, Telegraphy, Social determinism, and Technological determinism if anyone wants to do some clean-up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Might it be a good idea to leave a message on each of these students' talk pages asking them to get their instructor to look at WP:SUP? Better if he does that late than never. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I hope jbmurray won't mind (especially as I don't think it's finished), but his essay at User:Jbmurray/Advice should be required reading for all educators who want to integrate Wikipedia into their teaching. EyeSerene^talk 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Wikipedia:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Wikipedia as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerene^talk 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up. The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Identification

The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.

It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Wikipedia. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Wikipedia account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerene^talk 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch ^T 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerene^talk 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch ^T 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch ^T 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerene^talk 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch ^T 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable. I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He noted that the university had not updated its website (which I can believe, looking at it). The signature on his e-mail states that he is a senior lecturer at the University of Stirling. Avruch ^T 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • When people in the world at large are affected by actions resulting from one of its courses, it's not very helpful of Macquarie University to be publishing incorrect staff contact details. ☺ I've crossed off the relevant part of the table title. I've also asked for general editor assistance in the task of review. I'm sure, by the way, that I haven't listed all of the affected articles. I didn't find all of the accounts and what articles they had touched, and new students were still creating accounts yesterday. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Storzandbickel

• Storzandbickel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing content without edit summary or discussion, despite three notices on hisTalk page: 1, 2, 3, 4. Radiopathy (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that he removed material that could violate WP:BLP or is at least rather controversial. Do you have sources for it? JodyB _talk 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Although edit summaries and responses to talk page comments would be nice, and would have prevented this misunderstanding, I agree with his removals of material for WP:BLP reasons. This wasn't vandalism, just an example of the complications that can arise when edit summaries aren't used. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of mild in contrast to what you say here.Radiopathy (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The user continues to remove content (uncited or otherwize) in spite of being asked three times to provide edit summaries and has not responded to the templates nor to this discussion. Radiopathy (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty confident that username breaches our policies anyway, even if it is merely meant to hint that the user is a stoner. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Had to do a little Googling on that, I didn't get the reference at all. How out of touch does this make me, exactly? --barneca (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 

• • • When Storzandbickel was reported to AIV this morning, I declined to block because I thought this looked like a WP:BLP issue. Specifically, the deletions ([10], [11]) appeared to be remove un-sourced (and often poorly written) rumour that I was afraid could be viewed as being potentially libelous. However as BLP is not my forte, I suggested that the issue be brought here for review. Perhaps I am overly paranoid, but after getting burned once, I take BLP issues very seriously. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I added a tag to the disputed content, since it doesn't appear that it would be libelous if false. Hopefully this will satisfy the user, or else make it easier to justify a block. Radiopathy (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, apparently, as the user continues to vandalize the article. PLEASE BLOCK. Radiopathy (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys disclosing my background.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is something to be handled by ArbCom in the context of the present case since it involves private information, etc. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

On the recent Arbcom request Biophys (talk · contribs) in his statement put the following:

• 1. Following a WP:BATTLE on Chechens this july I was blacked out from editing on wikipedia. When I returned I found out that some justice has been done on User:Folantin, for she was banned for her disruptive behaivour. I responded with an exclamation on my talk page which translates: [12] which reads Well Folantin did you get what you deserve? (i.e. for her very disruptive behaivour) We [the Cossacks-] broke even tougher horns, but its best if someone else does it for us (the saying of breaking someones horns, is quite common in Cossack lands, it even features in our 19th century folk songs (if one cares to listen this one is about the Cossack participation in the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878)).
  2. However User:Biophys interpreted it as if I am a criminal gangster, then on the RfAR discussion when I posted the link to the song above he claims that, I picked it up from a 1972 Soviet Film (a very good one btw) Gentlemen of Fortune, where he made an assertion that the saying originated there (despite having a different form) and came from Fenya (a Russian criminal jargon): [13].
  3. On top of that User:Biophys claimed that I am not a Cossack based on a simple edit to this this article. (clarification: there were only two Cossack corps in the Wehrmacht, many of them coming from the White Emerge in the Balkans, at the same time there were 17 Cossack corps in the Red Army by the end of the War. my Grandfather, third row, fourth from the left
  4. On top of that he has publicly stated that I am a member of a criminal gang (i.e. I am a leader of it now).

All I can say is when someone calls someone else a Nazi, a terrorist, when someone uses social and ethnic slurs, all this is not only offensive, but a pretext for stalling any WP:DR process. The irony is that User:Miyokan was permabanned following him publicly trying to disclose User:Biophys' identity with purpose for intimidation. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where he says you are part of a criminal gang, or a Nazi, or disclosing anything about your "background" aside from your editing history of Wikipedia (which is open to anyone for review). I think you should try to confine your dispute to a single forum, in this case arbitration, until its resolved. Wikipedia is not a battleground, either between ideologies or editors in conflict. Avruch ^T 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said he called me a Nazi he stated that a: only Kuban_kazak openly admitted, using Russian criminal slang, that he belongs to a gang... and b: He is not a Cossack of course.. So in any case those two baseless statements are personally quite offensive and I think WP:NPA clearly states: that Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor.... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh blimey, this is desperate. Kuban Cossack is already subject to an ArbCom so this is just forum-shopping on her part. Moral: don't post bragging edit summaries in foreign languages (or threaten to kill world leaders using same [14]) if you don't want your statements to be "misinterpreted" on English Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to address such behavior either by requesting ArbCom intervention at the current RFAR or contacting ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. MBisanz ^talk 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan was banned for discussing and alluding to the ethnicity of User:Biophys, and it was decided that such behaviour constitutes harrassment and attempts at WP:OUTING. I too was banned for so-called harrassment of Biophys based upon outing of his name and ethnicity; unfortunately I am unable to present the facts in that case, as to do so would constitute of an actual outing of Biophys (let's just say Biophy was caught sock-puppetting on Commons). At the time it was made very clear by User:FayssalF that discussion of other editors ethnicity is an absolute no-no. What Biophys has done, is gone against this direction very clearly, and given that this direction was given as a result of discussion of Biophys' ethnicity, there should be no double standards on WP which give protection to Biophys, but not to anyone else; it's hypocritical to say the least. I too would be asking for some degree of sanctions against Biophys for this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, Miyokan was banned for trying to out the precise real life identity of a user (the offending edits have since been oversighted, of course, so unavailable to non-admins) after acquiring a long string of blocks for various offences. I'm not sure how Biophys is "outing" Kuban kazak. KK's being a Cossack and a Russian are claims he himself makes on his own user page, along with giving us his Christian name, location and lots more personal information. This really is nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Ragusino revert-warring

I've taken the liberty of bringing this back from the archive as it has received no admin attention. Thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'll cut right to the chase: User:Ragusino has been stirring trouble for weeks now on several Dalmatia-related biographical articles on people or noble families from the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa [15], [16], [17]. He has engaged in revert-warring to push his POV that's based primarily on the "fact" that he, as a supposed descendant of the noble Gondola family, possesses privilege to dictate (without any actual sources) that the articles in question must use exclusively the Italian mode of a family or person's name in the lead. In recognition of the dual culture of the Republic of Ragusa, these articles have been using both the Slavic and Italian names in the lead for a very long time. Now it would appear Ragusino has decided to try and achieve his goal by constant edit-warring, in the hope that his version will come out on top solely due to the relative obscurity of these articles. Frequently asked (by more than one editor) to try and restrain himself from reverting until discussions are finished, Ragusino did not feel the need to extensively discuss his edit-warmongering. I myself stopped reverting his POV-pushing and asked him to try and discuss with his version on top [18]. As a consequence neither the User, or his associate User:Debona.michel (another supposed "descendant" of a noble family) found the talkpage to be of any interest after their version remained in place. In short, the nobility is restless and needs Admin attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Ragusino/Debona.michel has been removing Slavic names under the silly argument that they've not been used before the 19th century (where allegedly they were "invented" for the cause of reintegrating old nobility names into Pan-Slavic nationalist currents of the time), even though there are plenty of attestations of Bunić, Gundulić, Palmotić and other noble patronyms in works produced by 15th, 16th, 17th century writers (which can bee seen in e.g. Croatian Wikisource or facsimile editions of their works available in digitised Web editions).

Also, Ragusino has been adding some Romance names as an alternative to Slavic names which I couldn't find anywhere (not in standard anotologies, nothing on the Web), which are presumbly his own "Italianicized" inventions, or which he copied from some old book which just lists it and does not mention whether it is a secondary Italianicization or those people actually used those names.

Ragusino should either be forced to communicate and provide verifiable evidence to support his claims, or articles such as [[Junije Palmotić]] should be locked for further edit-warring to be prevented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Plus, I'd add to those concerns logging out and edit warring from your everchanging IP address. See Special:Contributions/190.21.73.216 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.13 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.150 and Special:Contributions/190.21.82.68 to name just a few.
Of additional, perhaps greater concern, is Ragusino's uploading of images with highly questionable licensing rationales. See, for example [Image:Genealogy Vojnovic.jpg] where he/she says its PD because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years, yet the family tree in question clearly has a latest date on it of 1956. There's [Image:Ragusan family crest.jpg] with the same rationale. There's [Image:Orsato de Saraca.jpg] which was painted by Oreste da Molin (1856-1921) (see http://www.orestedamolin.org/opere/satira.php) with the same rationale. Same rationale for [Image:Helene Ghetaldi Obituary.jpg] an obit notice of someone who died in 1930. There's [Image:Julius Fedrigoni Edler von Etschthal.jpg], where the subject was born in 1893, same rationale. [Image:Burakowka 1929.jpg], same rationale. [Image:Bernardo Caboga.jpg], clearly somebody's own photo with the digital camera details on the image page, same rationale. [Image:Ivan Rendic.jpg] which has got www.crohis.com written on it, same rationale. Plus (no kidding) [Image:Ghetaldi-Gondola Cementary.jpg] with the same rationale on a photo blatantly taken at 00:49, 17 October 2008. So a variety of images, some undoubtedly his own creations, others obviously not his own, with highly questionable use rationales. Moreover, the following images have got extremely dodgy rationales [Image:Gondola.jpg], [Image:Reesti.jpg]. There are lots of these, so I'm afraid somebody needs to go through the list of all Ragusino's uploads. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a diffuse and wide-ranging complaint. Consider opening a report about the image copyrights at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Editors at that noticeboard might advise you on how to nominate the bad images for deletion. The rest of your case seems to be one of long-term edit-warring. An WP:RFC on a particular article might be a way to get started on evidence for that. Find an article where you think the problem is especially blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. In fact today the edit warring has intensified, and as a result I have posted at 3RR/N. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Ragusino_reported_by_AlasdairGreen27_.28Result:_.29.

I was unaware of this thread when I blocked pursuant to the report at WP:AN3. Either way Ragusino (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino has chosen to pursue these edit wars while logged out in contravention of his block. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusino. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

Per this stream of personal attacks, I would ask that Ludwigs be blocked for a substantial period of time. He has been warned for civility on a number of occasions, but most recently here. Several editors have suggested I to do an RfC/U, but I find the process so ponderous (probably intentionally) that I'd rather have him blocked, so I don't have to read his continued personal attacks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ah, me... I have asked Orangemarlin on numerous occasions to sit down and discuss whatever problems there are between us (diffs in a moment - (edit) here's a short list, but I can find more if required [19], [20], [21]), but instead he keeps dragging me into one bureaucratic mess after another. I'm happy to talk with him - can someone here get him to respond in kind? --Ludwigs2 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add, this dispute arose because I was working with some other editors on a sandboxed version of wp:fringe theories: OM came in, reverted a number of other editors' edits for no real reason that I can see, and then nominated the sandbox for deletion, because it was supposedly subject to edit-warring. see the history here. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had requested Ludwigs to remove the personal attacks (User talk:Ludwigs2#MfD_nomination_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2Fsandbox), but he seems unable to recognize this:

in short, this request for deletion cannot be seen as anything except another petty, bureaucratic attack on me by an editor who refuses to discuss or resolve whatever personal issues he has with me. as I said, I'll userfy if need be, but (frankly) it would be sad to see him get away with this crap.

quoted from the summary of his response at the MFD page as an attack. Looks like he's focusing on and attacking the nom here rather than discussing the page in question. Yes, the two have a history - but this was non-productive. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to give a Ludwigs2 a warning about his recent misbehavior [22] [23] when I noticed this discussion. I think it's time for him to be blocked yet again. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to Ludwigs2, but only slightly, this ANI is strictly about his personal attacks as described above. He believes that he has a right to continue these personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought evidence of similar, recent behavior with other editors would be helpful for admins considering blocking him. The hypocrisy of these situations is embarrassing. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

so you seem to think, OM. frankly, I have no idea where you get that idea, and since you refuse to talk to me, I'm really at a loss to know what you would like. why don't you tell me what you're looking for, and we can start from there? --Ludwigs2 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

<- I agree with Vsmith and Ronz. Even Ludwigs2's apology for his earlier uncouth commentary here is backhanded - it ascribes motives ("you and I both know that this issue would never have arisen if someone other than I had made this page") and takes unnecessary potshots ("...find out what exactly [OrangeMarlin] has stuck so deep in his craw") - when discussing a compromise, of all things! Their latest post on their own talkpage also contains such thinly veiled barbs: see [24]. I've blocked Ludwigs2 for a week, given that they've already had three previous escalating blocks stick, the last of which was four days long; review welcome. east718 // talk // email // 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the block log, that's a good length, I think. Let's hope these attacks stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Considering his block log, he's willing to reform his behavior. Just because someone has x number of entries in a block log doesn't mean anything without context. Please, actually look into some of those situations before generically brining up the block log of an editor. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Which isn't to say that I agree or disagree with this block. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Editors have to take responsibility for their own actions. I think you're not assuming good faith that several people here have looked at his block log. I personally believe he's been given too many free passes, because hasn't been blocked for a whole host of personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• People coming along and using glances at the block log as a reason to endorse action has long since been a problem on Wikipedia. I'm just asking for context. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned, it seems that you may have made a number of faulty assumptions before wading in here. I have things to do in real life, so for now I'll just say that prior blocks are usually a good basis for judging the length of any later block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

With context, yes, but you provided none and instead you've resorted to personal insults. Here's his block log

Before this thread he has been blocked four times. The first time was for talk page disruption (from what I can make of it, ranting endlessly, arguing with everyone, etc) but the disruption itself was disputed (here), as was the need for any block. But I guess it's ok to count bad blocks.

Then he's blocked for edit warring, and unblocked with a promise to stop. This, however, he still seems to have a bit of a problem with (though it doesn't seem as bad as before, but I haven't looked beyond a couple of cited pages such as this).

Let's skip ahead for a moment here.. he's now blocked for some heated comments on an MFD to a sandbox page which is intended to help avoid things like the edit wars. I think I can understand why he's upset.

He does pretty good for a few months after this, but then BAM a one week block. consensus there showed that the progressive block in this case was overkill, but again, I guess we still count it since it made an entry in his log.

Looking at other pages in his talk archives I see evidence that he gets hot heated quickly, but calms down and can be very corporative. He might need a nudge every now and again before he loses himself, but blocking is not always the best way to do that.

I'm not trying to make a case about this current block. All I meant above was that simply glancing at his block log means nothing out of context. I know I'm not the only one who's noticed a problem with people who just go and say "wow, he's got past blocks" and don't do any investigation into it. I did, and I guess I should have made that better known in my first response. I certainly hope SheffieldSteel gave him the same courtesy that I did, but I have no way of knowing that from his comments here. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's a problem with ANI readers making snap judgments based on quickly glancing at information, then we should all try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I make an effort to only comment when I know the editors involved, when I've done significant reading, or when my comment is essentially incidental to the discussion. I also make an effort never to offer "personal insults" to any user on Wikipedia, and I take very seriously any accusation of such. Ned, please either provide a diff, so that it's clear what you're talking about and I may consider modifying my behaviour accordingly, or withdraw your accusation. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I don't see any personal insults from SheffieldSteel in this thread - could you clarify what you considered were personal insults when making that comment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Plyhmrp

Resolved

 – He's gone - at least until the inevitable, ban-evading, sock puppets start to appear. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to report a persistently disruptive and ill-tempered editor. Example here, here too, and here as well and more generally here. A third opinion of sorts has already been contributed, and apparently, ignored. Does anyone want to do anything about this? Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Plyhmrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 month for repeated incivility and making multiple threats against other editors. This is the 4th block in less than 2 months for this sort of behavior. I'm un-resolving this for further discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While much of the user's comments have been "borderline", and I don't know if I would have blocked for them individually, this diff when tied to the rest, gives me pause.

And combined with the tone and tenor of rather bad faith accusatory comments (without even a hint of supporting evidence), I think that this block has been coming for awhie.

In going over the user's contributions, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we should start to discuss whether indef blocking might be appropriate. - jc37 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought similarly. I had originally marked this as resolved after blocking, but I think this is a pretty problematic editor. Given that he or she has made significant contributions, but seems to have fairly consistent and worsening behavioral problems, I think we should consider it. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been getting odd messages from this user for quite a while. It began when I prematurely closed his or her RfA some time ago. Enigma ^message 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Or he was just frustrated. A one month block, even with that, seems very excessive to me. Those are a typical response of someone who's frustrated (and most likely of a younger age), and there's better ways to deal with them than just the blunt instrument of a block. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to possibly agree with Ned and I must wonder if the length of block is connected to the fact that the individual has a clearly distasteful POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard enough dealing with civil POV pushers. Why in the world would we cut an uncivil POV pusher some slack because he has a distasteful POV? Block him indef now. Save us the 3-4 more ANI threads in our future. I just went thru all 600 someodd of his edits, we aren't going to be missing much, and we'll be gaining quite a bit. I could not care less if he's not capable of behaving maturely because he's too young, or because of some other reason. A collaborative effort to create an encyclopedia is not the place for him, and the blunt instrument of a block is an excellent tool in this case. --barneca (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's a very valid point. Indef block. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on this user ever since March, when I took down his/her malformed RFA, which brought this objection and this denial that he/she had ever been warned about anything. I suggested that if he/she felt so upset about it, I could relist the RFA. Since then, I've noticed a wide variety of warnings and discussions at Plyhmrp's talk page, most of them revolving around his/her tendentious editing and abrasive manner of dealing with others. I'm not surprised this has happened, so I'll endorse the block. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Block indef: Hates Jews, hates some sort of people who go by the name of "Islams" (That's his word for people of Muslim faith), hates good faith users who try to help him (I'm gonna be bold and assume it's a he... No lady would ever act like this guy). Awful POV pusher who just doesn't want to understand Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? If what you're saying is true, I'm not sure why we're even bothering with the mild behavior mentioned originally. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think I might have read this wrong. I thought perhaps you meant he was talking to jewish editors. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- it looks like reasonable minds differ - some thing 1 month is too much block; some want indef. Coincidentally, I am Jewish, but that part doesn't bother me. The thing is... I think we have an editor here who is smart enough to contribute if he wants to, but he doesn't want to, he wants to be, well, a jerk. I think progressive discipline with a bit of mercy should be used to TRY to correct him and TRY to impress him on the need to do things the WP way. He's only been blocked once before as far as I know - and it was a brief one. I look at this strike two. Strike three would definitely call for a "permablock," but the one month block was reasonable at this time. I appreciate the comments of ALL of the above editors and thank the admins for taking care of this situation. Cookies for all. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Jew POV pushing diff and here is where he referred to Muslims as "Islams". His ignorance irritates me; especially when he refuses to work with other members of the community. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's some fun ones...he has been blocked twice already, but these give kind of a bigger picture idea...this guy isn't going to change: [25] [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] --Smashville^talk 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also has made some decidedly Anti-Mormon edits. --Smashville^talk 15:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinite block. He's had his chances, he's been warned multiple times, and still he refuses to change. As mentioned earlier, he's anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-Mormon, and is dedicated to pushing his POV. Also, please disable his e-mail privileges. He's sent harassing e-mails. Enigma ^message 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks Smashville for doing the work to put the diffs together. It's very helpful. Enigma ^message 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidering my take after being fully informed: this is a bad-natured and persistent vandal who has had several chances to get the message. Indef. blocking would be within administrative discretion, and I, without reservation, join those who have recommended it. Thanks to all of those who have put together the whole body of facts here. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked, per the discussion above. - jc37 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Poss. suicide/death threat

Resolved

 – It's in the hands of the police now - we've done all we can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

here. [ roux ] [x] 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP is licensed to Windstream Communications out of Little Rock, AR. I would consider contacting the police there and let them take it from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:32

Contacting the ISP... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After having been on hold for 30 minutes with the ISP, we're giving up on that tack and calling Little Rock Police directly. Hopefully they'll be able to find the person. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently on the phone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm told that the police will be working on contacting the ISP for more information regarding who made the edit. That's all we can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Numerous IPs doing vandal redirecting of User talk:East718

Resolved

 – standard 4chan attack. Page protected. Nothing further to do

Take a look at User talk:East718. Dozens of IP addresses are being used to redirect this user talk page to I will have your heart fed to dogs and shat out for my amusement. I will then have your obsequious brain torn from your foul head so that I can use your empty skull as a piss pot The redirects are being undone by a bot operated by that user. How can this be dealt with? If nothing else it is loading up the server. Edison (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The redirects aren't being done by a bot, they're being undone by the bot. All you have to do is protect. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They were being done apparently by someone capable of displaying dozens of different IP addresses. Edison (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, so protect the page. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No point in blocking the IPs or warning them as some editors did. The usage is too transient. What is the mechanism of flipping through so many IPs to vandalize? They trace as various countries. Edison (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it is some kind of proxy network with multiple nodes like Tor. Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! I've given the page a much needed protection. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Naw, the usual MO is to post an edit link on 4chan/b/ and ask people to click it (and press save) "for the luls". The best way to deal with it is just to (semi)protect as soon as you see it happening. Blocking the IPs doesn't hurt, but isn't very effective either. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's showing on 4chan's /b/. I guess it could be one of the other chans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After J.delanoy (talk · contribs) went over there two or three weeks ago and threatened blocks to all IPs vandalizing user talk pages and gloating about it, the thread disappeared about 45 minutes afterwards. Just because /b/ doesn't have anything on it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not happening at present. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin editing protected article

Per a request I protected Sofia Shinas - the dispute was about her birthdate. Shortly after this User:DragonflySixtyseven did this edit [39] in which he justifies his change saying 'OTRS', mentioning this also on the talk page. I felt that a bit more was needed than that and asked him for an explanation on his talk page here [40] - another editor has also requested clarification from him (after going to my talk page first). He hasn't responded although he is making contributions. I don't think this is a very acceptable way for another admin to behave, but maybe I just don't understand something. I'd like some guidance here. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to locate the ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea how to do that, and had hoped he would respond on his talk page with information about the ticket. dougweller (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's not around. For reference, the ticket number is 2008110310003125. Someone identifying as Sofia Shinas asked for a correction. DS is trying to ask "her" for an agent contact. There is no more information there (beside a cellphone number), so I would take it with a grain of salt (I got tricked once by an impostor at OTRS). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad, I missed a couple of responses on my talk page [41] - he says he's been offered a birth certificate and that there are several people in the same area with the same name. I'm really not sure what to do now, but the user who asked for protection has suggested I unprotect it so I guess that's the best thing to do (although I note that on Shinas's talk page this is still being questioned. dougweller (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised the question about the validity of what I've been given to understand was a submission of a birth certificate that supposedly confirms the birthdate of Shinas. I'd like to refer you to this sock puppet case, which includes a myriad of newly registered SPAs that have worked for a year and a half trying to change the birthdate on this article, giving rationales such as "edit age.... went to school with Sophia", "I have a copy of the birth certificate that her brother gave me", "wrong birthdate", "dob found in (information listed in London newspaper)", "changed her birthdate. I should know, I was her public school teacher", "her birthday year is wrong ( I attend usc with her - this is her cousins birthday who haooens to ahare the same name, She is also working on another film", and Julia Stiles (!) who said "edited birthdate, and catagory information from London Ontario. Went to school with her and this is her correct birthdate". Finally, one of the SPAs asked "How do I contact the Wikipedia people directly. I actually have a copy of Sofia's birth certificate which does in fact state that her birth year is 1974. I know her brother very well,so he doesnt have a problem with my sharing the doc with you." That seems to be an issue to me, that this person is willing to "share" a copy of a birth certificate that was supposedly received from an actress's brother and indicates no direct permission to submit anything, from anybody. I want to note also that the person who posted that inquiry (Annemarie.lalande (talk • contribs) shares the same basic username as Anne Marie Lalonde (talk • contribs), who, if you'll note, originally submitted a birthdate change based on a "London newspaper" here. At that time, Pinkadelica posted her note doubting that it was the same person. And now the actress herself contacts OTRS with a birth certificate, after all this back and forth from multiple SPAs with similar rationales and the birth certificate issue broached by one of them? All of this is extremely suspicious and honestly, I think someone is trying to dupe OTRS. How easy would it be to come up with a birth certificate copy that backs up a year and a half of SPA account activity when pressed for it? Maybe Sofia Shinas did contact OTRS, but if it was anyone else, I would question its authenticity and maybe wait for better confirmation and the sock puppet case to determine just what is going on? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unholy redirects against consensus at Tito Munoz (the builder)

Resolved

 – It looks the dab compromise stuck. VG ☎ 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All but one AfD merge !votes indicated that this should be first merged, and then redirected to an article about McCain's 2008 campaign. Now and edit war has erupted, lead by editors with strong political bias; they're redirecting, without any merge to the unrelated conductor Tito Muñoz. This clearly against consensus. I don't want to edit war against tag teams, so admin action is might be required. Update: I've put dab page there; hopefully, that will please everyone. VG ☎ 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A DAB page would certainly be the preferred option, since the names are so similar (and I have no idea how to type a "ñ" except by copy-paste). If it sticks, I think that's the best plan. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Batyr

• Batyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone have a glance? Semiprotection has been declined, but this article is plagued by anons who keep inserting garbage blog/wiki type sources and insisting, without evidence, that sourced information is "fake". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to request this, however I agree with the previous review. The disruption here seems to be coming from one user - if it continues, they can be blocked. In the meantime, you may want to try leaving the IP editor a note on their talk page - I notice none of the IPs have ever received any sort of message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the most recent IP's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Reqluce

An obvious britney hater who is putting every ounce of negatives info he can into Blackout but his comments on the revision summaris are very innapropriate, all can be seen here. I'm not for one minute suggesting that he can't put the negative info in the article but rather place it in the reception as negative. He's constantly removing info and insulting people on the history page as can be seen clearly. But really anyone with brains will know thatawards sections are for positive awards not 'Worst Album'. And, even more he accuses anyone of removing the info of vandalism as if he is a wiki veteran. I could revert his edits but he would no doubt edit war until blocked and would used sourced infor..removal is vandalism forever. Opinions would be much appreciated. thanks. Ogioh (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave Britney Alone? X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Reqluce for a better picture. Warnings away! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's needs a warning but going by the same Special:Contributions/Reqluce anyone would get a heavy impresion that Reqluce likes to think he owns a lot of articles. Ogioh (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the edit summaries s/he has been using are not acceptable. So a civility reminder was needed. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All that is needed but its been going about wiki since my comp got rebooted, twinkles gone and i feel like a fish with wings. I don't know where to find those reminder templates now.Ogioh (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If there's any recurrence, let me know (or post here) and a block is likely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. They already received a final warning - removed here (check the edit summary for extra "irony"). Blocked 24 hours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice plz

I really feel I need some advice from more experienced admins now. Reqluce has blanked their Talk page here. Note the edit comment. WP:EVADE says that An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. I know this isn't block evasion, but this edit summary looks like a statement that the user will not stop using incivil and offensive edit summaries, and it is a continuation of blockable behaviour while blocked. On the other hand, users can be expected to want to "let off steam" when they are blocked, and are usually given a bit of leeway on their own Talk page. On the third hand, this isn't letting off steam, it's normal behaviour for this editor. It's hard to extend good faith to someone who posts an affronted/innocent query on your Talk page after they've received a final warning from another admin explaining the problem (and blanked it with an offensive summary).

My gut feeling is that I'm being trolled, so I need other admins' opinions. Reset the block? Ignore this? Protect the talk page? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being trolled. Since there's nothing on his talk page now for him to remove, I'd just ignore it (DNFTT). But if he uses the same type of edit summary in article space upon block expiration, even once, just block indefinitely. Why waste our time with people like this? --barneca (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

School requesting an indefinite block of their IP address

I've had a recent request on my talk page to indefinitely block 209.68.139.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a school IP address, apparently by a network engineer who works for the school district. I know IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked, but this is one of the rare cases where I actually have seen IP addresses blocked indefinitely before. Personally, I think a long period of time (such as 5 years?) would be sufficient. Also, some sort of verification probably needs to be made that it is in fact someone from the district making the request. If someone who regularly deals with long term school blocking wants to deal with this, that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to have them email OTRS from a school email address to request the block. 5 years sounds good. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l [at] lists [dot] wikimedia.org would be faster. John Reaves 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's subpage: User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems

ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator who is heavily involved in some content disputes at Middle East-related articles, is maintaining a subpage in his userspace which seems to be violating the Wikipedia attack page policy, User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I attempted to remove the infringing sections,[42][43] but he has simply kept putting them back, and has now used his admin tools to protect the page to prevent further "vandalism".[44][45] He has now passed 3RR,[46][47][48][49] is maintaining a policy-violating page in his userspace, is misusing his admin tools,[50][51] and is accusing an admin trying to enforce policy, of performing vandalism. He also just threatened to block me.[52] So if he's misusing his admin tools in this way, more admin eyes are definitely needed. --Elonka 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The block threat is extremely ill-advised. I'd like to see an explanation for the page, what he intends to use it for and how long he plans to keep it. The sort of thing that he should have explained on the page, probably. It doesn't need to be deleted or modified right now if it has an allowed purpose (prep for RfC, arb case, etc.). But its important to know. Avruch ^T 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:Ariobarza is featured in most the entries in that table, and that Ariobarza was blocked for OR pushing, and got a warning immediately after his recent unblock, it's not unreasonable for ChrisO to keep track of articles that need fixing due to Ariobarza's actions. You could ask Chris to remove the editor's name so it won't look like a wall of shame, but keeping that list of problematic articles seems entirely reasonable. VG ☎ 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for the block threat - that was an error on my part, clearly. Put it down to momentary annoyance - ira brevis furor est.

The page is the result of a survey of the contributions, principally, of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Secthayrabe (talk · contribs). It was prompted by another editor's comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa, one of a series of AfDs on articles created by these two editors, several of which have been deleted as unsourced OR (I have nominated a couple for deletion myself). There are problems with a number of other related articles. The page exists as a set of notes on issues with some of the articles that I reviewed. It is absolutely not intended as an attack page, and I strongly reject any claim that it's meant for that purpose. I suggest that people have a look at the comments on User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I intend to go through the articles in more detail at the weekend to see whether they can be salvaged or need to be sent to AfD, but in the meantime it helps to focus discussion among involved editors. A couple of the articles listed have been sent to AfD by other editors whom I had invited to review these notes, and there are discussions ongoing about what to do with a couple of articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about when you protected the page twice, even as you were in a content dispute over it; was that just "an error on [your] part" too? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(added) The problems with Ariobarza's editing were the subject of earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User:Ariobarza. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's edits to that page appear to have been fairly ill-advised as well. Elonka, in your post here, you refer to rules over and over, yet I see nowhere you've indicated what the problem is. The page, at a casual glance, appears like an attempt to document actual problems that have occurred or are occurring. This doesn't make it an attack page. Why not just leave this alone? Friday (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove,[53] and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. --Elonka 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there at all. 1) The page does not actually call those users "Iranian nationalists" - it mentions that "Iranian nationalism" might be an issue, and then several sentences later mentions several users whose edits might be a problem. 2) How on earth is "Iranian nationalist" a personal attack? Karanacs (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't call editors Iranian nationalists. The page says "Iranian nationalism ... appears to be a common factor". That's not just my personal assessment of the situation. See [54] for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar, as I noted on your talk page, you didn't remove or comment on that. And does 3RR really apply to user's subpages? And although it would be nice if we didn't have to, if we just ignore nationalism on Wikipedia that's going to hurt us in both the short and the long run. dougweller (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, 3RR doesn't apply to subpages in userspace. See the last bullet point in WP:3RR#Exceptions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Surely Elonka must be aware that other administrators are in agreement about these editors. User:JzG independently came to the same conclusion about the template for Kurdish literature created by one of these editors [55], etc. In view of this, it is quite hard to see why Elonka has adopted her present stance in this area, which seems to be outside her expertise. Might it be something personal? Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone is doubting that Iranian nationalism is an issue here, I suggest you look at the user page of User:Babakexorramdin, one of the editors involved in these articles: "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To comment here, I was indirectly called an Iranian Nationalist by ChrisO or someone close to him. Yet I forgave him. I think the problem here as I have theorized that some users think Iranian history is fully covered, but neglected. I am niether for or against Iranian Nationalists, they have a right to celebrate their culture, but they are not entirely right, and neither is ChrisO in labeling people. I promised myself to edit Persian related articles from the way up, but because of disputes involving this admin, it has not helped me progress on other articles I want to edit, namely alternative history, animal related articles, and Roman-Greek military history. I do not want to see ChrisO be blocked for this, eventhough it was because of him as he made my ANI page, that I was blocked for two weeks. Because I agree with him that there is a lack of neutrality here, but he also needs to stop going back on his word.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• When I first saw this page yesterday, I was somewhat concerned by the "Editors of concern" section at the bottom. With this having been removed, I see nothing improper with ChrisO's page and consider it only a useful and suitable place for managing what appears to be widespread policy violations. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question ... why does the phrase "editors of concern" cause you, erm ... concern? It's not a negative phrase, it generally merely identifies editors who may have input into a situation, not editors that someone would be "concerned" about. -t BMW c- 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who thinks this list might be appropriate to add here? These are the real policy violations on purpose. (please click)Please read the message titled, "misconduct issues", it is note worthy, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Not that I can claim complete impartiality either, given the al-Durrah brouhaha this summer, but is any thought being given here to just why Elonka involved herself in this in the first place? That there is a rancorous history between these two administrations is patently obvious. Therefore, while there is no rule (that I am aware of anyways) that says that those with personal histories shouldn't act administratively against one another, one would imagine that an admin finding themselves confronted with such a situation would go to seek outside, uninvolved opinions instead of taking action themselves. Frankly, Elonka's actions seem to have been needlessly provocative. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone raised this issue. This seems to have come about as a result of Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), whose contributions at Battle of Opis have been problematic, complaining to Elonka on her talk page (User talk:Elonka#battle of Opis). Nepaheshgar seems to have coordinated this with Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), one of the parties in the al-Durrah brouhaha who was recently canvassed off-wiki to follow me to unrelated articles on ancient Mesopotamian history (see User talk:Tundrabuggy#Don't be intimidated). I raised the issue of Tundrabuggy's apparent wikistalking earlier, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. I'm concerned that Elonka seems to be implicitly accepting a role of being the go-to person for any issues on which I'm involved, and I'm also concerned that Tundrabuggy seems to be playing a role in keeping the old al-Durrah feuds alive. I'm deeply frustrated that having gone to work on an unrelated area of Wikipedia - it's ancient history, an area in which I have academic qualifications, not "Middle East-related" as Elonka so misleadingly puts it - I'm seemingly being followed around by people involved in the al-Durrah dispute. I proposed to Elonka months ago that the two of us should mutually disengage. I did so; it's very disappointing that she hasn't reciprocated. I don't want to feud with anyone, least of all fellow administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is provacative is ChrisO spends hours refutting what people say about Persian history, and to make things worse, he does not help research about it. He simply slaps deletion tags on articles, and convinces others that he/ she is right. I do not know why he spends a long time trying to create hostility, hindering the progress of articles, and contradicting what he preaches about neutrality, if you check the link of the message above, its clear I am not the first out of 5-6 that he has had disputes with, and appears he might have violated and broken some rules here and there.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• I'm not uninvolved per se, but my only involvement has been through the AfDs. Without continuing to the parsing of motives that this thread seems to have devolved into, can I ask what admin action is necessary? It appears none, as consensus seems to be that this page isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool used to track what ChrisO believes to be problematic edits and articles. Since it appears that no admin action is necessary or will be taken can we mark this as resolved? AniMate 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue. Also, I'm not seeing any consensus that the page "isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool..." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is a page in his user space, not the same thing as though it was in article space. And you also seem to have a long history of dispute with ChrisO. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection in User space is for protection against vandalism, which ChrisO claimed it was, but which it clearly was not; please review WP:VANDAL. Also, please avoid Ad hominem arguments in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If the page was only about Ariobarza's recent conduct, it would be fine IMO. But this is an attack page, meant to defame a variety of users (I see that I am apparently grouped together with all the other users who have been involved in a recent content dispute with ChrisO). This is part of his larger effort to paint a legitimate editing dispute as a policy issue. Chris has also canvassed dozens of editors to watchlist the page, essentially turning it into a vehicle for vote-stacking ([56]), stalking, and defaming other users. Many of the people involved in this discussion were canvassed earlier as well ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], and a dozen more). Khoikhoi 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks. The page is one day old. We generally allow editors some leeway to assemble material for dispute resolution in their userspaces. This is presumably intended to form the possible nucleus of a request for comment or other means of dispute resolution. If the page hangs around and ChrisO does not pursue some formal means of dispute resolution in the next week or two, then yes, it should be deleted as we don't keep enemies lists lying around in userspace. But again: the page is one day old. Everyone take a deep breath. If there are issues of canvassing or votestacking involving ChrisO, then they should be pursued appropriately, but lumping them on to this already over-personalized and rambling thread isn't the way to go. MastCell ^Talk 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify for the nth time:

• This is not an attack page. It's a personal review of a number of problematic articles, which I'm working through systematically to fix or send to AfD. It was created in response to Nickhh's suggestion for "a systematic look through all related articles" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa).
• This is not an enemies list. Yes, a number of editors are listed (including myself, Cplakidas, Crusio and Dougweller, who I certainly don't regard as enemies) but this is simply to identify who the principal involved editors are. It doesn't imply wrongdoing of any sort.
• No votestacking has occurred. A number of articles by Ariobarza and Secthayrabe have already been sent to AfD and there will probably be more deletion nominations to come. I contacted the editors involved on both sides of the AfDs, posted friendly notices about the issues that I had found and requested their feedback. (See e.g. [65]).
• Deletion is not appropriate at this stage. This is a working page, intended for the use of myself and other editors, to work through these issues systematically, fix the problems that have been identified with these articles, track progress and add or remove articles as needed. That will certainly take longer than a week! Dispute resolution is only part of the picture; the page is being used as a collaborative tool, not as a platform for an RfC or some other form of DR. An RfC or two might end up being necessary but that's not the main purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I agree with you ChrisO, that the page should not be deleted. BUT, it should be updated, because some of the faults you say about certain articles, I have fixed them. If you do not update the page where you tell the viewer that I FIXED some of the issues about certain articles. Then you are being misleading to the viewer of the page. Respond on my page, and I will provide you with a list of FIXES that I made to the articles you have in question. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

It sure feels like an attack page, blacklist, enemies list to me, as an "Editor to Watch." I have edited only one of these pages, that being the Battle of Opis, and I made a full four edits. I would appreciate contributors on this section to look at these four edits and asking themselves what exactly it is that makes my edits problematic? {Added balance & reference[66]put the disputed tag back on since there was not consensus to remove it [67] scratched some vagueries [68][69]. } If you see nothing wrong with the edits themselves, then ask yourselves why my name is/was on that list (that got circulated to how many editors and admins giving the impression that we were all 'problem editors'?) Oops! I see it has been expanded since I last looked at it. Other articles have been included for which I am supposedly a problem. Other presumably non-problematic editors have been added to help the appearance. The line shifts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, TB had no prior interest/expertise in this topic and seems to have followed ChrisO there, with the encouragement of an unnamed administrator. Nepaheshgar recently left a message [70] on TB's talk page in which he refers to writers condemned to Iranian nationalism by the "enlightened" unbiased euro-centeric hysterians(I mean historian) who are promoting Nabonidus.

Perhaps Jehochman will at some stage elaborate on the precise terms of Arioborza's unblock (discussed in private emails). Was he not to have had a mentor? At some stage he was advised to develop articles in his user space, to learn how to source them properly and avoid the problems of original research, which is what this is all about. Currently he does not seem to be doing this and is proceeding as before (mistaking deletion discussions for speedy deletes, making this kind of tendentious comment [71], etc). Who is his mentor? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who was hopefully going to be his mentor turned him (or her, Tundrabuggy calls Ariobarza her) down. Jehochman unblocked because of good faith and emails.

As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page[72] of ChrisO's user page that some people are so upset about? These actions by User:Nepaheshgar are clearly using discussion pages to make personal attacks directed at a specific editor. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As various editors have noted, Ariobarza remains clueless in providing sources. [73] Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza seems to have worked on that article nine months ago, Mathsci. Let's not use that against them. Ariobarza, please do as we discussed: 1/ avoid conflicts; nothing good comes from arguing with other editors, 2/ create new content in your own userspace, 3/ seek help from friendly, experienced Wikipedians to make sure your work is up to standards, 4/ don't worry if anything gets deleted because I can provide a copy to you. Perhaps Khoikhoi would be willing to help as well. Jehochman ^Talk 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan, probably you missed this very recent diff, concerning sourcing for Siege of Doriskos. [74] (Previous edits to the article seem irrelevant.) In line with the agreed conditions you have mentioned, somebody should explain again, possibly in private, wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. I have no doubt that you have done this at length yourself. Let me point out again what Ariobarza did today for producing a source for the article: he/she made a search on google books for "siege" and "Dorisko" and found a whole bunch of entries. However a search for the single term "siege of Doriskos" on google books or scholar produces nothing at all. This seems to be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(I fully understand what you say Jehochman, but I just want to make one last thing clear)

Mathsci, if there are problems, just explain them with kindness and show that you want to help, rather than get somebody banned. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please... Mathsci I advise you not to make this issue about me (nothing good comes from argueing with editors). Everything I said on this page is true and you know it (mainly the deeds of ChrisO, and how multiple users are thinking of making an ANI page for him, because of his conduct). Do you want me to talk about that harrasment matter you had?.. I think not. As for my mentor, I already got one, and I am editing in my drafts and sandboxes, so do not tell me what to do now. I have trouble editing, because I have to waist my time cleaning up the missess you people have created, what users are saying the AFD pages, which are illegimate POV tags. I am constantly working out issues with editors currently, making friends, and solving problems. So your the last person I want to worry about. I provided sources, I think your remaining clueless (you called me clueless), please go back to editing math articles. And do not find excuses to involve yourself here. This page is about ChrisO's recent article, and some of his edits. It is not a page to get me banned (Ariobarza has good faith). Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

With respect, the page concerns the poor/absent sourcing of a circle of related articles in ancient history. Do you accept now that nobody has so far been able to locate any sources for Siege of Doriskos, one of the articles listed on the subpage? Please don't turn this into a personal attack on ChrisO. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza, please don't discuss content disputes on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please go to WP:ADOPT and find somebody to help you learn about proper sources. Other editors, there is always a need for experienced mentors at WP:ADOPT. Please help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to state my opinion: ChrisO's notes are ChrisO's notes, it is good for transparency that he chooses to keep them on-Wiki, and there should be a high bar on calling such notes out as "attack pages". No action needed. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Same. There are real problems on these pages - several of them have been created on the whim of individual editors, and then stuffed full of information that appears to have been more or less made up. WP needs more coordinated analysis of problem areas (which is what Chris' page involves), not less. The good articles will survive that, and should even be improved as a result. I agree that we need to be careful about it being seen as some sort of attack page, but equally where the same editors' names crop up again and again, that helps clarify what the problem is and where other problems might be found. When I last looked, Chris had removed the dedicated list of editors, and only kept fairly bland references to them within the article sections (which of course simply summarises info already available from the article history). If you edit here, what you do will be scrutinised, and rightly so. Each time I see it happening I'm becoming less surprised by the comments of those who seem more bothered by i) supposed form/process, ii) spotting even the merest hint of what might possibly be perceived as a slight personal attack, and iii) their own apparently personal issues with Chris, rather than the accuracy, quality and neutrality of content in Wikipedia. As most people surely know, there's an awful lot of cr#p on here and any effort to deal with that should be applauded. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you find it funny that the same users (that are with ChrisO) pop up in the deletions pages saying things like Delete-per nom,sign. They never explain why it should be deleted, and when evidence is presented they still deleted (they make excuses like the information is not enough for a single article, it should be deleted, ignoring other articles and coming after Persian related articles, why?). Is this the new revionist strict in denial policy of these users. If this is the case, it should be stopped, or I THEORIZE other users might be compelled, on the opposing side, to make an ANI for some of them (do not worry, I will never make an ANI page for someone, I am not that evil) I have hope in good faith. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The only impropriety I can see is what Avruch noted in confirmation of Elonka's remark re ChrisO's block-threat. That exasperated ira has now been apologized for, and the irate threat removed. The fact remains that two editors who appear to many to push fringe theories, have been supported by Elonka against ChrisO on two separate areas, on formal issues. Since Elonka and Chris0 have conflictual relations, it is not advisable for the former to intervene on secondary pages where ChrisO has issues of contention with one editor who followed him there, on an anonymous administrator's suggestion, and with another who doesn't, by all accounts, understand WP:RS, WP:SYNTH etc. Elonka is a formalist, ChrisO a content-editor. Successive interventions by Elonka here only reflect a structural tension in wiki between the application of etiquette protocols to ensure civil editing, and the application of protocols to ensure that quality sources inform content designed to produce articles that are written to the highest standards of specialist research. This battle cannot be waged endlessly between the two, and therefore neither should meddle in their disputes with third parties. For to do so, lends an air of persecution, vendetta, settling scores, etc., a suspicion that will only increase if this interaction persists, and lead to the usual partisan line-up, the same debates, and the same subtextual animosity. Since ChrisO moved on from the Mohammad al-Durrah article which was the origin of their clash, removing himself from the original site of their differences, and Elonka moved after him, as did Tundrabuggy to these Persian pages, it appears to me that this latter move was intrinsically and forseeably not conducive to the very neutrality and etiquette Elonka herself insists on as a priority. A completely neutral administrator or two, with no history of conflict with ChrisO, should be appealed to by those who disagree with his edits on the Persian pages, or his use of administrative tools there.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

comment This comment is to Doug Welter. Doug States:You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar. That is not true and please do not twist the statement. This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement. I did not call ChrisO a liar. I said: "pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" which is stating an opinion on his opinion about me (his opinion is in violation of WP:ATP, specially when he started that page, he had targed 6-7 editors[75]. Please note ChrisO even accused me of edit warring, which is a lie. I hardly edited those pages. If anyone was edit warring, it was ChrisO who is an admin and yet broke 3rr on that page. Possibly, I broke 1rr but not even 2rr. Stating an opinion on an opinion is fine in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Personal Attacks are not fine, but that was comment on content. Of course ChrisO has constantly called anyone who disagrees with him as an "Iranian nationalist". For example I have listed some Iranian nationalists here starting from Plato, Herodotus, Xenophon and etc to modern Western scholars:[76]. Trying to change the topic now will not work and change focus. How about this comment by ChrisO with regards to me: [77]. Please note his threats and intidimation. The whole comment violates many rules of Wikipedia. " Carrot first before stick?" shows complete arrogance (due to administrator power) and WP:OWN mentality and I even believe that is how ChrisO feels about who disagree with him and are not fromt he same area. Or how about this: "could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback". This is a threat for permanent banning and it is intidimation. All this, due to a content dispute (and I hardly edit any of these articles before discussing them and I have never reverted in any of these articles or broken 3rr like ChrisO). As per the issue of the Kurdish literature template, I have no doubt it is related. Incidentally if I was an “Iranian nationalists”, I would not create a Kurdish literature template. I have already mentioned templates which include: [78] [79][80] and have existed for some years now. Why were those not put to deletion after two-three years? So what I have done is create a parallel Kurdish Literature template when I saw Urdu, Turkish, Persian and etc. templates that have existed for some years. If there is a Turkish literature template, Urdu literature template,..etc., why not Kurdish literature template. If I was an "Iranian nationalist", I would have just let there be a Persian literature template and then redirected Iranian Literature to Persian literature instead of making that page a dab page. As per ChrisO being knowledegable in the classics, when it comes to ancient Persia, I also have a knowledge of Old Persian language as well as have read many history books and articles. So that does not give an execuse to misue administrator power. ChrisO has abused his administrator power to intimidate other editors and has violated WP:ATPWP:NPAWP:3RR numerous times. When he disagrees with them, he labels them instead of concentrating on content and this leads to an atmosphere of intidimation(of course since he is an admin and he knows the other side knows he is an admin, this makes the threat credible). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when is saying that someone has told a lie not the same as calling them a liar? You write " This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement." Now what are you accusing me of? What does 'working behind the scenes' mean? You've called Chris a liar, you seem to have accused me of something, and you keep harping on Chris breaking 3RR which he admitted he had done -- it happens, and he was unblocked by the Admin who blocked him. As for things not being put to deletion when they should have been, there must be thousands upon thousands of articles, templates, etc which should be deleted but no one has noticed them or gotten around to doing something about them. As for attack pages, you have tried to turn at least two user pages into attack pages. dougweller (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to change the subject. I commented on content and not the person which is common to Wikipedia rule. ChrisO had made the comment here: [81]. He explicitly states: Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs). Very similar problems as with Ariobarza. Has edit-warred, pervasively pushes OR with regard to Battle of Opis in particular. . Now this is what I have called a pure lie. Now if you are connecting this to labeling ChrisO as liar, then that is your issue, but I have not called him a liar. Rather per wikipedia rules: WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor., I have commented on the content on his page and I called that sentence/label a lie[82]. Because unlike ChrisO, I have not edit warred on the topic or broken 3rr. Neither unlike ChrisO, I have intidimated users and threatened to ban them or treat them as inferior animals(carrots or sticks comment) or have canvessed 40 users to my talkpage and then defamed 6-7 users:[83] and then used my administrator power to lock the article which defames individuals. I hope that clears things up. As per the Kurdish Literature template, it was the tone of nominator which was the problem. Note the nominator said: This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. . ChrisO then puts "per nom". The reason for deletion should be given without labeling the editor. And the template had no agenda. The template follows regular patterns in other Wikipedia templates that have existed for many years (Urdu, Turkish, Persian literature templates..) and there was no agenda by a tendentious editor following a nationalistic definition! Now if those other templates that have existed many years are inappropriate, then reason should be given rather than labeling editors as the nominator did. As per bias, I'll leave it to other editors.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have said ChrisO's statement was wrong, and that would have been ok. Saying it was a lie is calling him a liar, and to deny that is just ridiculous because it is a direct comment on the contributor. What he locked was his userpage, not an article, I am sure you know the difference. You are conflating all sorts of things in an attempt to do what looks like harassment of ChrisO, eg your continued mention of 3RR when you know it was once, he admitted he'd done it inadvertently, and the blocking Admin (Elonka in fact) unblocked him. I disagree that you haven't edit warred. I don't recall any ban threats (predictions maybe, but that is very different). And I don't see intimidation either, although ChrisO - and you and others -- have some very strong feelings on various issues which he, you and others have expressed. dougweller (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get into semantics. If statement is wrong, then it is a lie. It could be an intentional or non-intentional lie, but it is a lie. One definition of lie in my dictionary is:an inaccurate or false statement. Now, if somethings falls under a label "editors of concern", the word "lie" is appropriate since it is an inaccurate satement! Per Wikipedia rules, you can make comments on content but not label editors. You brought this matter up, but as you noticed, it does not go against any Wikipedia rule since I am commenting on content. As per 3rr and ChrisO, it occured twice, not once. Breaking 3rr twice is edit warring, specially in the same topic. But one revert is not edit warring. So ChrisO has called my editing pattern for that article as "edit warring"(which is a lie: false/inaccurate satement) where-as he broke 3rr twice on the same article. He was blocked once, but then he did it again, I was about to file a report, but I withdrew (out of good faith)[84][85]. So I did not continue it. And it was right after he broke a 3rr before. As per me edit warring on battle of Opis, no I did not edit war. Predicting banning and then putting my name constantly next to a banned user, is intrepreted as a ban threat. Grouping different users and putting my name next to a banned user is an intidimation tactic. Also "Carrot and Stick" is intidimating comment as well as arrogant. I am sure you would not like such comments applied to you. There is no need for me to repeat myself and I think I was clear. If you disagree fine.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that such pages as ChrisO's are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia, definitely not appropriate for an administrator to have (who is supposed to appear neutral as an administrator), reflects POV and possible SOAP problems, and violates many editorial ethical concerns. I think, at the very minimum, such pages should be immediately deleted and the user warned against creating such thing in the future. They are not compatible with consensus, civility, or any of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is about working together, finding unity in which all people can be agreed upon, and not the place for one person who has "truth" to pass blank judgment on all others without actually getting into discussions, focusing on specific events, wording, phrasing, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly gentlemen, this is getting farcical beyond forebearance. I've lost my cool just having to waste an hour checking stuff. I've examined this editor because I note Jehochman now is expressing frustration at what he now perceives to be Chris0's irascible behaviour, and I take Jehochman's judgement seriously. This repeated requirement that etiquette prevail over quality, that minding your p's and q's with whoever is far more important than having specialized editors formally prepared in their subjects, is absurd. I can now see why Chris0 reacted as he did. One look at Nepaheshgar's page, and he'd have known, as I do now, that editing rationally with him is going to be extremely difficult, because that page is a compost heap of badly sourced, poorly translated or wrongly sourced material. Yet wiki requires one to be exquisitely polite, even if one's interlocutor is off the planet (to use an hyperbole, and not applicable to the present case, where we merely have someone who has no knowledge of what constitutes reliable sourcing).

[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]]'s page on classical sources bearing on Cyrus would tell anyone that editing with him is going to be tortuous, because that page is a crazy-quilt of irrelevancies that attest to his lack of grasp of many things, how to source, whom to source, how to distinguish old, dated sources from modern ones, how to discard a dud source from a reliable one, how to check if the source itself quotes the text correctly or merely paraphrases it, how to know who is an authority and who not etc.,etc. It is a nightmare.

He quotes Plato's Laws 693D-698 for the following remark:-

Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community

A glance will tell you this cannot be so, because Laws 693D-698 is not a ref to a passage, but refers to 7 long pages of the original Greek text (Burnet, Platonis Opera, Tome V, pp.102-109

So I've had to read the whole blasted section again, in Greek just to be sure, just to see what's going on, and am forced to conclude it is a paraphrase, deeply misleading at that, of a small section of Plato (giving an 'Athenian's perspective' not necessarily Plato's) by someone else, not a quote from Plato, namely Sect 694a-b. There however the Persians do not 'liberate themselves'. They lived a live combining a measure of liberty and slavery, etc.etc. It is a paraphrase not a quote, as Nepashegar would have it.

What on earth is the father of modern European racism, Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, who wrote his foundational tract on 'races' ('Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines')back in the 1850s, doing being cited here, as though the republication date 1971 indicated he was 'the late' Comte de Gobineau? Do we say, 'the late Karl Marx', 'the late Charles Dickens'. Obviously Nepaheshgar does not realize who Gobineau was, nor that his various books on Persia document his theory of races rather than the history of Persia, whose major documents were hardly yet in the purview of scholars, nor the ancient material since unearthed.

He quotes Max Von Mallowan. I didn't know that Agatha Christie's husband had a German title. After all his father was just an Austrian migrant to England, and the highest rank he got was a CBE. Still, he's okay, if rather dated.

He quotes Will Durant, a widely read popularizer of good standing some 70 odd years ago. No direct knowledge of the area.

He quotes Arthur Cotterell. Another popularizer, writing general middle brow books on everything from the Celts to China. No direct knowledge of the subject.

Why is everyone frigging about with the rule book? Ask any editor with a background in ancient history, qualified at university level, and if he doesn't confirm one's impression that people who prepare material in this holus-bolus topsyv-turvy antiquarian medley way are not going to be easy to edit with, then I'll be a canadian monkey's uncle.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MASSIVE PAGE MOVE VANDALISM/SOCKPUPPETRY

Resolved

 – Sock farm found and blocked

There is a huge amount of collateral damage on the new user's page thanks to what is clearly a Grawp-styled coordinated attack by a bunch of "Willy on Wheels" copycats. It is a disaster and one I can't fix with just a rollback key. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I'm not seeing it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin. Check out the contribs from User:The willy on the oatmeal box. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Have you seen any more useraccounts doing the same thing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'm keeping an eye on things. And to think, I promised myself no more vandal patrolling. Sheesh.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• • It's a sockfarm. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The willy on the oatmeal box for starters. -- Avi (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Make that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tidder, and the real puppetmaster may be someone else. -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cassandrajean at Cassandra Whitehead. Urgent BLP issue

This user claims to be the subject of the article Cassandra Whitehead -- and blanked the page (diff) and left a colorful edit summary about how it contained false information. I'm not exactly sure how this is handled so I hope I was right in bringing the issue here? -User:Belinrahs/sig

I don't see where she's stated that she's the subject? I'm off to bed in a minute but I'm replaced your template message with someone asking her to confirm her identity (we get them to email the foundation right?) and to outline her concerns. If you are a living figure and your article is full of things that you know are untrue (and I have no idea if this is the case or not), it can be a bit stressful to get template messages tell you to cease and desist. Can people pick up the conversation as I need to hit the sack? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? she's around and I don't want to leave a BLP hanging on the line... --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to help out but something just came up so I need to head out. I'm changing to heading of this section so it gets more eyes. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is her stating she's the subject. I'm reluctant to get involved with this as I've never heard of her so don't know how to evaluate any claims. On a skim I can't see anything glaring jumping out of the article. – iridescent 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a sourced bit in the text about her haircut whilst on a TV show which she may be unhappy with. I've left the email address which she can contact directly, without wading through the help page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, she seems to be unhappy with how her name is dealt with, along with some details having to do with her physical description. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I need a little help with archives at ACORN

Resolved

 – Archives have been repaired. --Elonka 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to create better talk page archives at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and since this is my first attempt, I've screwed it up. I have now created good archives and need an admin to delete the bad ones. Please delete the following archives:

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive3 (I left out a space when creating it and have now created a good "Archive 3.")

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 25 (Bad numbering. At the time it was created, there were no Archives 3-24.)

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 26 (Same problem. At the time it was created, there were no Archives 3-24.)

Thanks for your help with this minor problem. Marx0728 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. You could have just tagged them with {{db}} and the reasonaing abose as well. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Talkpage archiving help is also available by adding the {{archiveme}} template to the top of the page. --Elonka 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on a soon to be notable figure

Resolved

 – Inappropriate page deleted. --Elonka 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't the rest of the articles look this good? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Patton ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I speedily deleted it I was thinking, "What a wonderfully done up page." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Carlie 77

Carlie 77 (talk · contribs) has added a bunch of pictures to Wikipedia with him standing in front of or in various diners, and is adding these pictures (with him in the foreground) to different articles, mostly with his website mentioned in the caption. Can these images be speedy deleted? NJGW (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The images are all on Commons and so cannot be speedied here but I will nominate them for deletion there. They could be removed from articles here on the grounds that they are promotional and I see user has already been warned about this. I don't see how they serve any encyclopedic purpose since they say nothing about the subject of the articles they appear in. --Rodhullandemu 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I removed the images from the articles as unencyclopedic and left another notice on the user's page. NJGW (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They're all nominated on Commons as being promotional-only. I'll keep an eye on the discussion there. --Rodhullandemu 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban request

May I request a page-ban for a single purpose account? TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) only edits chirporactic pages and consistently pushes to whitewash them. He is obstructionist, rude, condescending, and I cannot find a single contribution that actually has added content of note.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing just a ban from the main Chiropractic page or a more general topic ban? It's not entirely clear to me that either one is warranted but in any case the scope of any restriction should be clear. I's probably suggest a general 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring and encourage use of talk pages as a better way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Third User:Lyle123 sock in two days

The latest is User:BudgieMovie199266666 who, sure as I'm sitting here, just created a stub on a non-existent movie about "Budgie the Little Helicopter." I reported the other two socks to AIV, but they remain unblocked. I understand this person is editing from a gigantic IP range in Australia, but if no one else from there is using the range, would someone kindly run a checkuser and shut it down for a little while? Also, please shut down those two socks I'd reported earlier. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Color this one resolved. Gogo Dodo got 'em for me. Thanks again, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A little protection needed on Religious affiliations of United States Presidents

Given the outcome of the election we have already had two IPs add Barack Obama to Religious affiliations of United States Presidents. If we can get this semi-protected it would save a lot of reverts. Mangoe (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Two bits of vandalism (soon reverted) is NOT grounds for semi-protection. If we semi-protected everything it would save reverts, fortunately reverts are cheap. And isn't he a muslim anyway? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jennamaroney and BLP Orfeh

VRTS ticket # 2008102710000693 Warnings: [86] (ignored and blanked). User:Jennamaroney repeatedly put back material that was unsourced/poorly sourced/with challenged sources, in violation of wp:v and wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-07t11:13z

• Warned. User:Jennamaroney seems have some conflict of interest and perhaps an unwillingness to understand and follow sundry Wikipedia policies. Much of the content she's trying to restore is promotionally worded along with being unreliably sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• I've protected the article. Jeandré du Toit (talk · contribs) is not without fault in this area, however. I see zero attepts on xyr part to explain either on the other editor's talk page or on the talk page of the article why information such as (for example) an assertion that this person has done voice-over work for a computer game, sourced to both the person's autobiography and xyr IMDB listing, is controversial information that is poorly sourced, and thus content that warrants removal under the BLP policy. I suspect that Jeandré du Toit is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blanket reverting, rather than excising the material that (from reading the edit history) is actually the subject of the dispute and that warrants immediate removal under our policy, and restoring the neutral non-promotional wording about voiceover work from the 2006 version of the article.

  Jeandré du Toit, I recommend not simply saying "OTRS" and giving no explanation whatsoever as to reliability and independence problems with sources. When OTRS volunteers have done this in the past, it has always ended in acrimony. The article is protected from your editing, too. You should take the issue to the talk page, as well, and provide explanations of why credits for voiceover work cannot be sourced to IMDB and the subject's autobiography, and why you are throwing that out along with the material (which I'm carefully not mentioning) that clearly is the subject of contention here. Edit, don't blanket revert. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411's signature,

Per this edit, it is quite obvious the signature is still rather large. Isn't this against what is stated on the signature policy/guideline page? I also see that this happened once before, and as far as I can tell, the sig still seems to the be the same size, or was changed, then changed back. Is it possible to get it reduced again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 13:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for block

Requesting block on German submarine U-552. Persistent reversions by 75.181.153.57 (talk · contribs) Salmanazar (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Investigation "threat" on AFD page

So there's an AFD for Real vmx going on; which, in itself, is rather "fun" for the antics of the article author. Despite a few people offering advice he has turned the whole thing into a soapbox saying anyone who votes to delete the page must be in the pay of the borg. That's fine; however he's now "threatening" an investigation by a professional journalist. Now I realise this is probably all nonsense and it's certainly not on a par with a legal threat; but it's probably crossed the line somewhere. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, hey, I'm a professional journalist! I don't see a legal threat, and I don't see any harm here, just someone a little overzealous. -t BMW c- 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying it's a legal threat; or anything near as severe; and frankly I'm viewing it with amusement more than anything else; but I thought it might be worth flagging, just in case. (We won't hold you being a professional journalist against you *grin*) --Blowdart | ^talk 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've informed him of this thread. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The person has already been given numerous warnings to stop his disruptive editing. If a block is not warranted for such disruption, then I am inclined to initiate an WP:RFC/U on the user when I get the time to do so, as multiple editors have tried and failed to make good of the situation. The user has already been reported to WP:COIN as the user is the creator of the software. MuZemike (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus for deletion on that discussion; I'll close the discussion and delete the article in hopes that it'll be helpful in encouraging him to chill out a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mahalios trying to impose layout change at List of Prime Ministers of Spain

I don't even know if this is the right place to report this, but since Nov 3, Mahalios (talk · contribs) and I have been involved in a sort-of reversion war at List of Prime Ministers of Spain. The main point is that he is trying to impose a big layout change in the tables, removing the PMs' pictures and timelines, and changing the alignment. I have repeatedly called on him to discuss this layout change, both on the article talk page and on his user talk page. All my requests and offers for a dialog were met with deafening silence and a new reversion. This contrasts with my behaviour: with each reversion I have worked into integrating the content changes from him and another IP user into the article, so that only the layout change would be put on hold until proper discussion took place. On the other hand, he has simply reverted to the same version over and over, without even bothering to write an edit summary - except the first one in which he argues that my previous revert, in which I scolded an IP user for the pretty much the same behaviour, was inappropriate. Summing it up, Mahalios' is not willing to collaborate and has a pretty slant and invicil attitude. I don't know the procedure for these kind of cases, but sicne he has not responded to my messages I doubt mediation would help. What can be done? Habbit (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enlist other editors! Advice to do this is available at WP:Dispute resolution. Briefly put, your overall strategy should be to begin a discussion and obtain consensus as to what the article content should be. If this editor doesn't want to get involved in the discussion, they have no grounds to complain, and repeated reversion against consensus without discussion constitutes vandalism. If the other editor commits vandalism, post warning messages on their user talk page (see WP:WARN) and if they persist, report them to the vandalism intervention noticeboard. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

85.73.211.84

Resolved

 – Zzapped by Spellcast. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

85.73.211.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Single purpose account. Defamatory personal attacks against Future Perfect at Sunrise. Dr.K. (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That's Walnutjk (talk · contribs), has been in meltdown mode for a couple days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This should give him some time to solidify. Dr.K. (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

 – User warned; no template needed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Apawk made personal attacks angainst Rtiztik can someone please leave a warning as I can't find the neccessary template. Thanks in advance, HairyPerry 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Em, there is no "necessary template". Just type a "please don't do that" note.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is: {{uw-npa}}. Dr.K. (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but templates are just a help, not a means unto themselves. If you can't find a template (or can't be bothered, or don't want to, or any other reason) a personal note does just as well - and often better. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Your points including WP:DTTR should be followed whenever possible. I just added it for the record. Dr.K. (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

...and since it didn't necessarily require "immediate" action, WP:WQA would have been a good starting place :-) -t BMW c- 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Richardscrivan

Richardscrivan (talk · contribs)
This user's contributions seem to be a mix of vandalism and a good faith attempt to create an article on a scout troupe in Roscrea. He has received two final warnings. If a block is not appropriate, perhaps salting the target page Roscrea scout troop or userfying the article might put a stop to this. Admin input appreciated, the skomorokh 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching, let's see if it carries on after the flurry of CSD deletions and warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks Gwen. I'm not sure of the implications of this IP edit, but it suggests possible chan involvement. Regards, the skomorokh 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP edit (from 61.62.10.233, now blocked as an open proxy) is a spammer who vandalises pages apparently at random, probably finding them in recent changes. —Snigbrook 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies matters. Thank you, Snigbrook. the skomorokh 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looked like happenstance to me, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Jauerback (talk · contribs); that's that then. the skomorokh 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth

User:Eye.earth has been undertaking disruptive actions on List of centenarians, deleting most of what little information is already contained in the introduction referring in such ways as "cutting out the fat", despite the obvious agreement on the talk page that the introduction needs to be lengthened, per the requirements at the style guidelines for lists. Although they have been contacted several times on their talk page and asked to discuss their edits, they simply ignore the request and continue to push their own version after taking a break. Occasionally the edits are even more disruptive, such as this one which removed content and references with no explanation whatsoever. More information can be found at the user's talk page. This user needs to understand that if someone disagrees with your editing, you need to discuss it with them, not just keep reinserting in the hopes that the other user will give up. After this one, I contacted WP:WQA, in hopes that they might listen to a third opinion, but they ignored the advice and continued to remove the majority of the already too-small introduction. Since I am involved in the issue, it is not appropriate for me to take any course of action, but something needs to be done so that they understand that there needs to be discussion on this issue. Cheers, CP 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Warnings have been given in the past for edit-warring and ownership. Does not play well with others. Time for a wake-up call. -t BMW c- 15:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Left a post about this thread on their talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So did I. I don't mean to come off as rude, I just want to acknowledge that I haven't forgotten my duties! Cheers, CP 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Apawk

Resolved

 – Apawk is on his ninth life, and will be blocked on the next disruptive edit. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is doing nothing but making personal attacks and adding nonsense to Wikipedia, need some advice please. [87] [88] [89] [90] HairyPerry 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Final "knock it off or you will be blocked forever" warning given to Apawk. Helpful advice given to HairyPerry. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ed Poor is being used to transact the editor's Conservapedia business

This was brought to my attention on the Help Desk. User:Ed Poor, one of our oldest editors but no stranger to controversy, is using his Wikipedia talk page for transacting business about edits, blocks, etc. at Conservapedia. Is it just me or is this grossly inappropriate, regardless of anybody's ideologies? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

em.. Hello, I should pitch in here since I originally raised this at the help desk trying to get a feel what to do. People can do what they like in their own time but I was surprised to see that someone was conducting business for a far-right site (which is my reading of the place - and I should point out my political perspective is formed by being from the UK - I know the terms might not mean the same in the US) here at wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Ed "shouldn't" be doing this but so long as there aren't all that many threads having to do with it, I don't see many worries. Others may have other takes though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My philosophy in situations like this is usually "if the person is spending most of the time here contributing postiviely to Wikipedia, I don't particularly care what things s/he is doing on the side". Unless there is a lot of evidence that I am missing, that philosophy applies here. I'd say drop it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If people don't think it's a problem, then I guess it's not a problem which I find sorta surprising, but hey... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked on his talk page for the past several months and found two threads on his talk page, each with less than four messages. Am I willing to part with months of good encyclopedia contributions to save me from those two harmless threads? Definitely not. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake. We have people doing all sorts of crap in userspace, if Ed wants to use some to help a fellow free-content site then that's fine. Anyone who calls it "far right" should get out more and meet a real neo-fascist. Conservopedia is light-hearted, and quite amusing in its self-aware ridiculousness. It's almost a parody of Fox News. Just because it doesn't share wikipedia's liberal bias [scrupulous neutrality] doesn't mean it is evil.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about roughly one CP thread per month. At that level, I think it is better to just ignore it. I'm sure lots of Wikipedians find something unwiki to talk about at that level. Though I would generally encourage Ed to move discussions back to CP when possible. Dragons flight (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardblocked (by Aschlafly personally…) so can't do it myself, but it would seem to me to be a courtesy if someone with a CP account were to notify Aschlafly (their equivalent of Jimbo) in case this is abusing any of their procedures (I don't think for one moment that it's breaching any of ours). Incidentally, I wouldn't call CP a "far-right site" - while some of their contributors may hold extreme opinions, the same could be said of WP. They just have a different opinion of what the NPOV "median" is. – iridescent 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)