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

User:Mcjakeqcool

User:Mcjakeqcool was first brought to the community's attention through a thread in WP:VG where someone raised a concern about the number of articles he was creating. We then proceeded to deal with some of these articles, turning them to redirects of deleting them. Taking a look at the user's talk page quite well demonstrates the amount of controversy they has caused.

The user has been warned, but has vowed to continue, stating about "my project" and warning editors that he will challenge deletions (despite the fact that there has been few, if any, opposition to any deletion). User adoption was also suggested, but this idea was also refuted (or should I say "DENIED") by the user, stating that they would instead continue editing by their own accord.

Basically, this user has been a pain in the neck. They refuse to stop their editing, despite it breaching key policies, and have repeatedly stated what rights they have granted us editors. A block seems harsh, as the editor still seems to be acting in good faith, but as they evidently don't want to accept the rules, it may be the only way to get them to listen. What view do the community and administrators have on this situation, and what do they suggest we do to help this editor recognise the rules?

Apologies if this isn't the correct theatre for a discussion that doesn't immediately require an administrator's action. If so, please move this to the correct place and notify me on my talk page. Cheers. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at what you've written here (I haven't viewed any of the links or background info), it might be more appropriate to seek out some dispute resolution, especially if you feel he is acting in good faith. If he's not open to this, and his editing continues to be disruptive, then administrative action could probably be considered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Mcjake of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My bottom line is that is appears this user does not care what advice, suggestions, helpful hints, or outright warnings they receive. They will continue to do what they want. For more than a month they've been creating articles with one or two sentences. These articles have repeatedly been redirected or deleted. Yet the user continues to create more articles in the same vein. Several times, suggestions on how to create good articles has been posted to their talk page, yet there is no change. As noted above, the user has refused possible adoption so that they can be a better contributor to Wikipedia. Something needs to be done so that people aren't wasting their time with the articles they continue to create and expect others to cleanup, add content to, or otherwise deal with. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

McJakeQCool has been active since late 2008. He seems unable to comprehend advice given and equally unable to string together a sensical sentence. His article creations are copy-pastes, a sentence or two stating that it's a game for X system which at the bottom features the actual text displayed by stub templates and categories entered while editing normally (see this from a couple of days ago for example). Virtually all of them are on games which any editor would struggle to locate reliable sourcing on (a good reason for them not being here in the first place). Dispute resolution or anything involving.. y'know, communication, is going to be as effective as fighting a fire with petrol, since inability to communicate and respond to communication is the issue. I don't think there is any malice or intention to disrupt anything, but the result is the same. If the result of months of being here has not even instilled the knowledge of how to add categories, discern a reliable source or even write a proper stub then I fail to see who is gaining what from this. Please take another look at this, the problem isn't going to suddenly correct itself. Someoneanother 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My present statement is that I try my uttermost best to contibute postively to wikipedia, however I do comprehend all advice given to myself, I agree to colabarate with fellow wikipedians if nesersery as I already have with user Otumbu. mcjakeqcool 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

You were offered adoption by one of the video game project's friendliest and most helpful members, despite him not having much time, and you turned it down. Just over a week ago you received a friendly note pointing you to Wikipedia:Starting an article. That guide contains pointers such as "Things to avoid - A single sentence or only a website link". Today you created this, which is now listed as an AFD in a note at the bottom of your talk page after a string of deletion notices and requests for you to edit more contructively. You aren't getting it, at all, repeated assurances that you are will not allow you to carry on like this forever and a day. I really really don't want to focus on you (or any other editor), make you feel bad or anything like that, but you're just creating messes for others to clean up and are point-blank refusing to do anything about it. Someoneanother 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to mention the possibility of an WP:RFC/U, but if admin action is not necessary at this point with other venues having been tried to salvage something useful from this user, (I have mentioned the idea of adoption or mentorship, but both were thrown back in the offerers' faces.) then I think we may have to do up one. MuZemike 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing disruption has already been observed and commented on by multiple contributors, yet there has been no sanctions brought or change in behaviour. Rather than tie up what is a simple case of obliviousness or ignorance in red tape there needs to be some kind of boundary. Either that or we forget the whole thing, nominate further abortive 'stubs' for speedy and revert unhelpful article additions on sight, there is no more point in trying to reason with McJakeQCool than having a slanging match with a bookcase. Someoneanother 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe admin action is necessary. The user has received friendly advice on creating and developing articles ([1] [2]), been offered to be adopted ([3]), and has received numerous pending deletion notices ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] this from just this month) on articles the user has created. The user's response is to deny adoption ([11]), states they will carry on and will challenge deletions on the article's talk page ([12]), incorrectly instructs Wikipedians on how to "wikify" an article ([13]), created articles with the edit summary of "DO NOT DELETE OR MERGE ARTICLE AS IT HAS BEEN WIKIFIED", and makes statements that appears they believe they are doing things correctly ([14]). All the while, the user continues to create new articles in the same unconstructive manner.

This is disruptive editing practices, in my opinion, and something should be done about it. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must point out I did not refuse to collaborate with Guyinblack25, I simply refused to have him adopt my account, my ambition is to continue on with my project, until it is done, then I will think of another way to contribute to wikipeida, altough I accept my project is controversial, it is a landmark event not only for myself, but for wikipedia as a whole. mcjakeqcool 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarification of the unenlightened, what is your project? And whilst you say it is a "landmark event" for Wikipedia, does it follow policy? Because if not, it has no place on Wikipedia. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: mcjakeqcool has been blocked by an admin uninvolved in this discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Mcjakeqcool will now recognize that the path he was taking wasn't so much controversial as plain wrong, and will reconsider the advice that has been given. Someoneanother 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from their response to the block ([15]) I have my doubts that there will be much change. I suppose we'll find out next time Mcjakeqcool edits now that their block has expired. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User seems to imply they've changed, though I haven't a clue what they plan now. The post seems to be saying "I'll stop creating new articles and start creating stubs." 'Tis probably worth waiting to see what they do before we can make any assumptions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're saying that, instead of going through "List of whatever games" articles and creating stub articles for all the unlinked ones, they're going to add their little stub articles *next* to the titles of the unlinked ones. I don't think that constitutes a significant improvement... rdfox 76 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@User:Greg Tyler

My project is a attempt to vastly brodern the campisity of video game articles with-in wikipeida, however I have adopted which I will hope will be a less controversial approach, in which instead of createing new articles and 'stubs' I will but a 'stub' sized description of each game beside each game, hopefully this will be a non-controversial answer to user mcjakeqcool's original project. mcjakeqcool 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drag-5 at Kamen Rider Decade

When I signed on today, I found that Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had moved Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the title "Masked Rider Decade". I had seen that there was discussion on the talk page, and as this article is in my area of interest, I moved it back and left a message on the talk page explaining why the title was chosen and then left a message to Drag-5 concerning my issues with his move. In the past half-hour he's moved it back three times, and every time I move it back to the original title. I've just left an edit at the redirect so that it now can't be moved again (I know, bad practice), but Drag-5 has ignored me and directly taunted me in his recent move summaries and his replies to me on his talk page. Even though I directly interfered with his ability to move the article again, I would like to see some action taken against Drag-5 to prevent further disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong left a message on my page in an intimidating manner making orders using false authority. he made me feel intimidated and threatened. he failed to assume good faith and reverted edits more than 3 times and used practices that are against wikipedia policy. he is taking a power trip and is not considering that my edits are for the good of wikipedia and has treated me with disrespect at first. I do not caqre if i get banned but this will only result in people like this gettig their power trip and continuing to stagnate sikipedia and keep bad editing practices and bad communication and intimidation of other members. Drag-5 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this diff is proof that Drag-5 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopædia. jgpTC 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my contributions page shows quite clearly that I am here to contribute. as a human being I reserve the right to get a little hot headed sometimes. Drag-5 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not "hot headed". That is outright incivility.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content relating to the dispute rather than resolving it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's just a small mistake. right? AlienX2009 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) further to this, Ryulong has now demonstrated clear personal bias towards me here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamen_Rider_Decade#It.27s_.22Kamen.22 , which suggest to me that his motives for reverting my good faith edit may not be pure. Drag-5 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC) My comments on Drag-5's activities elsewhere are inconsequential. Drag-5 should not have moved the page without discussing it in the first place, and he should not have moved it three additional times following my revert of the move, without a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC) That's it this is getting stupid. we're fighting over a thing that has been done in the past and I am going to end it. like I said examples: 12796 Kamenrider, english relese of Kamen Rider and Kamen Rider V3, Kamen Rider Double and Kamen Rider Dragon Knight. face it Ryulong is right. AlienX2009 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) alienx2009, your statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidelines. the issue is not dealt with and is still going until the proper title is used.Drag-5 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) What?!. my statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidlines? for your information if I wasn't I wouldn't be here on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and don't ever call me "alienx2009" call me Alien X or "AlienX2009". AlienX2009 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) This content relating to the content dispute is getting off topic from the original purpose of this thread. Leave any and all commentary about the article content on the article talk page and not here where I intend for the actions taken to be investigated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóng's comments on Talk:Kamen Rider Decade page are continually personal. his comments are seemingly aimed at myself instead of concerning the topic itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drag-5 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is false, as Drag-5 continues to disrupt the talk page despite consensus being against him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóngremoved my comment from the following talk page Talk:Kamen Rider Decade please help, this is getting ridiculous.Drag-5 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5's disruption of the article is what is getting ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5 is not disrupting the article by requesting that it be moved to the english title and Ryulong you should not remove other users comments without their permission per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruption at this point, because he subsequently requested a move on a different article to make a point about the discrepancies in page titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous problems caused by User:Pedro thy master

Relevant links

• Pedro thy master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedro thy master/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pedro thy master

User talk page before deletions with all the warnings (notice TOC and all the redlinks)

• Note that user NEVER discusses, only blanks his talk page.

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Lemuel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss in Boots: Story of an Ogre Killer

We need MANY eyes to follow this editor closely:

• His English is terrible, so nearly all his edits need copy editing.
• He's used socks to preserve his work, been blocked for it, and then threatened that he'd do anything to protect his edits.
• He should be followed by CU clerks, since he's likely used many socks that haven't been discovered.
• He has created an article about an unnotable chiropractor just because he thought he was great.[22]
• He then created a list of chiropractors for the purpose of promoting them.[23]
• Some of his work has already been deleted and/or nominated for deletion, but more should likely get AFDed.
• Instead of heeding the many warnings he has received, he deletes them from his talk page. His talk page history is a story in itself.
• He doesn't understand the need for consensus.
• He uses terrible sources, including Wikipedia itself.
• He engages in OR and crystal ball.
• He removes redirects without discussion, and those redirects sometimes actually point to sourced content. He then replaces them with stubs with no sources, and they are about future events whose notability has obviously not been established.
• He rarely discusses his edits on talk pages.
• He even made some very weird vandalism of the subpage that controls my user page after I had complained about him.
• He doesn't understand our policies much at all.
• I suspect he is very young, very immature, and/or is incapable of adapting to our environment as a useful editor.

I first noticed his problematic edits about July 22, but he likely has a long history before that. Just since July 22 he's caused enough problems to keep a cleanup crew busy full time.

His edit history is a rich mine of problems, so please start following his work. You will be quickly and richly rewarded with many finds. Maybe he'd manage better if he edited his own language Wikipedia, but I suspect he'd cause problems there as well. To stop the disruption, he needs a whole gaggle of mentors as nannys to hold his hands 6" ABOVE HIS KEYBOARD. He needs their advice and permission before he touches it! Right now he's a big liability for the project. Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have any diffs to back up all those accusations? I would like ti see some evidence of this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the need for diffs, but this case is so consistent and all pervasive that a 5 minute check of his edit history since July 22 will quickly reveal the problems I'm mentioning. Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still, it would be helpful to provide, say, 3 to 5 diffs of specific things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thy Master... isn't that the product Suzanne Somers used to advertise? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• LMAO! (Or perhaps I am laughing my thighs off? :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just look at his talk page history. The many warnings there will give you an obvious clue to the problems. Just fix the ones you discover. Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• A vage handwave isn't enough. Since the account's editing privileges were suspended in April 2009 there have been 19 edits to User talk:Pedro thy master. (I get more than 19 edits in 3 months on my talk page.) 11 of those are simple courtesy notices of deletion nominations, created automatically by Twinkle, sometimes multiple notices about the same article. A further 1 is a notice of this very discussion. And 1 is a notice of a editing privileges being revoked for using sockpuppetry in an attempt to defraud. Please provide specific diffs of edits by this account that are cause for action and that haven't, moreover, already been addressed with administrator action. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He blanks his talkpage regularly, so you may not be seeing a full view [24]. Having said that, his behaviour does seem more like juvenile over-enthusiasm than maliciousness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not implying maliciousness, but a disruption nonetheless. Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, ok - I can see that a lot of edits are problematic - but they appear to be mostly good faith mistakes more than a deliberate attempt to vandalize or disrupt. Perhaps English isn't the native language, perhaps the age is young, perhaps they just need to learn the ropes. The last time I looked, we don't over-react to things like that here (or at least we're not supposed to). If the editor makes mistakes, talk to him/her - if they continue without heeding advice - warn. Removing edits from one's own talk pages is perfectly acceptable. (See: WP:BLANKING) I suspect that someone good at the "mentor" thing could work wonders here. I just don't see anything actionable at this point. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not implied any lack of good faith or deliberate vandalism or such like. I am not even asking for a block or ban. I'm just asking for more eyes on the situation. I thought this was the place to go for that. Unfortunately many warnings have been given, deleted, and obviously ignored. Mistakes are things that just happen and get corrected when pointed out, but these are continuous problems caused by ignoring direct warnings and advice.

Sysop ESkog is probably the admin who knows this user's problematic behaviors best. He has issued numerous warnings with little if any effect. Normally I would provide diffs with each point I have mentioned. If this had been a situation with very specific and limited problems, I would have done so. In this case the problems are so all-pervasive that the user's edit history and talk page history are very adequate as diffs. Seriously, just close your eyes and click. You will likely find some form of policy or guideline violation, or other problem that has been created for others to fix, or very often totally delete. Just try it for two minutes. You'll be surprised. Then come back and tell what you find. Very little of what this user does exists very long, but it often involves various deletion processes and formalities involving many users and much wasted time. I just want more eyes on this situation. That's all. I hope that's okay. Brangifer (talk)

Fair enough - and I agree that ESkog is doing an exceptional job in watching this. I'll look in when I have the chance, and if communication and improvements are not forthcoming, then we'll have to pursue alternate measures. I just noticed some Tina Fey edits, so I won't be surprised if ESkog isn't forced to do something here before too long. — Ched :  ?  06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• At this time, I don't support any kind of long-term block, but might apply more short-term blocks as necessary. In general, "Pedro" doesn't seem malicious, and he doesn't tend to make the same mistake multiple times. Take, for instance, his correct uploading today of a non-free image, complete with licensing tag and rationale. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with folks who don't get our policies and practices right away, and yes, it's better when people look around to see how things are done before just diving in, but I don't think we're close to ban territory on this one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have never demanded a ban or block. Of course the use of short-term blocks, as you suggest, is an option when the user refuses to comply with warnings. Warnings aren't working, so something else needs to be done. What about enforced mentorship? Otherwise we'll need someone using most of their time preventing his blunders from causing AfDs, which then waste lots of other user's time. More eyes are needed, IOW place this user on your watchlists. Brangifer (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisG's block of BullRangifer

I've blocked BullRangifer for 12 hours for spamming me (via email) about this. It would be understandable if the email was something like "Please help, blablabla is being disruptive he did x to article [[Foo]] (diff) and is now breaking civil (diff2,diff3)". However this is not an urgent situation in need of a block and I personally think he was spamming to try and influence the outcome of the discussion. --Chris 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're known to be biased or that the email asked you to do something inappropriate? I'm a bit confused about why a block was called for here. Shell ^babelfish 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that, I'm completely confused - above Brangifer clearly states there is no need for a block but that the editor doesn't appear to be learning from warnings. This leaves open avenues for mentorship or other interventions. Perhaps this didn't need urgent admin attention, but where else would you put this kind of request? I guess the question that I feel needs explained here is what could have possibly been in a single email that would deserve a 12 hour block? Shell ^babelfish 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that my block has expired, and my honor permanently besmirched, here's the (highly offensive and obviously improper canvassing - NOT) content:

• "Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master"

That's ALL of it. I only wanted more eyes on the situation. I had no idea if he would do anything, and no way of knowing what type of advice he might provide. He might have agreed with me or scolded me. I couldn't know. I just hoped that an experienced admin like him might provide some words of wisdom. I guess I assumed he would AGF, but I was sadly disapointed. He shot first, without knowing what was going on, and hasn't even asked later.

I have asked Chris G to explain on my talk page. That is a subsection and the whole section should be read. I invite anyone to comment there. I hope that this invitation isn't considered a blockable offense. I'm really unsure what to do now for fear of getting blocked without warning for common practices here. I have never been warned that this or the type of email I sent might be improper. Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor who came here via seeing the cited AfD's (and who rarely visits and has never before commented at WP:AN/I) I have to say that IMHO blocking Brangifer for that seemed awfully previous, Chris. The bloke was only looking for help. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to see some further discussion of the 12-hour block on Brangifer, even though an unblock request was denied and the block has expired by time. Unless I am missing an aspect of the situation, which certainly is quite possible, I do not see a good basis for this block. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm commenting here as one editor and not in any other kind of capacity whatsoever. This I hope is obvious, but the question has come up before when I chime in on ANI.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I would like to understand the situation. For one thing my honor has been besmirched, and that means a lot to me. The first and only semi-legitimate block I've ever had (before now) was also on a very questionable basis which the blocking admin never did satisfactorily explain. The second was an April Fool's joke and nothing happened to that admin. This one is also of a questionable nature. I'd like to understand the current situation so as to avoid having this happen again. I try to follow policy and have been acting in good faith. If I screwed up, I'd like to understand in what way I did so. Then I can do better in the future. It's all about our learning curve here, and I try to have a positive one. Yes, a discussion would be enlightening for everyone. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a subsection heading for this discussion? Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• per NYB - Yes, I agree - that one did kind of catch me off-guard. I'm not familiar with what the email contained, obviously. It just did seem to be overly harsh however. I'll freely admit that I may be missing some background, history, or another thread somewhere - but at this point, I don't understand the reasoning for it.

BullRangifer, I do commend you for asking for extra eyes on this, as well as not over-reacting in the "He needs to be blocked" sense in this thread. — Ched :  ?  06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• A quick look at the Dana Ullman discussion above should convince everybody that I am not exactly a friend of BullRangifer. But I also suspect that this block was a mistake. I notice that Chris G stopped editing after blocking BullRangifer and leaving a message here (but not on BullRangifer's talk page). This looks a bit like a typical late night or just before going home from work block. And Chris G hasn't edited in the more than 24 hours since the event. So it looks like the typical bad judgement when someone is tired and feels under time pressure. Perhaps we shouldn't start dramatising this before Chris is back and has had a chance to make up his mind. Hans Adler 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I suspect you're right. We can all make mistakes, and that's what I suspect here. I'm just interested in clearing my name and block log. I'm also interested in learning, so as not to make mistakes in the future. I know we don't always agree, so I very much appreciate your fairness and obvious sense of justice in this situation. Thanks again. Brangifer (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I too would really like to see a fuller explanation of why BullRangifer needed to be blocked; he posted above the content of the e-mail, is that really all there was? Did he send it more than once? I'm at a loss to understand, given the lack of a detailed rationale, why sending a one line e-mail one time to one person merits any sort of block. Chris_G really needs to explain this action, and it does not reflect well that he hasn't done so yet either here or on the blocked editors talkpage. I'm also disappointed in the review of the unblock request - "canvassing is naughty." Honestly? Is this the level of "review" we should expect on unblock requests? Nathan ^T 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the reason why both the block and the review happened as they did may have to do with the messages posted by J Milburn and Sandstein in the 18 hours preceding it. Each came from an admin who was irritated to get an email from BullRangifer, and each was immediately deleted by him. So the block seems to have happened after irritating, though probably good faith, emails to at least three admins. As it seems they were not all about the same topic and since there wasn't a clear warning, I am just trying to explain, not justify, what happened. Hans Adler 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't recall that there was actual irritation, so much as wonderment, as I hadn't required an answer or action in those messages which were on other topics. They were just FYI-type emails. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• On re-reading the relevant thread, together with subsequent comments, I will concede that it would have been better had I not declined the unblock request. I would like to apologise to Brangifer. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. Thanks Anthony. You are a gentleman. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have emailed Chris and hope for a response soon. Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is worrying as it could have an effect on other editors considering emailing an administrator. I think it needs to be made clear that this was not a sufficient reason for a block. And BullRangifer's block log should be cleared as this is an exceptional case. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, his rapid response to a one line email - how is that spamming? - seems to show a lack of understanding of the role of an administrator. His continued failure to respond here is as worrying. Administrators should not make blocks if they know that they're going to be away from a computer for a few days, if that is indeed the case here. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. My block was out of line and I am sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused you Brangifer. At the time I felt like it was the correct thing to do but after sleeping on it and reviewing my actions it was a poor choice. --Chris 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Chris, this just shows that I need to welcome you to the club....of human beings. We all make mistakes. ;-) Now is there someone who will clear my block log? Brangifer (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have written some of my thoughts here:

• My block log parsed

Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin

Ryulong and JPG-GR have stated that they will seek me topic banned from Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles should I put up another page in those categories for deletion for verification issues. As many of you know, there was previously an AN discussion about Ryulong warning him against his past "if you do it, I will seek that you get blocked" statements. Now, these two editors are stating things like "if you do it, we will seek that you get topic-banned". Ryulong is stating that he will do it through community discussion, while JPG-GR is apparently doing it due to the conduct probation on me, which I don't see how this applies. There is also currently a request for clarification here regarding it. I am not asking anyone to do anything about JPG-GR, but I am about Ryulong. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do however have to apologize for my tone in the late part of the discussion. Please forgive me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon has done absolutely nothing to contribute constructively in the topic area that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu covers. All he has done is request sourcing, and then send articles to AFD for which he personally cannot find any sources for. This was last evident in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo, where reliable sources were found, but he dismissed them anyway. He has most recently decided to search for reliable sources on the five remaining articles on individual episodes of Power Rangers and will send them to AFD because he will inevitably never find what he considers reliable sources for the pilot episode, as well as a few other major episodes to the series as a whole. JPG-GR (talk · contribs), an administrator who primarily edits in the topic area (or had), plainly stated that if Mythdon went through with his plan, he would begin a discussion to ban Mythdon from editing any and all pages that are within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu.

I know that I am only a few editors in the WikiProject who are tired of Mythdon's strict applications of policy and the constant drain on our resources to make every single page comply with his demands. I've wanted to have him banned from the topic area long before the arbitration case that made it fairly clear that he should not do as he is planning without input from other users. We gave him input, he simply does not like it. He is such a pain in the ass to editors who are involved in the WikiProject and who actually contribute. I've written up articles. JPG-GR has written up articles. Other editors have written up articles or worked on already existing articles. Mythdon has done none of this. All he does is randomly question when IP users add information to the article about things that happened in a recent episode of a TV show that Mythdon does not watch, yet he still undoes or reverts their edits. I know that if I had enough time, I could give diffs and whatnot, and I am sure that JPG-GR, once he is notified of this debacle, will provide enough information to further elaborate his and my case against Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did watch Power Rangers, and yes, JPG-GR already has been notified. See their talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this thread as a direct violation of your probation: 1) Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. 2) Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. 3) 6) Mythdon is strongly urged: (A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions; (B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

This is not the first time I've seen you be disruptive in the past few days. As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project. Tan | 39 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Considering the project in question involves shows with people in rubber costumes beating the crap out of each other, I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing...) HalfShadow 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This belongs over at RFAR. I can't read the case result to mean that Myth can't start AfDs or work on the project, but someone else might rightfully do so. The arbs can clarify and then myth can be topic banned or not topic banned. If the case is found to cover this behavior, then the topic ban should hold and myth should find some other area to edit. If the case is not found to hold, then these pretty bold threats should be retracted. Also, tan, I'm not sure "As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project." is a terribly productive comment for this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they clarify that AfD is not covered by the probation, then further threats would be even worse than threats now. provided that community discussion supports my AfD procedures. Until anything is clarified, I will not put another article in the subject area up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Whether or not Mythdon can or will be topic banned is up to the community, not the arbitration committee. He is under arbitration restrictions, but a topic ban proposal should definitely not be forbidden from taking place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the enforcement of the probation, topic bans are an enforcement by administrators. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban can be proposed by a user and then confirmed by the community and enforced by the administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. You should also know that administrators can, if they choose, topic ban me if I am inconsistent in terms of conduct at WikiProject Tokusatsu, but as far as I know, I am consistent in terms of conduct, but ArbCom will clarify whether the AfD thing is part of the probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been well-aware of Mythdon's habitual disruption for some time now, even before the arbitration case. During the period when I was either editing anonymously or not editing at all, I occasionally checked WT:TOKU and found it consisted largely of highly-disruptive edits by Mythdon. His behavior has not improved one bit since the arbitration case. Further, I'm not sure if a topic-ban from pages under WP:TOKU will be sufficient to curb his disruption; after the arbitration case, he took his disruption to other pages, such as Common Era. There was a long discussion on his talk page about that fracas, where he proves that he is incapable of understanding the rudiments of WP:V and WP:CITE. One arbitrator, FayssalF, has censured Mythdon over his behavior well after the arbitration case was closed. You may view the discussion; I agree with FayssalF's statement that "Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings". Mythdon doesn't just need topic-banned from pages under WP:TOKU; he needs to be restricted solely to contributing new content to Wikipedia. This means he should be banned from the entire Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces and banned from deleting content for any reason or advocating deletion of content on talk pages. jgpTC 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jgp, FayssalF did not say that. He said that was apparently the case. To restrict me from removing content for any reason is not anything anyone can support. You seem to be unaware of the consequences of not citing sources, or having articles that you can't reliably source. Just because I don't actually add content doesn't make me disruptive. I remove unsourced information that needs a source per WP:V and WP:RS. I am not habitually disrupting Wikipedia in any way. These AfD's needed to happen, whether or not the result would be in my favor, or other editors favor. I can assure you that I am here to help, not disrupt. My efforts are to motivate sourcing content, not motivate nonsense demands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that 'the community' can topic ban people. But it is totally inappropriate for a wikiproject to topic ban a person simply because that person is afding their articles. We have to ensure that we aren't using the topic ban tool to enforce opinions about content. And frankly when I read the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin thread I don't see a 'community' topic ban. I see an ultimatum: "stop sending articles to AfD or we will topic ban you". Protonk (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now somebody's getting it. You phrased it well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk - I understand why I probably should have used different words there, but really, what I said wasn't any different than straight-up blocking someone - "you are not competent to edit here" isn't meant as an insult so much as a statement of fact. For whatever reason, I feel that Mythdon does not have the proper skills - i.e., he is incompetent - to be a productive member of Wikipedia's collegiate and collaborative community. Some people use the term "incompetent" as a pejorative term; I meant it in its literal sense. Tan | 39 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're capable and willing to parse the multiple connotations of the word competent. That's why I didn't accuse you of engaging in a personal attack (you didn't) and I didn't demand that you rephrase the comment. But there are less adversarial ways to suggest that someone isn't getting the point or that they are being more of a bother than a help. "Competence", especially in the online world, is a word fraught with import and emotion--as you note, since competence is required accusing someone of incompetence disinvites them from the social world. That's critical and I don't think it is to be tossed around lightly. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: The AFDs are not the only issue. It is the fact that Mythdon has not shown in any way shape or form that he can contribute collaboratively with other members of the WikiProject. Mythdon has been shown to be inable to apply sourcing and verifiability policies to the extent that he sends articles to AFD when he personally cannot find anything that he personally believes is a reliable source. He does not contribute to any articles in the scope of the WikiProject, and does not improve the coverage of any articles in the scope of the WikiProject. Instead, he goes "This has no sources" or "This doesn't have enough sources" which to him means "This is not notable" or "This information is not verifiable" when there is more than enough on the internet and in the real world to prove him wrong.

And this sourcing shit goes beyond articles about people in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other. He was told off for his edits at Common Era and a whole bunch of other articles. This thread is wikilawyering to get his way, as he states towards the end of the discussion at WT:TOKU. I have not seen Mythdon contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia in more than a year of being up my ass (and not in the good way) on the articles I edit and on other articles I see him editing. There was no "community topic ban" produced yet. It was a statement that if he proceeded to edit the way he claimed he was going to, we would discuss the fact that he be topic banned from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU. His actions tonight in starting up this thread have abbreviated the need for this, because he went forward to wikilawyer his way out of getting topic banned by saying JPG-GR and I were acting improperly. I've yet to see a positive contribution come from him. And that is more than enough to get banned from any website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sure. But pretend you are me. Look at the TOKU section devoid of context (I know that we are supposed to contextualize these disputes, but bear with me). That conversation has three participants, you, myth and jpg (with some other minor comments from different users). Between the three of you all that gets exchanged is an intent to continue sending articles to AfD, a broad warning that sending said articles will result in a ban, and escalation of rhetoric on either side. I hesitate to call myth's actions wikilawyering because frankly, in the absence of a RFAR allowing a unilateral topic ban for myth, I would be ashamed of jpg's threats. First the sort of officious 'intent to seek a topic ban' statement: "If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia." This is followed up a veiled threat, "I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves." Later, you and myth exchange words to the effect that you will seek to topic ban him and then make some vague assertion that his present actions will be proscribed under some future topic ban. This is the opposite of a community forum discussing the ban of a pernicious troublemaker. This is two people in a dispute arguing in an infrequently traveled part of the wiki. I don't mean to say that myth is right. I don't mean to say that he is helpful or that a topic ban, rightly constituted, would be illegitimate. I do mean to say that he shouldn't be considered topic banned now and he isn't wrong to seek some outside input on a process that he clearly has no input on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is following policies and guidelines and Ryulong is not following policies and guidelines e.g. i added a reference to the Power Rangers article to show that Haim Saban created Power Rangers per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research then Ryulong starts a discussion on my talk page saying "Do Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers really need references to show that the series was created by Haim Saban? Something like that is so freaking obvious that any statement with that fact in it does not need to be cited." and when i add a fact tag to the Kamen Rider Double article per WP:No original research, Ryulong again starts a discussion on my talk page saying "This is also common sense. Shinkenger is on at 7:30, which is followed by Decade at 8:00, both of which make up the Super Hero Time block. If Double will be airing at 8:00 too, then it will also be part of the Super Hero Time block". Mythdon is not the only user to disagree with Ryulong as me and Drag-5 disagree with Ryulong because he is not following the policies and guidelines. Powergate92Talk 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92, as usual, you don't really add anything to the discussion. Both of those items you bring up are examples of using common sense over requesting that every single sentence on Wikipedia be referenced. Bringing up two different instances of where you and I communicated is pointless and helps no one case.

Protonk, I can understand that the page is in no way frequented and it is simply a discussion between Mythdon, myself, and JPG-GR, but this is in all reality just a way for Mythdon to avoid being put under any other restrictions. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the discussion would be taking place in a low-traffic page such as WT:TOKU. Mythdon is by all means in his right to defend himself from being topic banned. However no discussion has taken place, and the arbitration committee does not need to place the restrictions on him. This is instead, as I've been saying, Mythdon wikilawyering his way out of getting banned by throwing aspersions on me for arguing against him. If the arbitration committee needs to place the topic ban, then fine. I just thought that given enough evidence, the community as a whole can see how his activities are deleterious to the topic area, and the project as a whole. If FayssalF saw this, I don't see why the rest of community cannot either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the arbcom thing, we should be clear. IF the arbcom restriction against myth means he must avoid only a narrow set of behaviors, then it cannot (as I see it) apply to sending articles to AfD. If the restriction blocks myth from being nettlesome to the project more generally, then his behavior may be subject to a topic ban at the discretion of someone like jpg. That's the RFAR question. If his past RFAR does not proscribe his current behavior, than you can still start a thread to topic ban him (I would prefer you start an RFC/U or take the discussion to a more active page), but it would be inappropriate for just two editors to act as though a topic ban was imminent. If the RFAR does apply, then the committee should clarify their case and say as much, rendering a community ban discussion moot. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The items i bring up are examples of you not following WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as Mythdon puts articles up for AfD per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions. I hope someone can answer them USING AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE.
i) Is it disrutive for someone to ask for a verifiable reliable source for, eg, "creator of mighty morphing power rangers"?
ii) Is it disruptive for someone to use the production company (and did they actually 'create' it, or just pay money for it? as a reference?
iii) Imagine it is disruptive: What happens? It goes to RFAR, or someone just says "that's it, you're topic banned" or what?
Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92's statements have nothing to do with the issue concerning Mythdon. Powergate92 is just as bad in interpreting sourcing policies as Mythdon. It is pointless to ask for references for things which exist elsewhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the rights/wrongs of Mythdon's attitude or behaviour. However I AM going to draw people's attention to the King Mondo article that's been mentioned. Unless I'm missing something there are ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Could someone tell me how the hell this article was not deleted at it's recent AFD? I see a bunch of keep votes which don't address the reliable sources question AT ALL and a non-admin closure. I'm very tempted to DRV this as a blatantly incorrect AFD. Exxolon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I think topic bans are very poor solutions for people who are not violating the rules, no matter how much they might annoy people by asking for citations for things that are obvious to others. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DRV filed, all participants in original AFD plus the wikiproject notified. Exxolon (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toku wikipedians, Whatever is happening here for the King Mondo article, is definitely applicable "ad nauseam" to every character under the Tokusatu project. I would suggest that you redirect your collective energies to reaching a consensus of what would constitute a valid referencing standard for all the individual articles that fall under project Toku. There must surely be an article that could be determined the standard by which all other articles will be measured. Don't perpetuate drama!! --76.66.199.118 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does any of this have to directly do with the King Mondo AFD and now DRV? This is a discussion started by Mythdon in defense of a topic ban discussion that has not happened yet, and Protonk's saying that the topic ban should not happen due to there being other RFAR restrictions on Mythdon. RFC/U is a pointless step as it just serves to pick and choose at every bad or questionable thing a user has done. If someone needs to be topicbanned for being unable to contribute constructively, then that person should get topic banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not be topic banned. I have helped the articles by removing unsourced information, but you dismiss my removals. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not being clear. I'm sorry. You can start a topic ban discussion. I would prefer you use a venue like RFC/U, but you don't have to. The fact that there was a past RFAR case against myth strengthens your topic ban case, not weakens it. What you can't do is say "we are going to have a topic ban discussion in the future, so consider yourself banned from starting AfDs on subject XYZ". All I am saying WRT the arb case is that if the arbs say "yes, we meant that myth can't act this way" then jpg can topic ban him unilaterally. I commented that myth seemed in the right to bring up this question because the discussion linked above looked a lot like a threat of a unilateral topic ban couched in terms of a community ban. I'll try and be crystal clear here. If you can get support for a topic ban from a broad cross section of wikipedians, then you can ban myth from a set of articles. It shouldn't be a discussion held within the confines of a single project because frankly (see the Gavin Collins debate and EnC 1/2) a wikiproject shouldn't have the power to unilaterally shoo away folks looking for sourcing/notability concerns. Is that clear as to my position? Protonk (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • lol episodes and characters
  • Very well then. There is nothing anywhere that said that the discussion was solely going to take place in the wikiproject. That's just where the discussion of it going to happen started (that and my statement at Mythdon's last clarification request). The issue isn't his sourcing and notability requests. The issue is that he has been shown to be unable to work constructively with other (active) users in the WikiProject. The arbcom appears to be listening to this at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD list

Just to make all of you aware, here is a list of AfD's I've started on Power Rangers articles:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (result: keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (result: keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (result: delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (result: delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (result: delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (result: delete)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (result: keep)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (result: keep)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (result: keep/merge)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (result: redirect)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (result: delete)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (result: keep)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (result: delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (result: delete)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (result: delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (result: keep)

Hopefully, this will clarify that they're not disruptive, but just sometimes hard to agree with. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

<I've just found more AfD's of mine and will re-make the list by next week> —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The list above only lists most of the AfD's. It does not list all of them. I missed some. I'll be creating the new list in my sandbox. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the updated list with additional AfD's:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep/merge)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete)
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete)
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Mythdon (talk · contribs) is sending fiction spinoff articles to AfD, and most of them get deleted. That's entirely in line with policy. Even the main Power Rangers article is weakly cited. Only two of the 45 footnotes are to reliable sources. This looks more like typical grumbling from fans when their fancruft articles are held to Wikipedia's general standards. --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet Ryulong and JPG-GR are threatening to seek me topic-banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your edits are considered no problem, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? I don't see why you felt it was necessary to report Ryulong's and JPG's intention to get you topic banned. What administrator action are you seeking? Some kind of injunction?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though this discussion is going nowhere. But, as for your question, I am seeking administrative action that administrators see fit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really vague. Of course this discussion is going nowhere, because nothing actionable actually ocurred. If you don't have any kind of desired resolution this should lead to, this is just needless drama mongering.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And the issue isn't that he is sending pages to AFD. The issue is that he is sending pages to AFD because he cannot personally find sources for the articles for either major fictional characters who in their right can be considered notable because of his strict interpretations of sourcing and verifiability policies. He only goes out to delete whatever pages he can without bringing them to the attention of WP:TOKU so they can be improved before he sends them to AFD. In the last AFD he made, there were several reliable sources found by an uninvolved editor and he dismissed all of them. There is possibly going to be a discussion concerning topic banning Mythdon from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU because he cannot work constructively with other editors in the scope of the project, of which the AFDs are only a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I search for sources for an article, and if I cannot find any reliable sources, it would be pointless to consult my search to WikiProject Tokusatsu before taking the articles to AfD. All Wikipedia content has to be verifiable, or it cannot be included on Wikipedia. Everything has to be notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure now that when I create my next Power Rangers AfD, that you and JPG-GR will, as you both stated, seek me topic-banned. I am sure of this regardless of the result of the AfD. And, one question: Do you think my AfD list above is a good summary of my nominations? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if it's a good summary of your nominations. You cannot work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How can't I work with other users? Nominating pages for deletion in my ways? Removing unsourced information absent of discussion? How? You should know by now that saying things like "if you put theses pages up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned" is uncalled for, further evidenced by the results of my AfD's. Please know this: The next time I look for sources, and if I don't find sources for an article, that article goes straight to AfD, without question. I'm even planning on nominating other pages for deletion if I can't find sources, within this subject area. I'm sorry, but sometimes, some articles just have to go. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has proven that you strictly interpret the verifiability and reliable source policies and cannot be trusted in determining things on your own. You absolutely should not nominate any pages in the topic area for deletion without consulting WP:TOKU, WP:TV, WP:JAPAN, etc. because it is extremely likely that where you cannot find reliable sources, other users will.

To other readers of this thread, this last statement of Mythdon's is exactly what I have been saying regarding Mythdon's inability to work with other users. He is acting as judge and jury, getting rid of whatever he can't prove.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I trust that my strict AfD's are beneficial to the project, and I also trust myself in my searches. It would be useless to go through a process that will just get nowhere. The village pump discussion I linked on WT:TOKU only proves that I am right, mostly. Sure, I didn't link to which articles, but it's still the same. And please let me say it again: I will nominate another article for deletion just as soon as sources aren't found, no questions asked, period. I will, at the risk that you'll try to get me topic-banned, do it, if I can't find reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck don't you get about the fact that the arbitration committee has advised you to contact other people before sending articles to AFD?

Still, other people reading this, this is why users at WP:TOKU want Mythdon banned. Because he refuses to work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because a WikiProject wants me topic-banned doesn't mean the community feels the same way. And, again, there will be nobody to stop me from sending another article to AfD if I can't find reliable sources. You're perfectly welcome to comment at the next AfD. You're just not welcome to say anything uncalled for. I've been saying it for months, approaching a year: Anything that doesn't have a citation should be removed, unless it is cited. I am, actually, not aiming to get every article in the subject area deleted, but a reasonable amount deleted, but for good reasons. I wouldn't be hurt to see you blocked for your comments almost two days ago. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

These statements should be proof that Mythdon cannot work with other users constructively and that he should be banned in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say will not change anything. End of story. Sorry that it has to come to this. No more replies necessary. I've come to my conclusions, just as you have come to yours. And one more thing, my intention is to help Wikipedia, not hurt it, even though you're not assuming my intentions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It would be very helpful to see more references to reliable sources in Power Ranger articles. There are scholarly critiques of the show, such as "The Truth About the Power Rangers", ISBN 0914984675. That doesn't seem to have been referenced anywhere in Wikipedia. The proponents of Power Rangers articles may need to do more homework than is currently being done to avoid deletion. This really is an encyclopedia, and you have to do the research to back up your articles. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This description doesn't really look helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a review and a reliable source. Not all critics are fans. I thought neutrality involved negative views as well. We shouldn't ignore real critics in favor of "I saw it on the show, so that's my source." Now, for the larger picture, is Mythdon is sending articles to AFD to make some sort of point, that's a completely blockable offense. However, demanding higher sources isn't and shouldn't be a punishable offense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, it's hard to tell with him. I do know that he's sorta violating this, even though it's not a restriction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, Ryulong, you're doing a lot of yelling, but all I see here is you trying to get rid of someone you personally dislike who is treading in an area you like to work in. The list of AFD results Mythdon is presenting is most compelling evidence that he's doing genuinely good work, which you just happen to dislike. Jtrainor (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the issue is here. Mythdon has not worked with the WikiProject but against it. There are possibilities that these articles could be improved, and that there are reliable sources out there, as the book John Nagle points out above, but Mythdon does not work with other users to improve them. Instead he just sends them to AFD. I'm not saying all of the articles he lists that ended up deleted should be on Wikipedia. I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD. This is why I feel he's unhelpful, and this is what a handful of other users, including a few outside of the WikiProject and who have likely never touched an article with "Power Rangers" mentioned, are seeing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And this still isn't going anywhere much, except a few people who just happen to get it, but still, I am glad that the area this is turning is turning out to be okay. I don't see action being taken, and I'm sure plenty of you would consider it punitive rather than preventative now, because it happened two days ago, which even I would probably consider action useless now, for now. That doesn't make action lacking preventative use some time in the future. Jtrainor and Nagle, I hope you both manage to resolve this, whether or not you're administrators, or whether or not you're just regular users who happened to drop by; You two seem to get it, and don't see anything disruptive to it. If anyone's assuming bad faith towards me, I can tell you that you're wrong, and that I'm acting in good faith. Ryulong and JPG-GR (well, if you're reading this), stop the threats and just voice your opinions in my AfD's and get it over with instead of adding nonsense drama. However, honestly, I can't tell the whole community's opinion at the moment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty lame to say those who took your side in the discussion "get it", while all the others don't. The situation simply isn't as black and white as that. I guess it's that kind of attitude that got you on Ryulong's bad side.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sides but a matter of the views expressed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving from here

Where do we go next? This thread has drawn lots of drama in, and me and Ryulong are still fighting over who's right, as of now.

I don't know, but I'm thinking that this drama that Ryulong and JPG-GR caused during the "Search soon to begin" is unhelpful, and just allowed me to believe that ANI was the only option, backed up by the fact that the AN "is this okay?" discussion warned Ryulong against his previous statements of "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get blocked". He's not doing that anymore, but he's now doing "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned", but in this discussion, he appears to be using "lack of outside input" as a reason for these new statements that are no less disruptive than the preceding statements. So, where do we go from here? All I'm thinking is that further statements like these will allow me to file a new report next time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The basic complaint seems to be "I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD." Sending an article to AfD, though, doesn't mean instant deletion. It begins a discussion. Proponents of the article have a voice. Articles can be fixed during an AfD and often are. What's happening, though, is that most, but not all, of the articles proposed for AfD actually get deleted. So the AfD nominations aren't futile or mere WP:POINT exercises. The real complaint seems to be that the editors who regularly vote on AfDs support Wikipedia's general standards for notability, which are higher than some in the fan community would like. This is a long-running discussion (see WP:FICT). A few years ago, Wikipedia standards were lower, but in recent years, there's been a gradual tightening up, now that the problem is no longer getting enough articles, but improving the ones we have. This is a good thing, but it does bother some people. I'd suggest the Power Rangers proponents focus on improving their sourcing. Then the AfDs which bother them will fail. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When I look for sources, I don't find any, which is why I put these pages up for AfD. Could the lack of citations on the articles be a sign that there aren't reliable sources? I actually have watched Power Rangers before and enjoyed it, so I should be counted as once in the fan community, but I'm not a fan anymore, as far as I can tell, but I don't know. I don't think they can improve the sourcing, except for citing television episodes which would be primary sources, in fact the subject itself, which we should not use. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you [Mythdon] cannot be trusted to find or not find reliable sources and that you have been weaseling your way out of all of the restrictions and suggestions that have been placed on you by the arbitration committee. In your proposed campaign, you're going to be sending the article on the pilot episode to AFD. You're going to very likely use this search and then say that you can't find any reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's very likely that I'll not find reliable sources, and as a result, send it to AfD. If I don't find any reliable sources, there's no question that I'll put the page up for deletion. I feel that I can be trusted to look for reliable sources, beyond doubt. What do you mean by "proposed campaign"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you actively worked with editors in the topic area, they can find reliable sources where you cannot due to your arbcom-proven inability to do so on your own. Instead of listing the pages for deletion, write up a list of faults, and post it on WT:TOKU instead of asking if your improvements to a random article were okay. Say "This article says this, is that right? Is there something out there that we can say it is true?" instead of saying "Oh, I can't find anything other than fansites that talk about this article. Therefore, it should be deleted."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to ignore discussion and go with action. If you can't cite a sentence, it shall by all means be removed to enforce the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia as written in WP:V and WP:RS. Asking if my improvements to a random article being okay is not wrong. I think it is, if anything, encouraged by people. If I can't find reliable sources for the next article I search, then, if nothing otherwise happens, there'd be no question that another AfD will be in order. Listen carefully: The next AfD will be by the end of this year (2009). After all, action speaks louder than words. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not how this project works. You are supposed to work collaboratively with other users. Not choose to do everything on your own and fight it when others challenge you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is "prior discussion". I am not saying that discussion isn't a primary factor of this project, because I do acknowledge that. I do not say "do not discuss", but say "do not discuss beforehand". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't say that discussion doesn't enhance future action. I do acknowledge that. It's just that it doesn't seem that I'm talking right. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let's see:

1. Ryulong adds content to Power Ranger articles
2. Mythdon deletes said content, and cites "no WP:RS
3. Bickering on talk page
4. ANI thread started
5. Community rolls eyes
6. WP:BOLD admin closes thread per "Nothing actionable"
7. Return to step 1

result? endless wiki-loop. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't that simple. Mythdon refuses to work with users in the topic area. He could bring up a list of articles that need work in his opinion, but after a Google search he just goes "no reliable sources" and goes to AFD. The arbcom case involving the two of us includes a finding that he is very strict with his readings of policies. This is what is harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, can we at least agree that the resolution cannot be found at ANI? I already stated this discussion is needless drama. We seem to be just going in circles here. Let's just end this. If Ryulong and JPG want to go ahead and initiate a topic ban discussion concerning Mythdon, I'd say let them. If Mythdon wants to go ahead and start Afd's, I'd say let him. Community input will decide the outcome in either scenario.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting on the arbitration committee to discuss Mythdon's 3rd request for clarification to see if they do something themselves before I take off the kid gloves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be waiting on them too in the meantime to see if AfD has anything to do with my probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [25], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to raise this here myself as an escalation from WQA. The worst one I've seen so far is this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this user is currently blocked for 24 hours and was not notified about this thread. I have notified them but of course they will not be able to respond for another 22 hours unless unblocked or a talk page section is transcluded here. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the College of New Jersey if the history course there is so bad that he thinks India is one unified racial group, nevermind Pakistan as well. User is a nationalist. User is bushing this nationalist POV and being disruptive and racist while doing so. The key bit about nationalism is that the user is going to be convinced he knows The Truth (tm) and everyone else is wrong, and is unlikely to change. My suggestion - a topic ban from India/Pakistan related articles and a complete ban on any further ad hominem attacks or racial comments. Violating this rule gets blocks of increasing length. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a ban from articles relating to India or Pakistan, in addition to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support from me. Has he been notified of this thread in some way or shape? Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On his talk page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the relationship between this topic and WP:ANI#Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor has now been blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They reinstated the problematic edit noted in the thread linked by Kww above, so in the light of that, previous edit-warring blocks, and this thread, I thought our productive editors could probably do with a break. EyeSerene^talk 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia-India relations

AdjustShift (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)}} Against my better judgement (and I should know better) I have been drawn into an edit war with Ankitsingh83 (talk · contribs) at the above article. The situation has deteriorated so badly that he/she has made a complaint that I have been acting in a racist manner towards Indians. "curry-bashing". "Curry bashing" is a slang term for this phenomenon.

Given my edit warring has been unacceptable and a serious complaint has been made about my actions as an admin, I feel it is best that someone else attempts to straighten the matter out and take whatever action they feel appropriate against myself and the other party. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, I've notified the editor in question about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. Unless this escalates I don't see the need to block anyone or demand that folks disengage or apologize. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, I would like to present this case before you. I am the editor ankitsingh83 mentioned. The person who has been responsible for creating an edit war is Mattinbgn. He has used bigotic statements against me. Apparently he is the only editor from Australia editing this page. Other administrators like YellowMonkey have been useful editors. I have not used bad language or blamed anyone personally. Mattinbgn started using comments like "your false assumptions of superiority", "you should look into the mirror", he even tried to lecture me into leaving wikipedia and starting a blog. I think he has overstepped the line as an administrator. I want to even push for blocking him from wikipedia. His bigotic actions and comments are hurtful as well POV pushing. I am beginning to feel that he is being paid to do his POV war. Because I don't see anyone else editing this page. Administrators help is urged. ankit 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

(ec) Agree with Protonk (was heading that way myself, but Protonk pipped me to the post). With the page protected there would be little mileage in a punitive block, as it would quash the talk-page discussion that will hopefully now follow.

Looking through the edit history, I think, Ankitsingh83, you must realise that racist imputations of the sort you've raised have a chilling effect; they're utterly unacceptable, counter-productive, and won't be tolerated. I hope you can retain a sufficient detachment from the subject - upsetting though it is - to edit in a neutral way. If not, it may be best to find other articles to work on. Can you provide diffs to back up your allegations?

Mattinbgn... you're right, you should know better. Consider yourself trouted. EyeSerene^talk 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not calling mattinbgn racist, though I did use the term curry bashing, as is common in Australia. It was only because he was calling his administrator friends from Australia to help him out. Although others were neutral unlike him. So I had to ask for help somewhere. But I do believe he has an agenda, he is paid by someone or something. I don't have an agenda, I am a private editor. I was just editing based on facts and media reports. Mattinbgn unnecessarily clashed with me even when I was being impersonal. He started getting personal as he realized he wasn't the only one editing the page. The he started claiming superiority. Saying I cannot proceed against him for blocking him, and told me to "look into the mirror" whatever that was supposed to mean. I was frustrated that I even stopped discussing this on his page. His attitude was aggressive and delimiting. I think administrators should check into the page's entire history to see what was being said while editing. I wasn't even paying any attention to him when he started getting personal and unnecessarily angry. I didn't have an agenda while editing the page. I was just trying to update. He definitely does have an agenda with the page. ankit 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ankitsingh83, you do realize that accusing someone of an agenda, or being paid to make specific comments in this manner can be considered to be an attack? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not attacking him, he did attack me. I do believe mattinbgn has an agenda. That is a firm belief. If you guys just look into his comments on my page or the history of pages involved you will know what I mean. As per EyeSerene's suggestion I am looking away from this page for sometime. But it would be highly disruptive if mattinbgn is allowed to edit that page again. Currently the status quo of the page reflects the reality so I am happy with it. Mattinbgn's aggressive attitude doesn't befit an administrator or an editor. But I am ok with the fact that he doesn't create an edit war with me again. That would be all. ankit 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

Antkitsingh83, did you even read Bwilkins's comment above? If you did, and still don't get it, let me be more blunt: stop accusing other editors of having agendas. It is considered an attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above Ankitsingh83 - whether or not you have a disagreement with an editor, your painting of editors, and Australians generally with such a broad brush that escalates any perceived tension by by introduction of the derogatory phrase "curry-bashing" is unfair and looks to be poisoning the well. I am very concerned by these edits and your continued suggestions about Mattinbgn having an agenda. This sort of behaviour by you must stop!--VS ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that while accusing an editor of having an agenda is considered an attack, so to is repeated claims that the editor is "curry bashing" ([26] [27]). I'd like to reinforce VirtualSteve's comment above, and strongly suggest toning down the language. - Bilby (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey I am done with whoever that person was? Now are you guys up here trying to change my belief? The whole world cannot change a person's belief. Or are you accusing me of retrospective racism? Since I am trying to put this matter to rest and since you guys want the same, might I suggest "Leave me alone". I have left the person responsible alone as well. As to the supposed derogatory term that I used. Did any administrator take any action before I urged for it? It is not a derogatory term, if you have lived in Australia, it is just an acknowledment of a certain type of action. ankit 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

ARticle should not have been locked in a POV state supported by one SPA against 3 regular editors. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons.. There are a few ways to interpret the protection policy. One favors the first sentence, the next favors "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I prefer the former. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I just hope they wait until it is in the non-silly version, YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that you can use {{editprotected}} to request a consensus edit on the talk-page. EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the page be unprotected now, with a stern warning that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks ? I am hopeful that with enough eyes on it the edit-warring won't resume. The page needs much work to overcome "recentism", and edit-protected requests are not an efficient means for overhauling the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I analyzed Ankitsingh83's edits, and they are disruptive. This edit, this edit and this edit are not neutral. Ankitsingh83 also accused Mattinbgn of "Curry bashing". I'll warn Ankitsingh83 to stop his disruptive editing; if he continues, he should be blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've warned Ankitsingh83 [28]; further disruption should lead to a block. AdjustShift (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Two "new" accounts/SPAs Utopialover (talk · contribs) and Oskarstewart (talk · contribs) have cropped up at the page and their talk page comments [29], [30] seem intended to bait User:YellowMonkey. Can someone with checkuser priveleges find out who the sock-master is and look for other sleeper accounts ? Also can the page be semi-protected temporarily to prevent it from becoming a battlefield ? Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comments as unhelpful. I don't think protection is warranted at the moment though. EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by IP

Having just encountered the following IP user, I am surprised to see a talk page with so many warnings on it (not made by me, I hasten to add, but by numerous other editors) - and, apparently, no action taken.

User talk:194.60.38.198#July 2009

Could an admin please take a look at this user history and consider a block? Setwisohi (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's the proxy server for the British House of Parliament. I, for one, think I'm going to stray from creating an international incident. --Smashville^talk 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wanker Wimp ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a sensitive IP address. According to SIP, whoever's going to block this address is going to need to noticy the Communications_committee about it. (X! · talk)  · @707  ·  15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I see no need for a block. Problems every couple of weeks (skimming recent contribs) for an IP covering a major institution doesn't really seem a problem. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Blocked for 1 year.
        • Calm down, I'm kidding... I agree with Rd232, it's not persistent vandalism/disruption. It comes and goes and it very well may not be the same person. On the other hand, if warranted, I would have no problems blocking, sensitive or not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmmm. The United States Congress whitewashes Congressional biographies, and we get an entire article. The United Kingdom Parliament whitewashes M.P. biographies (example, example example example) to remove information relating to the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, whitewashes the biography of Patrick Mercer to play down a resignation (edits), vandalizes the article on Eric Clapton (edit), and calls an MEP an "ambitious" "snob" (edit), and we don't want to create an incident? That seems a little skewed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (also ec) Not necessarily - the edit history for the account has plenty of decent contributions from multiple editors, so we can probably live with the occasional POV edit/vandalism. If the problem becomes current, persistent and ongoing, blocking for a few hours would be useful. Re the articles, if some of the edits from this IP are picked up by the press, we might have the sources to write something. Until then... EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest that we write an article. I did point out the skewedness of not even wanting to create an incident. We were not only willing to create an incident for the U.S. Congressional staffer edits, we created a lengthy RFC.

      And this is a current problem. Look at the timestamps on those diffs. They are all, bar one, within the past week. And that one is within the past fortnight. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

      • I agree it's borderline - the number of recent warnings would justify a block in my eyes, if not for the amount of good edits as well (hence the resultant collateral damage). Creating an incident doesn't come into it; I'd hope we would treat all shared IPs the same way. EyeSerene^talk 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not we. Just me. Call me an insufferable, pompous wanker if you would...but I will straight up admit that I don't have the testicular fortitude to block Parliament...unless it's Parliament Funkadelic...but they would never vandalize Wikipedia. --Smashville^talk 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Lady Gaga recently played the "Parliament Ultraclub" in Ottawa. Gonna block her? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I should block her just for being Lady Gaga. --Smashville^talk 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ((super duper ec) We could have an article on it, once / if the press picks it up. Otherwise it is OR. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Incident! Incident! It's the title of this page. Incident! Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I read these alternatively as indent (which I failed to do) and indecent. And my apologies, I was extrapolating it to what I saw as the next step in parallel with the article you linked. Syrthiss (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• How about semi-protecting whatever articles the IP is messing with? That will fix his lorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it won't. If you go and look at the history of Edward McMillan-Scott‎, you'll see one of the reasons that Setwisohi is here in the first place, and you'll also see (by the fact that they reinstate one anothers' edits) that the person making these problematic BLP edits to this particular article has at least two accounts in addition to the IP address, both of which are almost certainly autoconfirmed by now: Yorkshire Bumblebee (talk · contribs) and EPP fanatic (talk · contribs). And then there's Saer1957 (talk · contribs) writing content (edit) about how "honourable" and "selfless" the person is. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Huh. British Parliament: Bad teeth and ignorant. Who knew? Just because they're a government IP doesn't get them a 'Get Out of Trouble Free' card. Treat them like any other random idiot. HalfShadow 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NPA extends to all our editors, HalfShadow, IP or not ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were in charge, I would issue a block and make it very clear why it was blocked - that one of their own was the culprit. Let them fix the problem themselves if they want to use wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think one major point we are missing is that the IP hasn't actually vandalized anything since Setwisohi warned him. All the blocking talk is kind of moot at the moment. --Smashville^talk 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Um, whilst the userpage claims the IP address to be the British Parliament, both WP:SIP and Special:BlockIP claim the range to be 194.60.0.0/20 (i.e. 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.15.255), which doesn't include this address. Which is correct? Black Kite 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• As per RIPE:
  • inetnum: 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.63.255
  • netname: HOP
  • descr: Houses of Parliament
  • country: GB
• (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup, was just about to post this myself - should be 194.60.0.0/18. I've fixed WP:SIP but it'll take someone with more rights to fix Special:BlockIP, and I wonder if the AIV Helperbots have the correct ranges as well?. Black Kite 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You should have ample rights to edit MediaWiki:Blockiptext. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Eh, didn't realise that was transcluded. Thanks :) (and done). Black Kite 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• No need to block - although, as a British taxpayer, I will be more than willing to do so; fart around with my money of WP? - just send all the publicly availabe information on these HOP resolving addresses to the Daily Telegraph (who broke the MP expenses story earlier this year), the Guardian newspaper, The Times, or The Independent. I think our UK MP's should be a little wary at being exposed as whitewashers/smearers, and might take steps to resolve this. A word directly to the abuse contact, ruminating on the consequences of placing this before Fleet Street, may also do the trick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have any qualms in the slightest about blocking anons from this IP address. Remember that MPs have more-or-less unpaid interns who might be more enthusiastic than their brief permits, and are completely unaccountable- and dispensible, and deniable. I think what matters here is disruption to Wikipedia, and whereas I don't see it being a functional problem as things are, my view may change. After all, our Government is under considerable pressure at present, facing, as it does, a General Election within twelve months in the face of appalling opinion polls. If I see any sign of manipulation of Wikipedia to counter that from that direction, I will act. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest that you look at Edward McMillan-Scott. Whilst this discussion has been proceeding, another single-purpose account, Xerxes23 (talk · contribs), has joined in the fray. Not only has xe removed all of the sourcing from the article, xe has added content such as "The following day, the reference to Kaminski's membership of NOP after 1989 was removed from his Wikipedia page.". That's a reference to this edit by 194.60.38.198. I'm sorely tempted to revoke the editing privileges of all of the SPAs mucking around with that article, because it's looking more and more that they are all wildly non-neutral on the article that is their single-purpose, and here to abuse Wikipedia as a political football rather than to write properly sourced NPOV content. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The page Edward McMillan-Scott is now blocked for all editors. But it is an awful state. I think the block is fine but I suggest an admin restores a suitable prior version and then re-applies the block. It should not be kept as it currently is. (Especially given that it is a bio page of a living figure). Setwisohi (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this page Chris_Grayling is still being attacked. Sourced information being removed by anon IP. The material relating to recent expenses scandal. Setwisohi (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This page needs protection, looks like frequent IP vandalism

This page needs protection: Mark Holiday Looks like frequent IP vandalism: 14:26, 18 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,804 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,805 bytes) (undo) 02:16, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 02:14, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,772 bytes) (undo) 01:48, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,709 bytes) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicmusicprofessor (talk • contribs)

• It looks like one batch of vandalism that you have already reverted. And Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I stumbled on this discussion a little bit earlier and I've blocked one of the IPs. Those others listed in the complaint were added later. Re the ne I blocked: WHOIS comes back blank and Geolocate just says it's a Verizon account. Zombie, perhaps? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially Compromised Account Block Review

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia for over a year without causing any major trouble. However, in the last few hours, he has created a pointy AfD, reverted my close 3 times (1, 2, 3) and then vandalized my userpage. Since these activities are drastically atypical of the user and go in-line, I have blocked the account indefinitely as being potentially compromised. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Smashville^talk 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Vandalised? No.. accidentally left a message there instead of your talk page. I agree the AFD is misguided, and warring over the closure was stupid. But I've not seen enough to make me believe the account is compromised. Friday (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. He needs a short block to cool off and an explanation why his behaviour was not on; no more unless he re-offends. I'd say he acted under misguided good faith here. U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that if anyone wants to change my block, go ahead and do it. I did a quick sweep of his editing history and it all seemed out of character to me, hence the block. --Smashville^talk 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After a quick review myself of the editing history, I'm not seeing evidence the account is compromised, just perhaps a frustrated editor. I'll boldy undo the block. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You go be "boldy" :) --Smashville^talk 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I may just do that. ;-P No one ever asked about my typing skilz at my RfA. Good thing, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He;s appealing his block. I think you may have flubbed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a search for autoblocks and didn't find any. However, I welcome anyone else taking a look, because I don't often unblock. (It's also possible he stopped reading at the block notice and didn't go further...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This probably would have gone better had you not inflamed the situation by using the revert tool here and here instead of just editing the closure back in. You did, as xe has complained to you, remove RHB100's discussion contributions there. RHB100 even has a point about the g-force article. It is somewhat misleading. That doesn't mean that deletion is the answer, of course, and xyr attempt to abuse AFD as a cleanup tool was a trifle inept. Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cool-off block?" Do we do those? Is there a more valid rationale? Edison (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was perfectly within my rights to revert him instead of going back and deleting everything he added to the discussion after I closed it. You can't re-open a closed AfD just because you don't like the close. And I did post on his talk page that he had been around long enough to know not to do that. But he still kept doing it. And then posted a long bolded statement to my userpage. Anyway, it's done...apparently I'm the only one that thought it was disruptive. --Smashville^talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Were his edits disruptive? Sure. But the reason you gave for blocking was compromised account, and no one is seeing evidence of that. If disruption is the real reason (ignoring the whole blocking-by-an-involved-admin issue), then you've made your point and he's stopped reopening the AfD, so the block served its purpose. Can we mark this as resolved?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian and FT2

Resolved

 – PD blocked for 1 month

→ ROUX ₪ 03:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm concerned with Peter Damian (talk · contribs)'s latest edits. They seem to be tagging FT2's userpage in a disruptive manner, and an apparent sock of FT2's labelling it as a sockpuppet. This is apparently to make some sort of point (WP:POINT as it were) due to Geogre's ongoing RFAR. Peter Damian and FT2 have quite a history, and I really don't believe Peter Damian should be the one to tag pages, if anyone should be at all. These edits, which look fairly harmless at a glance, are from three years ago, before FT2 held any adminship or arbitrator role. What should be done about this? Majorly talk 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I've protected the page. Those edits were purely provocative and I can't see any need to add those tags. When FT2 is around, he can decide when to remove the protection. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I've commented on PD's talk page, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) This is an obvious case of Getting Attention by Provoking Drama. May I suggest we don't let it succeed? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The relevant pages have now been fully protected, Peter Damian has been advised on how to deal with this issue, so I agree it is probably as resolved as it could be. Hopefully Peter Damian will drop this business from over three years ago. Majorly talk 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Especially, as Peter is under the following terms for his unblock. directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia"" ""Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked". Peter, we get it. You and FT2 will never be on each other's christmas card lists. But please, drop it. It does you no good, and it does the encyclopedia no good either. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Is there, then, a good reason why he is still unblocked? The condition seems pretty clear, and not holding people to conditions to which they agreed is precisely why such conditions are largely a joke that can be gamed at will. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I'm also wondering why he is still unblocked? The mind boggles! Jeni (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Concur, and I've struck the "resolved" tag (if people disagree, feel free to add it back in). He edits under certain conditions, with a potential block for any violation. He has blatantly and provocatively violated these conditions. He should be blocked. Seems simple enough to me, anyway. Failing to enforce these sort of things is precisely why people are willing to push the boundaries - because they think they can get away with it. Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) WP:AE or wherever it points now is your next stop.--Tznkai (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Aren't sock tags kept on respective user pages? Are they taken off after a while? There seems to be a legitimate discussion and issue at the core of this which is consistency in the application of enforcement mechanisms. Having made his point and spurred discussion, I don't see how blocking PD now serves much of a purpose. Is there ongoing disruption? I'm not seeing any. But I do think the issues involved are appropriate to discuss. We've had a couple recent cases of Arbcom socking. I'd like to know more about how we can better check up on our authority figures and apply our enforcement remedies fairly and equitably without double standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply I kept to my side of the agreement. However since FT2 has chosen to discuss the issue on Wikipedia Review [31] consider the agreement broken on both sides. Also FT2 has finally admitted (on Wikipedia Review) that the sock was his, having previously lied about this. We should not be defending double standards. If Geogre is to be de-sysopped, why not FT2? On the alternate account, it involved the same abusive 'stacking' [32] that Geogre was accused of. Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) On Chillum's question [33] about whether this account was in violation of our sock puppet policies for that time [34]. Yes. The policy then stated "sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. " Chillum also asks whether something that happened some time ago is still relevant. Well if the issue had come to light earlier, possibly. But as FT2 has previously (and relatively denied this or avoided answering the question, it should be brought up. Otherwise we are admitting the principle that it is OK to lie about or deny something bad until it is long enough after the event to claim time limitation. Peter Damian (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry? You directly interacted with him after no direct provocation - how on earth is that "keeping to your side of the agreement"? "he did it first" is the sort of argument five year olds use. "he should be blocked as well as Geogre" - fine, bring it up at WP:RFAR. You can stick it quite neatly below your coming enforcement request I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) And does it really matter what he does on Wikipedia Review? I haven't even bothered clicking those links because its irrelevant to this discussion. Jeni (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Why, if he comments at Wikipedia Review, does that give you the right to act here? Shouldn't the response be at Wikipedia Review? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reasons of morality. Morality is fundamental to human existence. Do we do what is right or wrong? Ricky, Jeni, do you want to do the right thing? Or the wrong thing? I mean, right or wrong, independent of any project like this you are involved in. I think you know the answer. Peter Damian (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's a bunch of sophistry that simply does not matter. The very simple fact is that you were unblocked on the condition that you leave FT2 alone on Wikipedia. Or did that condition magically disappear because you decided it did? → ROUX ₪ 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's just BS. If you have a problem with his comments at WR, talk to him there. Now what, you want him to respond there, you play here, and everyone just acts like this is ok? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Proposal Ok, trying to see what people think but I'm of the view that Peter should be indefinitely blocked for just being a continued disruption, and we can all move on. If we allow people to violate their restrictions because of what is done off-wiki (let's not wait until we have a situation where someone just thinks something is happening off-wiki), there's honestly no point to having any restrictions. It's a simple restriction: don't directly deal with him. There's a million other ways to bring it up and he chose the most drama-causing method. Someone else can deal with his concern about FT2 in another manner but not here. If he promises to knock it off and actually follow the restriction, fine but I don't like keeping people around who won't follow simple restrictions. We have enough drama around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ok. Do you have a sensible proposal? Your suggestion is disproportionate to Peter's actions. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) In seven months, he's been blocked a number of times, including twice indefinitely (well, the last was reversed). What do you think, a day, a week, is there a period of time that will make him suddenly realize the restriction is serious? Why not another one second block? That really should make it clear when we say "hey, you two don't get along, don't bother each other", we expect him to be mature enough to actually do it. He hasn't even lasted a month. I really don't care if everyone just wants to ignore this. He'll continue doing stuff like this until someone blocks him, others will claim it's overkill, and we'll continue having 200KB ANI pages with a dozen of these complaints because this is amusing. I say indefinitely until he actually agrees to not interact with people he cannot deal with, and means it. If you cannot do something as simple as that, there's no point to allowing him to continue here until we get this again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I reiterate, WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'll agree to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) It's been there for several hours (I forgot to inform people in this thread, sorry chaps) so Rocky's suggestion is rather moot since it's in the hands of the community. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:IllaZilla

Resolved

 – Situation calmed down, looks like. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This user won't stop reverting my edits. I was just making some very small and harmless edits, but this user is just being rude and intentionally reverting them without the slightest reason, besides those stupid sources, which was not really necessary. This user is just being continuously rude! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like IllaZilla explained their actions at User talk:IllaZilla#Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- is that what you're referring to, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes! Yes i am referring to that! I came here for help! This user is seriously trying to abuse me by reverting my edits on purpose! Again, i came here for help! What if you're hurt and alone and you dial 911, but no one answers? Huh? That's what it's like by your above response! Better help me solve this dispute! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... if you're so sure the information you're posting is correct, then you must have a source, right? If you don't have a source, how can you be so sure? I'm sorry to repeat something you've already heard, but the question seems quite relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's made the most money, been seen by the most people or whatever, just point us to where you read it. That'll do.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some dumb clown must have made up the rule about sources and verification, and that clown didn't know what he was thinking. If User:IllaZilla or anyone tries to revert any of my edits again, there WILL be severe penalties. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Dumb clown"? Next to perhaps neutral point of view, verifiability is one of our most important content policies. Please calm down. These are not hard questions we're asking you. Where did you get this information? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the term "dumb clown" from what you assholes are doing, things like "respecting your god damned beloved sources", which i sure as HELL don't respect at all! I never did agree with sources. Now you will pay the penalty, and it will not be good. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh very intelligent [35] Are you looking to be blocked from editing? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. If we aren't careful, he'll...um...type mean things at us. Or something. HalfShadow 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Ryanbstevens has been here for over a year and self-identifies as an adult, and not a child, this needs to be resolved. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. From his talk page, it would seem everyone has had a go at explaining about Wikipedia policies, the pillars, verification and sources etc.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only resolution here is an indef block, if not outright ban. User has made multiple personal attacks, and has announced they will not abide by core policies, to say nothing of the threats. → ROUX ₪ 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

He does some good stuff I think, but a threat like the above should be met with a block pretty much automatically (MHO) as he's threatening to disrupt the project, not just using bad words at someone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ETA - a short block. I think he'll come to his senses in the morning. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, since a cursory look at his talk page didn't show me one (could be that I missed it/them, if so feel free to block). Either he'll keep it up and get blocked, or he'll go do something else and won't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been here for a year should understand our core policies, and an announcement to ignore them should mean an immediate block until they reconsider their position. On the other hand, if after a year someone doesn't understand our core policies then they should be blocked anyway due to being incompetent to participate here. In any case, the outrageous personal attacks should have meant an immediate block anyway. We are mollycoddling this person because...? → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he removed lifebaka's warning, but at least that can be taken as having been read. Who then was a gentleman? (talk)

Personal policy, Roux. Seems to have worked, too. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here was Ryanbstevens's original edit to Terminator 2: Judgment Day and here was my revert of it. I think I was totally within WP:V to do so and explained so in my edit summary. To my knowledge I have never reverted any other edit of his, nor have we ever interacted before this issue. Here was my reponse to his complaint regarding my revert, and here is his rebuttal. Please take whatever appropriate action you like. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I do apologize for what i did. I did not mean any of that stuff. I was just feeling down. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  The internet is a baaad place to be when pissed off. Do what I do - turn the PC off, go get a drink, read a book or something, and come back to the problem in a few hours. Despite what some users will say this project isn't going to fall down in an afternoon :). Ironholds (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Resolved

 – I'll button this up before someone loses their temper. Protonk (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I need a ruling on this, from an expert. I was under the impression that certain editors, including User:ChildofMidnight, were under a topic ban from Obama-related articles. If I'm wrong about that, I will revert my reversion, mark this "Resolved" and be done with it. In any case, Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates have become Obama-related, due to the President speaking out on the matter (whether he should have or not, he did). So I just want to know if I'm right about the topic ban in general, and if so, should it also extend to this pair of articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Not closely familiar with this; a quick look on my part found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned. This might be a better fit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I've also notified CoM of this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I had notified him just a little bit before you did. I just want to know what the rules are. If I'm right, he (and Grundle was well) must stay away. If I'm wrong, I'll revert him back and stop watching the pages. I'll take it to that other page if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) C of M obviously is under a topic ban from Obama-related articles per this. Such bans are generally broadly defined, so in my view articles relating to Gates would currently fall under that scope. However that was not obvious from the beginning of this arrest issue, as Obama was not initially intimately implicated in it, as he is now. I doubt C of M was thinking of this in terms of violating his topic ban (and from what I can gather he has not actually discussed Obama on the article talk pages), so I see no major problem here. However I think he should err on the side of caution and leave off editing those articles, particularly Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. It would be good if someone could make a suggestion to that effect on his talk page. I am not ChildofMidnight's favorite admin and as such the comment should probably not come from me, so I would appreciate it if another admin could drop a note on his page (assuming others agree with my interpretation of the situation here). I think he'll likely be amenable to avoiding Gates-related articles, and if he disagrees we could get ArbCom to clarify, but ideally this can be taken care of without bother the Arbs. Again, I don't see a problem behavior here on C of M's part and I'm sure he was editing in good faith, but probably he should leave off those articles for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) He was engaging in subtle pro-police (and implicitly anti-Obama) slanting of the article, but that's more of a content dispute, which others are also on top of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (ec)I really don't think good faith can be assumed here, as this is not the first time CoM has tested the waters re: the topic ban. #1 and #2. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry but that was not a good block in my view. I'm as familiar as anyone with the background here, and I have been strongly critical of C of M in the past. I do not see a reason to assume that he was acting in bad faith and knowingly circumventing his topic ban. It would have been far more advisable to leave a note on his talk page first asking him to leave off editing those articles. Only one admin had commented directly on the matter at hand before you blocked (me) and that was to recommend not blocking. The other editors who have commented (excepting Luna) have in the past been in disputes with C of M. I strongly recommend you unblock pending further discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The diff I have provided in my block summary resp. in my block notice, which you might whish to read, shows that this was indeed a violation of the topic ban. If one adds “Obama stated” to an article they clearly do know that the article they are editing is Obama related. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I looked at that diff, and it doesn't look like CoM added those words about Obama, but only moved them from one part of the article to another, as part of a large re-organization for better flow. It looks quite harmless to me. Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) He also tried to re-edit a line that said "according to police reports, the witness identified two black men", to simply, "the witness identified two black men". That's what specifically caught my attention, as it's subtle manipulation of the story to be more favorable to the police and to subtly criticize Obama. In fact, the woman claims (now, anyway) that she never said that. So to say she did is simply to make the cops look better, and is not appropriate since the sources are saying otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No, xe didn't. this is the edit, and clearly it doesn't remove "According to the police report". Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Bah! I take that back. I thought that I'd reviewed every single edit. I did scan them two different ways to find any edit resembling what you were talking about. I've just found this one. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) Here's a question that would help clarify matters for me. What are the content of CoM's comments in regards to the article, and when did they begin? If the comments began after the Obama content was added, he's guilty of trying to sidestep the topic ban. If he's adding content to the article to color Obama's involvement, well, that would amount to the same thing. Seeing as CoM's been nicked for this sort of thin before, and has been trying to weasel around his restrictions, if he's guilty, he actually deserves a longer block than a day. We have too much work to do without having spending time to ensure that topic-banned editors stay the hell away from those topics. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's a fair statement. I don't know when he started editing the page, as I hadn't even looked at it until today. But the Obama angle on this has been out there for several days now [since July 22]. In fact, if Obama had kept his trap shut, this story might have faded a lot faster, so it's definitely an Obama-related story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Hm... my initial feeling was that a notice like Bigtimepeace suggested might have been more appropriate -- it's not every day the subject of your topic ban is suddenly added to an article you're working on, after all -- but there's mention here of pushing the envelope previously. Any chance we could be more specific on that point? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I think the blocking admin is correct about that fact, though I can't say for 100 percent sure. In this case, rather than blocking right away, I might have simply told CoM to stay off that page (including talk), period; and that he would be blocked if he violated that warning. However, he was trying to steer the page in a certain way, so he would be hard pressed to plead total innocence. He's also banned from the talk pages of Obama topics, but I didn't revert any of that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Chiming in on 2 points; first, to Bigtimepeace. That several here have been involved in past disputes with this user should certainly be taken into account, sure, but it seems like you are suggesting that our input be disregarded because of that. What I contributed was two reference points for past behavior, as evidence of a pattern of behavior that should be considered. Second, I believe this has been an Obama-related topic ever since his "the police acted stupidly" comment. This commentary was already in the article by the time CoM made his first edit there. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear Tarc, and my previous comment probably was not as it was typed in a rush before sitting down to dinner, you are of course welcome to weigh in here, I was just concerned that Aitias may have blocked seeing comments from a couple of users (yourself and Bugs) without realizing they had butted heads with C of M before. No wrong doing on your part at all. In terms of past topic ban violating behavior on C of M's part, I think the main issue (and this is just from memory) was an AfD involving Gerald Walpin. C of M had commented there and it was pointed out that this violated his topic ban. C of M said he had not realized this, but then agreed and left off commenting. I'm not aware off any other direct violation of the "don't discuss Obama" ban, excepting a clarification with the ArbCom about whether the disputants in the case could refer to one another in a negative way (they cannot). Blocks are preventive, in this case to prevent C of M from editing a couple of articles relating to Obama. If we could have accomplished the same thing with a simple talk page note, than that would clearly have been desirable, but this was not even attempted. I continue to think this was a bad block done in haste and against the explicit advice of another admin familiar with the background. If C of M requests unblock and agrees to hold off editing articles related to HL Gates, I think the request should be granted, and I'm inclined to do that myself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Ahhh geesh. Umm, OK - I basically agree with Bigtimepeace on this. I completely understand Aitias' rational and all, but I think there is enough ambiguity in this case to release the block, and as such I've asked him if he's willing to discuss the matter. Several things stand out in my mind: 1.) At the time the articles became viable for WP, I don't believe that there was an "Obama" factor. 2.) The parties involved in the article have not even met for their much anticipated "beer" yet. 3.) I question whether Obama simply commenting on a news story constitutes any tangential items becoming such that they fall under the "Obama sanctions" 4.) One item that is not explicitly stated in the sanctions, which I have seen in many other cases, is the term "broadly construed". Perhaps we are into an area with Gates that now falls under the "Obamaa sanction", but I have to ask the requisite questions: What did he (CoM) know, and when did he know it? I think it's always best to discuss first, and block only if we can't find a positive path forward. I realize that many editors have had less than positive experiences with CoM, but I'm seeing some real "gray" areas in this one. Rather than blocking folks out - I'd ask that we try all the other options first. — Ched :  ?  03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Too late for that though, isn't it. Mr "Shoot From the Hip and Ask Questions Later" has simply done what he's renowned for doing. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know how to answer that Mal. Since the punctuation is a "period" rather than a question mark, I'll assume it's rhetorical. I've never had a problem with Aitias, so I don't have call to WP:ABF. I agree that we need to remember the past, but at the moment, I'd rather focus on the present, and reduce future drama. Has CoM requested an unblock? — Ched :  ?  04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No editor with any self-respect requests an unblock, but CoM has been unblocked anyway, by Bigtimepeace. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) As Malleus notes, and per the discussion here on ANI and this from C of M, I have unblocked (see also my note to C of M here). ChildofMidnight has agreed to avoid the Gates-related articles so the block seems wholly unnecessary at this point in terms of preventing further breaches of the topic ban, which is the only point of a block in this situation. Some of C of M's comment is not very edifying and I've cautioned him for that, but I don't think it's a reason to keep the block active. I've also cautioned C of M to avoid any article that might remotely relate to Obama so this kind of thing does not come up in the future. I think (hope?) this solves the issue for now and that we can move on, barring objections of course. I'd rather have left this up to Aitias to reconsider but that editor seems to have gone offline for the evening, and I don't think unblocking in the face of a promise to not do the thing that caused the block should be all that controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Editors and administrators should always consider dropping a courteous note to an editor with whom a concern arises as a first step. It's a great way to avoid abusive and disruptive blocks like this one. As I edit lots of articles and jump from topic to topic and subject to subject, it's entirely possible I will edit something in the future that is in some way related to Barack Obama. If there is a concern, please just let me know! Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I am sorry you were blocked. The lack of structure in this discussion seems to have contributed to the problem. As Bigtimepeace observed, the opinions of those in dispute with you seem to have been read as a consensus to block, when they represented no such thing. I've just made a proposal at WT:AN to try to improve this situation. Feel free to comment there. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Obama's comment about Gates was on the 22nd of this month. CoM's first edits to either gates article were well after this. We'll have to trust him, but I have my doubts that CoM was happening to edit the gates article and it became an Obama related article. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) In defense of C of M, prior to editing the Gates article, he was very active at Contempt of cop which obviously led him to the Gates material. You'll notice he was engaged in in-depth conversations at Talk:Contempt of cop which had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama (though they came after Obama commented on the case). L'Affaire de Gates has stirred powerful feelings in the U.S. about racial profiling, policing, etc., and many people are extremely interested in these issues without caring what Obama said or how it affects his administration. That seems to be how C of M got into this nexus of articles, which is why I don't think it's too hard to assume good faith (if we aren't assuming good faith, he got in a lengthy back and forth with User:Sandstein and others about policing and race just so that he could eventually go over to an article about Gates' arrest and move one section of text which discusses Obama from the intro to the body without changing the prose—I think that stretches credulity). In general when it comes to topic bans, we should mindful of the fact that people might wander over into areas that are covered by the ban somewhat accidentally. If they are contrite and realize the problem when called on it then I really think there's no big deal, which is why it makes a helluva lot more sense to ask first and block later. Our overall goal on this project is actually to not block people if we can avoid it. Here we clearly could have. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Interesting. :) Frankly I didn't recall how I got onto those articles. The nature of Wikipedia makes it pretty easy to get off onto tangents. It's also worth mentioning that while I was punished for an innocent oversight, this thread is filled with personal attacks, smears, falsehoods and assumptions of bad faith. The blocking admin and the others who would rather jump to negative conclusions and attack a fellow editor than to properly investigate and discuss should take a good long look in the mirror and reflect on the meaning of civility, good faith and collaboration. And by the way it's not 100% evident that Henry Gates or the article on his arrest are Obama related articles (they certainly don't fall under any category or title that would suggest that) but I have no problem avoiding them and understand the reasonable (albeit misdirected) concern. Any time there is a legitimate concern expressed courteously I try to abide and respect it. And that's the case even though our Obama coverage is in hideous violation of our core NPOV policy and has been scrubbed of notable criticisms and controversies in a censorship and ignorance promoting bonanza. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't say that it indicted him. I just said that the timeline precluded the explanation given above. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) At the risk of sending us into some bizarro infinite ANI loop (if I was trapped in one of those I think I would literally jump off a bridge to get out of it), C of M you really can't make the kind of remarks you make in your second to last sentence, because of the topic ban thingy. 'Nuff said I hope. So yeah, I'm leaving this thread now before we start over at the beginning, and maybe someone can mark this resolved before that happens. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) This isn't an article or an article talk page is it? I don't agree with your conclusion. If it's somewhere in the arbcom "remedy" you'll have to point it out to me. But I think the main point here is that Aitias, Basebull Bugs, Tarc, and Arcayne need to be blocked before they do any more damage to the encyclopedia via disruption and policy violating smears and personal attacks based on misrepresentations and falsehoods. Protonk's assumption of bad faith is troubling, but it's probably best to let his comment go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?

Mixed in with the random vandalism and false claims, Jay Sean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the target of a slow-burn nationalist edit war. Not sure what, if anything, to do. Today he's of "Punjabi Indian descent". Before that, he was "Punjabi Pakistani descent". Before that Punjabi Indian descent". How about Indian Punjabi for a little variety? Maybe just Punjabi? For typographical variation, maybe Punjabi Pakistann? Maybe he was born to Sikh parents who migrated from the Punjab region of Pakistan? Or Punjabi Pakistanian?

This crap is never ending. I watchlist the article because it is a magnet for fandalism, but 80% of edits are this little re-enactment of the Indian/Pakistan border conflict. Mainly IPs, but the occasional registered editor joins in the fray.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest semi-protection as a starting point - that should cut most of it out. Surely there are sources out there that define his ethnicity? Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist sources for a nationalist dispute. I just noticed the interaction between this thread and WP:ANI#User:Dewan357, so it's probably worth considering this in that context. My personal perspective is that "Punjabi" is both correct and sufficient.—Kww(talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good for me - they all agree he's punjabi something. Semiprotect and change to Punjabi would be my comment. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - done and done. EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't last long. Take note of WP:ANI#User:Dewan357.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Further edit warring by User:Dewan357 on the Gupta empire page [36], despite a long and detailed explanation on the topic's talk page and clear reasons for previous edits, the user continues to make disruptive edits. Khokhar (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:209.152.60.173

209.152.60.173 (talk · contribs) is triggering an abuse filter as being a possible sockpuppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs). Could somebody investigate? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of My cat's breath smells like catfood

This editor, My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk · contribs), is lacking proper etiquette, using Wikipedia mainly as a platform for his childish amusements. His edits on various articles are questionable at the very least. New articles he created, such as this one and that one, are unconstructive and perhaps offensive to many who might view it. And his edit summaries are rather unacceptable considering he resorted to offensive language in a few edit summaries including usage of the “F-word” and phrases pertaining to a particular part of the male anatomy.

It is one thing to see a minor edit that isn’t correct, and fix it. But to see an edit like that, and make such a huge deal out of it like this editor did in such a brash way, I’m sure such behavior is absolutely unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for irrational editors to do whatever they wish on here. This nonsense should not be allowed here. I request that an administrator take a look at this editor’s list of contributions see what I’m talking about, and issue a warning to this editor for his intolerable behavior. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent contributions seem a bit worrying - see the edit summary here, this redirect, this edit summary, this article... it goes on - not directly vandaltastic, but disruptive and childish. I noticed you didn't inform him about the AN/I thread, and I've taken the liberty of doing so. Personally I'm in favour of a stern cut-the-crap warning and escalating blocks if he keeps it up after that, but we'll see what he says in reply to the ANI notification. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything productive in the user's recent edit history. While there's nothing that's over the line enough to warrant an immediate block, we shouldn't encourage people who appear to not be interested in writing an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Also note the practical joke on his page (he's mocked up a "You have new messages" alert that leads to the page Practical joke. Fooled me, so nice one! but it's going to piss the hell out of someone with less patience ......Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he's not the only one with that fake bar. That's an old joke that people did years ago (and some people still have them today). (X! · talk)  · @873  ·  19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy users with a skewed sense of humor (mine is so offbeat you wouldn't believe it), this guy is over the line. I believe a block is warranted, at least a short-term one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics on his User page are a copyright violation. I've asked him to remove them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. If he continues, he should be blocked. (X! · talk)  · @876  ·  20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Something here reminds me of behaviour from User:Tom Sayle in one of his earlier guises, specifically edits to female celebrities, projectspace interests, and rude edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Onesius and punctuation-related edits

User:Onesius (contribs) has been making a number of punctuation- and spelling-related edits which are at odds with WP policy (WP:LQ, WP:ENGVAR, etc.). Several editors have tried to steer him towards policy on his User talk page, but to no avail. He recently left a less-than-civil comment on a User's page, which could be a simple mistake or could be something more. Any opinions on what, if anything, should be done in this situation? Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and all of the articles that the user has "corrected" seem to be on American topics, where correcting punctuation to the American dialect would seem to be appropriate. But the comment on that user's page is way out of line, and that level of cold hostility was not warranted or required. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

So what's the point of site-wide standards if we're not going to use them? I can understand differences in spelling between US/British/Canadian/etc. articles, but punctuation is a basic element that should be consistently applied throughout the project (in my opinion). If there are to be differences, these should be specified in the style guide (I would disagree with doing this, though). Mindmatrix 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR came into play on this edit, at the very least. There may have been others, not sure. Would it be appropriate to rollback these edits, as there are many of them and they clearly go against the current style guidelines (WP:LQ)? Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so, so long as you note that the edits have been made in good faith and you reference WP:ENGVAR in your edit summary. WP:LQ is disputed, so I wouldn't rollback based on that though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Hello, all, First, I apologize if I offended anyone. Also, I thought I was having a one-on-one discussion with someone who had initiated the discussion. Nevertheless, the running postings (whatever the proper term), which I believe are on some sort of discussion board concerning punctuation, were pretty "direct" & I thought my tone was more subdued than many of those comments. Nothing I said hasn't been said, in substance, before me and in much more pointed terms. I have also seen references to being "mercilessly edited," which also implies the appropriateness of a certain tone. Sorry if I misunderstood. Second, I gather from the heading that this is not the place to continue a substantive discussion, so I won't. Third, it was my understanding there was a difference between "policies" & "guidelines" (although if someone could direct me to a link defining those, it would be helpful) and, as has been oft-stated by others, the Wikipedia "guidelines" on punctuation (i.e., "logic" punctuation) are not grammatically correct except perhaps in computer code-writing. English isn't "logical" in spelling either but somehow we all endeavor (I hope) to spell correctly. Prior to being a college English professor I was a magazine editor. My Wikipedia edits have all been in good faith and in an attempt to improve the writing. (I have also had temerity to correct grammar errors, e.g., on the use of "that" vs. "which.") I hope that is OK with all of you. Fourth, what is this place (site, or whatever the correct term)? Thanks. Regards, --Onesius (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 83.46.216.120

I am raising this ANI against the above mentioned IP. The person is going on a vandalism rampage on all the Madonna related articles by adding inaccurate information, deleting references and inserting fancruft. His contributions will show what he/she is upto. I belive this IP is a sockpuppet of another IP 88.15.72.41 who was just blocked yesterday for ongoing vandalism by User:Tedder. Please look into the matter as warnings are not paid any attention by the IP. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No edits since final warning. Last ref was stale anyway - updated. Use WP:AIV for vandalism! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now is using vile language on my talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Warm as ice request admin action

Resolved

 – initiating editor is happy with result of warning upon Warm as ice see User_talk:Zero0000#Can_I_mark_resolved --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Before it gets out of hand, can someone please jump on new user User:Warm as ice? It is here purely for the purpose of disruption. Highlights:

1. [37] Claims Palestinians don't exist.
2. [38] Edits "Arabs" into "Palestinians" in 1929 Hebron massacre (contradicting #1)
3. [39] Admits #2 was just to make a point.
4. [40] Now claims the word "Arabs" needs a reliable source (which is of course ridiculous).
5. [41] Posts on Palestinian editor's talk page, claiming to ask for "advice" about putting Palestinian people up for AfD.

Zero^talk 10:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive, pointy edits that go far over the line. Give a final stop-fucking-around warning and then blocks if nothing changes is my two pence. Has he been informed of this section? Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only edit that has been made to his talkpage is a notice of this discussion, users are obliged to attempt to discuss matters first on users talk pages before taking them here. You may very well disagree heavily with this user and he may even be wrong but he is still entitled to due process.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "discussion" is at Talk:Palestinian people‎. In my opinion it is sufficient. Zero^talk 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that Wikimedia Foundation policies regarding Non-discrimination and Code of Conduct do not permit administrators to practice or tolerate harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against project users on the basis of place of origin, nationality, ancestry, or any other legally protected characteristics. This isn't a content dispute, it is harassment. harlan (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have given Mr "Warm as ice" a final warning regarding his purposeful disruption of wikipedia. Should he again disrupt wikipedia please feel free to come to my talk page and if proven I will block him. I hope that this will nip future such edits in the bud but if my fellow administrators feel that more action is required at this time I will not argue against that action.Best wishes Virtual Steve --VS ^talk 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this user is/was purposefully disrupting. He clearly believes he was doing the right thing, he just needs setting straight. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because I'd say here he admits he's being deliberately disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see the lower two paragraphs he wrote on that edit. Nevertheless though, I don't think he created an account solely to disrupt. U-Mos (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

if a jewish editor was asked for help in proposing jew for deletion by an editor who previously questioned the existence of jews as a people on the talk page of that article, i wonder what the reaction would be? would anyone think twice about whether he was here to cause a disruption or not? i'd say warm as ice got off with a minor scolding. largely because no one treats palestinians as though they are full human beings. my two cents. 217.78.51.174 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, insinuating that there's passive racism abundant - nice. Well, speaking as a Jew who thinks that the existence of Israel = mega-problematic and the Palestinians should have got their bloody land back by now, I support the final warning. If it was the scenario you proposed with an AfD for Jew... I'd still support the final warning. Editors with problematic opinions in certain areas can be redirected to other places where they'd be useful, and blocked if they fail to cooperate. I see no reason to completely eliminate the first option. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Saravanakumars adding unsourced opinions

Resolved

 – warning provided to Saravanakumars.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will tell me if there's a better place for this. User:Saravanakumars (and some IP editors) has been editing all the Tamil film director pages. All these pages have the format of a table with the year, the name of the film, and a column for comments. In the column comment he keeps adding "Hit", "Super Hit", "Flop" etc.[42] [43] are a few of about 20 examples. That these are opinions is shown here for example [44] , where he's altering what one of the IPs has said. He's been warned by me [45] and I've explained the problem [46] [47].

However, he doesn't believe what I say [48] "This is the format for cinema related articles. ... If you still not understand what I am doing, please wait for some time. ...you are the only man against me. How much do you know about tamil cinema ? I have worked in some films too. So please stop your undo in future." and has now started edit warring with myself and other editors who keep removing his edits [49][50][51] - reversion of User:Cst17[52][53][54] revert by User:Ronhjones .

Could someone with a louder voice explain WP:V WP:RS to him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided Saravanakumars with a third level stern warning. Should he return again with this type of original research, uncited edit please let me or a fellow administrator know. Best wishes Virtual Steve --VS ^talk 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I'll keep an eye on him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure - I will close this one off as resolved for now. Feel free to come directly to me if necessary.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Movie/anime vandal back again...

It seems that the vandal guy operating from Indonesia has been going around vandalizing various articles by inserting various misinformation. Below are the IP address that the guy has vandalized from for the past 30 days alone (there may be more that I don't know of):

• 125.165.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.20.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.148.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.158.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.180.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.49.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I can't elaborate on the details, but it seems the MO is the same, and "victim" articles include MGM (and related articles), TMS Entertainment, CBS Television Distribution, Sony Pictures Television, related Disney articles, articles related to the Digimon franchise, etc.

I don't know on which articles this vandal would strike next or would return to vandalize any of the articles I've mentioned, but I know unless something is done, his vandalism will continue. What's more, WP:AIV will never work on this guy because I've discovered the edits days after the deed was done and reverted by another user. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

JJimbo3 - escalated from WQA

Resolved

 – editor blocked 31 hours --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This WQA says a lot about User:JJimbo3. Not only has the user referred to others as "cunts", they seem to believe that it's quite okay, and that they're somehow allowed to do so - even in response to other's supposed incivility. They "don't care" what happens in WQA, as they will do what they want. I have provided them with my "uncivil new user" template yesterday, and asked them to retract this morning - granted they're not online until later, but I think "cunts" is far beyond what we accept. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Gross incivility - editor blocked 31 hours for personal attack on more than one editor.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this a username vio? (similarities to User:Jimbo Wales) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a "User:Jimbo online" somewhere, and it's been found to be ok, so JJimbo3 is likely alright. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hotwiki

Have you seen all of the troubled files this user has uploaded? Check out the talk page, tons of warnings. The user has an image in the corner that reads "Say NO to Fair Use, Free Wikipedia!", does this user understand fair use? Some action needs to take place.

Shortcuts:

• User page, Talk page, Contributions, Fair use, Contribution summary

• S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hotwiki uploaded a number of fair-use media files in 2006, and tagged them (as far as I can see) in compliance with fair-use policies as prevailed at the time. Since then we've asked that people fill out a little form when they upload fair use, and those bot messages are reminders to keep that info up to date. I can't see any evidence, and you've failed to provide any (bar some routine bot messages that prove nothing) of any breach of Wikipedia rules, as they stood at the time, by this user. Hotwiki hasn't uploaded any files for nearly a year. How is this an "incident"? Why didn't you discuss this matter with the user? What edits, specifically, are bad? -- Finlay McWalter Talk 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that the "say no to fair use" is normally used to indicate that the user wants Wikipedia to use PD and free use images only, as it is more in line with Wikipedia's stated goals and situation than snippets of copyrighted works. This does not indicate that the user is some massive copyright violator who's interest is in uploading stuff that can't be justified under FU. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources are the album. Did he/she get it from the album? Off a website? etc. Some have no sources at all. This needs improving, no? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but the images were tagged in compliance with rules as they were then, and nothing the user has done indicates any deliberate attempt to stick copyvios and dodgy fair use images throughout the site. I'm not quite sure what admin action you're asking for here - a block is inappropriate, deleting the images is fairly silly without some attempt to save them.. What is it you want, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 and Rannpháirtí anaithni

Resolved

This conversation has been moved from WT:AN where is was mislocated.

Locus of dispute

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

Involved parties

• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments by involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Nothing too serious here, but knowing the editor and seeing his/her non-response on this occasion, I don't see any course of action other than to ask for admin intervention.

User:Domer48 is working on a expansion of Laudabiliter - and quite good job he is doing of it too. After a few days of this work, I stuck my head in to lend a hand with copy editing - only to every attempt reverted in turn: revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. No explanation. Just reverted on sight.

I left a message on the user's talk page and on the article talk page, neither of which got a response before he/she reverted the page again.

Can an admin please explain ownership and civility to this editor?

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been adding citation tags to text which is referenced, and has ignored the unreferenced text. Having been in dispute for weeks over them not wanting to use references and sources this is a bit rich. Placed wiki source links at the head of the article. Placed dead links on the article, and changed the chronology of the sections.

That they have been in consistent dispute with me along with their fellow traveller who has also shown up now to lend a hand, and edit war in addition to this editor who have never edited this article till I went near it, does not bode well.

In addition to this article, I’ve expanded this article also, and will be continuing to expand more articles as they become applicable to this one. Now if they want to stalk my edits, there is not much I can do, but just coming along to create disruption is not helpful. This is just provoking here, and this comment here is a joke. First I did not add this section, but I did tag it. Secondly, this editor also for weeks refused to agree to source and reference contrabutions in the same discussion mentioned above, and now they want sources? --Domer48 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of disruption is this edit here. The source clearly states English, and they change it again back to Norman. This is just editing for the sake of it. This is just adding citation tags to referenced text? This is just plain disruption. They stalked me to this article, having walked away from a pointless discussion with them. I was going to reference this section, but here is the other partner, so now I have the three of them. --Domer48 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "This editor has been adding citation tags to text which is referenced..." As explained in the edit summary and on your talk, the {{huh}} template is because those sentence don't make sense grammatically. It is not a request for citations.
• "...dead links on the article, and changed the chronology of the sections..." Three red links out of what, 30 or so, link that I added? Red links are how articles begin.
• "...who have never edited this article till I went near it..." See the edit history and my user page. No one is "stalking" you.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And it continues. I've made 10 to the article since yesterday. All 10 have been reverted on sight by Domer48. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my rational above. You are trying to disrupt an article expansion and continue a dispute from another talk page. Adding original research, citation tags for referenced text, creating red links with no intension of addressing them, and trying to create drama here is all one can expect from a returning editor under a new name with a history of disruption. Now I'm going to continue to build this article up and this expansion will take some time as it involves working of a number of articles your disruption is not helpful, please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Adding original research, citation tags..." It was a copy edit only. No citation tags were added. You need to get over your ownership issues and learn to collaborate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I've organized this case so that uninvolved editors can get a better idea of what's going on. We need to check the claims of WP:OWN violations by Domer48 and the counterclaim of disruptive editing violations by Rannpháirtí anaithni. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon first review, Rannpháirtí anaithnid appears to be a trouble-making sockpuppet account. They made a bee line to a hot dispute and started picking fights. Do we have a checkuser who could take a look at this account and compare it to the usual suspects related to The Troubles? Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A check user can be avoided by seeing this entry on Wikipedia:Changing username. Also, WP:HUMAN describes what I learnt from my "year in the wilderness" after I abandoned my previous account and edited as an IP.

Never had the words "trouble-making" used to describe me before. Thanks for taking this up BTW. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Domer48 has been involved in a very intense dispute. If he wanders off and starts a new article, it would be good for those who'd been in wikilitigation with him to let him be. I agree that you are not a trouble-maker, but I can understand from Domer48's perspective how you could look like a troublemaker to him (and even to me, an outside observer). Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been semi-resolved since at least Domer48 has discussed one issue on the talk page. Although I haven't tried to edit the page since. I would however still like a comment on his earlier behavior re: my attempts at copy editing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've only a few things to say. Firstly, it seems like rannṗáirtí was making simple copyedits, so reverting them confuses me. Secondly, it doesn't look like there's been any OR; including a link to Wikisource (which I believe is the cause of that particular dispute) cannot be considered research, because no text is being added to the article. And thirdly, this really should've gone to dispute resolution. Heading to the drahmahz board is almost always a bad idea. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing administrator

It seems that no further action is needed here. Circumstances have been explained. Domer48, an important part of civility is being agreeable. If somebody makes trivial copy edits, just let them be for a while. Try not to revert unless it's really necessary. You can always revert a little later. An especially good idea is to use the talk page to explain why you want to revert, and give the other editor a chance to reply before you take action. Other editors, please do not follow people you've been disputing with to new venues. If somebody walks away from a dispute, let them go. Don't follow. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting removal of rollback privileges

The rollback feature is a "fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, first paragraph). Editors who "show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right" (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, rollback permission description).

Yesterday, I conducted a series of edits in concordance with Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, removing galleries of fair use logos from several articles [55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. I have conducted fair use image gallery removal on many other occasions in the past [62][63][64][65]. For each image that was removed from an article and as a consequence orphaned, I tagged them as orphaned (example). A few hours later, User:Emarsee began undoing my edits.

I am not here to debate the concern of fair use logo galleries. I am here to raise a serious issue of abuse of rollback privileges. In particular, User:Emarsee used the rollback feature to undo my edits on two of the articles [66][67] and on 15 of the images (examples: [68][69][70]). In effect, User:Emarsee was treating my edits as vandalism.

Further, whether User:Emarsee debates the appropriateness of the logo galleries or not, removing warning templates for missing fair use rationales using the rollback feature is yet another abuse of his rollback privileges [71].

I challenged User:Emarsee about this, to give him an opportunity to respond before reporting this abuse here [72]. His response [73] acknowledges that my edits were not vandalism. He does apologize for the edit summaries lacking explanation, which is good. However, to use rollback for an issue of content is still improper use. Quoting WP:RBK, "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert."

This abuse of his rollback privilege is not isolated. In a casual review of his rollback usage, I found multiple cases of its use for non-vandalism edits. Examples include [74][75] and [76]. There are multiple other examples.

I am requesting the removal of User:Emarsee's rollback privileges until such time as he can properly identify vandalism and use non-rollback tools to demonstrate his understanding of what constitutes vandalism.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally have not requested rollback privileges because I like to carefully consider all actions and spend the time to manually revert vandalism. However, this is just me, not others User F203 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And me. I prefer WP:TWINKLE because it forces you to use an edit summary unless you have chosen the "Vandalism" option. Surely there is someplace where the removal of files that do/do not meet fair use is discussed?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this is very troubling buta quick scan of the users contribs suggests that they do generally supply an edit summary when they use roleback. nevertheless, Hammersoft is right that the rollback took was used inappropriately and the refusal to apologise or accept fault is concerning. I'd like to hold fire until we hear from Emarsee but given the attitude I'd support removal without a good explanation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks to me that Emarsee has apologized. Hold the pitchforks and torches, I say, until evidence arises that Emarsee continues after being warned. Powers ^T 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That evidence exists in the form that he refuses to undo the edits, choosing to continue to treat my edits as vandalism. I grant there is an apology, but it rings a bit hollow given his words elsewhere at User_talk:Hammersoft#Re:Rollback. If it takes me twice as long to conduct good faith edits as it does for Emarsee to use rollback to undo everything I do, it becomes incredibly frustrating. It becomes even more so when, despite apology, it's blatantly obvious what his stance is regarding my edits; bad faith. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • By apologising, he's effectively implied he does not consider your edits vandalism. What do you want - him to revert his own rollbacks, then revert your edits again with an edit summary? I do still get the impression that you are trying to conflate the content dispute you're having with him with his incorrect use of rollback. I agree entirely that his usage of it was incorrect; but personally I am happy to treat this occasion as a warning - I will keep an eye on his use of the tool and will remove it without further ado if any additional good faith edits are reverted with it. ~ mazca ^talk 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • As I noted in my initial posting here, I am not conflating the issues. My concern about his abuse of the rollback privileges is entirely separate from the fair use issue. You agree his use was incorrect. Thank you. What I want to see happen is his rollback privilege taken away until he can prove he can use it appropriately. It is easily given, it should easily be taken away until he can prove he can use it appropriately again. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "I've never stated your edits were vandalism, I just disagree with you removing logos which have significant historical value to the television station articles." Maybe it's me, but it appears that he is saying your edits weren't vandalism. He also apologized for the rollbacks without edit summaries...but if he is having a content dispute...why would he revert himself and then revert himself again just not to have an edit by rollback. --Smashville^talk 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The use of rollback privileges for a content issue is abuse of the privilege. It is to be used for vandalism and nonsense edits. Most certainly not to remove warning templates for missing rationales, as he has done and refuse to undo. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding this and this edit, I can't see why the first one wasn't vandalism. It was a clear attempt of promotion. The second edit was made by a user who would never listen to anybody, used incorrect English, got blocked a few times for PAs, and continues to push unsourced fringe ideas (see his account contribs, [77]). It's been quite clear that a majority of people don't even bother fixing his edits, instead choosing to reverting them instead.
• Like many others said, I've apologized for the edits where I didn't use an edit summary. What else should I do, if I'm going to revert my own edits back and then use rollback with an edit summary, the tags are still removed. I admit, I should've used Twinkle or undo instead of rollback for these edits. For that, I apologize and will use these tools in the future instead of rollback regarding NFCC issue on television/radio station articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I seriously wouldn't do that, because you'll then yet again be using rollback to break Wikipedia policy. Black Kite 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Emarsee, given that, by your own admission, you have a poor understanding of non-free content policy, it would be better if you didn't mass-revert editors with more experience in that area - whether you use an automatic edit summary or not. CIreland (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Since Emarsee has declined to undo his edits, I have undone them for him. In some cases there is room for discussion in interpretation of non-free image policies, but since these articles in their current form were clear failures of WP:NFCC - they are purely decorative - I will treat any further reversion to that version as vandalism. This disruption has to stop. Black Kite 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a few articles that have failed NFCC, but only 3a. There is no free equivalent to any logo as they are copyrighted, the only ones that could possibly be free are recreations of expired copyrighted logos. Most of the articles qualified for 3a. 4-5 logos are not excessive, however most stations have have been around for over 50 years have several logos, a good example would be WWOR (which doesn't have any historical logos galleries at the moment). I don't see how the logos are decorative, it's pretty damn hard to describe a logo, if it's not a wordmark or a widely known logo. I will not revert to prevent any edit wars, but I do not agree with this decision by Black Kite.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You noted earlier than you didn't understand the non-free criteria, and I have to say you're now proving it. "4-5 logos is not excessive"? One logo can be excessive if it fails WP:NFCC. However the main problem is WP:NFCC#8 - the logos aren't necessary to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject (i.e. the station). The only thing they could possibly increase is an understanding of what the logo looks like, and the articles aren't about the logos. In most cases they're not even discussed in the articles at all, which means they're clearly not significant. And all that is before we even consider guidelines such as WP:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. Black Kite 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• BK, this strident and over-assertive tone isn't helpful. Knock it off. There is a legitimate bona-fide difference of view here, both sides seeing themselves acting in line with WP:NFCC, but coming to different assessments of what is and what is not significant. To those who see branding history as a significant part of a TV station's identity, indeed part of a regional area's shared historical mass-culture, the images presented e.g. at [78] do represent a significant addition to the understanding conveyed by the article; particluarly as we recognise that the quality and degree of the copyright taking in reproducing logos, which is what we have to balance the significance in terms of, is so slight because these logos were specifically designed to supply as widely identified and reproduced an image for the station as possible. (That, incidentally, is exactly why they passed Mike Godwin's legal test, and why that legal test is relevant here). This stridency, and particularly the threat of vandalism sanctions, is not appropriate in a legitimate question of judgment; and not helpful for community cohesion. What is needed is calm discussion and resolution, and if necessary neutral third-party mediation. Jheald (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Five fair use images. Two sentences. The second sentence just tells you the images are there. So, we have _one_ sentence talking about the logos. We're to include five images to support the 'discussion' in ONE sentence? Come on. We might as well give up and include fair use in discographies, character lists, and everything else then. Open the flood gates...
• No, if there's no significant discussion of an image there's precious little reason to include the image in the article. The images in your example aren't discussed. The fact the station has gone through logo changes is discussed in the one sentence, but there's nothing about the logos themselves. Further, there's no secondary sources used to support the one sentence. If this is all it takes to include as many images as we want, then discographies could just say "the performer has had a number of different album covers that have evolved over the years showing different themes, styles, and changes in record label affiliation" Tada! Include those album covers...fire away! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• No, sorry, I won't "knock it off". I am utterly fed up of this policy (which, let us not forget, is the cornerstone of one of the five pillars) being treated with contempt. I am always willing to engage in discussion on articles where a reasonable justification is made for use of non-free images, but in recent times we have had numerous occasions where editors have quite blatantly stated that because they (or in a more disturbing recent development, their Wikiprojects) don't agree with the policy, they don't have to follow it. That's what's happening here - you claim it's that editors have a different interpretation of NFCC, but they don't - they're just ignoring it if it gets in the way of their opinion. None of the articles mentioned in this episode come even close to passing WP:NFCC in their current state; they fail 3a and 8. The example you give clearly fails too - it basically says "here are some logos". Their design, evolution or how they relate to the station itself isn't discussed; that would be the very least that such an article would need to support such a gallery, and even then most attempts at this tend to end up with text such as "First there was a green logo, then a yellow one, then a blue one with a smiley face on ..." which not only isn't critical commentary but probably fails WP:NFCC#1 as well because the logos are being described perfectly well in text. We've tried calm discussion before; all we end up is wikilawyering and hand-waving about "there is consensus to include them", which is utterly irrelevant. Black Kite 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Says you. It's your opinion that showing how the station presented itself and how it is remembered by its viewers is not significant. It's not the opinion of our legal counsel, nor of the people who are actually interested in these articles and read and write them. Jheald (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now I'm going to ask you to knock it off, because you're being misleading, and claims like that are what caused much of the disruption on the TV articles in the first place. What Godwin said that the images were legal to use - and they are. But he mentioned nothing about the use of images in relation to our fair-use criteria, and as you well know, NFCC is more restrictive. Please don't try to insinuate that he did. And your last sentence ... imagine if you applied that to, say, WP:BLP? Wouldn't be good, would it? Black Kite 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP very much represents legal issues. If our attorney said we were censoring ourselves more than we needed to, we should consider that very carefully.
• As for WP:NFCC, it is stricter than fair use, true -- in certain ways. (eg substitutability). But this isn't one of them. The interpretation of NFCC#8 given by our guidance closely tracks the question, what could a U.S. commercial reuser republish, if they couldn't shelter behind WP's education and non-profit status. That is absolutely a question of legal fair use. And that is why Mike Godwin's answer is actually absolutely on point. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really - the legal aspect is dealt with elsewhere in NFCC, but WP:NFCC#8 is about reducing the usage of fair use images to those that are completely necessary in order that the user's understanding of the article is not diminished. Hence - would the reader's understanding of an article about a TV station be significantly diminished if they couldn't see the historical logos? Clearly not - unless the design or evolution of the logos was in itself historically notable or significantly relevant to the station itself. Black Kite 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• But that is not what NFCC#8 says -- and more to the point, it is explicitly not how the guideline examples apply it. If you don't understand NFCC#8, perhaps this is why you are so angry? Jheald (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon? That's pretty much exactly what #8 says - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Black Kite 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The key point is that it is the understanding of the topic which is at stake, not the understanding of the article. It's not "Could the article still be understood without the image", rather it is "Is the topic better understood with the image, in a way it would not be without it".
• The second point is that this is the key proposition for making a fair-use case for the inclusion of the image, and it is the fair-use connection which is directly important in gauging the degree of significance required to qualify as "significant" -- as witnessed by the rising scale of requirements for including different kinds of content in the guideline examples. Jheald (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• No Jheald, it's not Black Kite's opinion - as he said it's the opinion of the people writing the article (and, by extension, the sources available on the subject) - if it were significant then it would be discussed as such in the article. The argument of "Oh, but, NFCC 8 is all subjective" applies only in a tiny number of cases and is more often simply the prelude to a filibuster. CIreland (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. There's a useful rule of thumb here - if you're adding a non-free image to an article because it shows an important aspect of the subject that can't easily be conveyed in text, then you might be doing it correctly. But if you're writing text in an attempt to justify a non-free image that was already there, it probably didn't need to be there at all. Black Kite 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• And that is why these logos were added - because to the people who added them, they exactly showed "an important aspect of the subject that can't easily be conveyed in text". Those people thought the key visual images associated with the station across its history were "an important aspect of the subject". Not because they symbolised something, or because they were designed by somebody, or because they won some award; but because they were what millions of people saw night after night and identified as the essence of the station. That is their real significance - the rest is just interest by-the-by. Jheald (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• How could they be significant if they were hardly mentioned in the text at all? No, there are obviously articles where illustrative images are fundamentally important to understanding the subject, but these articles aren't them. They aren't discussed at all, and this is mainly because there's little to discuss - they're just completely standard logos, changing every time the station had a rebrand or facelift. Black Kite 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because you're not reading the comment above as to why they are significant. They are not significant for what could be said about them. They are significant for what they were -- the image of the station projected to millions of people night after night, so that that is what those people identify as the essence of the station. Conveying that is what is adding to people's understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Right, now we're on the right lines - if you could source the fact that the logos were important to the identification of the station and seen as iconic, for the lack of a better word. Now, for very well known logos for major stations, there's probably a good chance of doing that (and there's also the fact that there's likely to be good sources that discuss the actual designs, and so on) but for minor TV stations that rebrand themselves all the time, I'd say that was unlikely. This is starting to run off the point into a discussion of the policy rather than what this ANI was originally about though, probably better to continue it on one or other talkpages? Black Kite 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well note that one of the stations that J.Milburn recently purged was Australia's ABC 1, so I don't think we can characterise them all as "minor TV stations that rebrand themselves all the time".
• It's getting late, and I must call it a night; but basically my position is that generically to the people that live in their footprint, I believe that these images become an important part of their mental environment. "PQRS station, when I lived in PQRS-market? Oh yes, that was the one that looked like this". So I believe that, in themselves, these images have acquired significance in the context of the stations and those who actually watched them. As to "rebranding themselves all the time", is that fair. Consider CHCH which is the one I cited, completely arbitrarily, above. The first logo there lasted sixteen years, from 1971 to 1997. In 2001 it was taken over, and the radical rebranding reflects that. But then, even though some of the details changed, which I do think is appropriate to document, the key CH element remained pretty much invariant for six years. I could go on, but I need to turn in. Jheald (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with what Black Kite said above. It is very disturbing that people generally act in such a way that if they disagree with policy, they can therefore ignore it for their particular area of interest. If someone steps in to apply the policy, the wikilawyering begins. It turns into a quagmire, and the people wanting to include the images insist that if consensus doesn't exist to remove the images, they have to remain. Over and over and over and over again this happens. It's repulsive. If you don't understand what Free content is, don't understand Gratis versus Libre, and have never heard of the Free culture movement, you have no business dictating to other people what should and should not be included via fair use. EVERYtime we include a fair use image, we give away some of the power of this project; the power to enable everyone in the world to have access to the information on this project. Sometimes I seriously wonder if it's not a conspiracy by mega corporations to bring this project down. :/ --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, if you don't like the compromise that is what the WP:NFC is, then you know where the door is. It's a balance between trying to get as much as possible of the sum of all knowledge into WP, and still being able to get as much as possible of it out again. Jheald (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The compromise remains subject to adjustment if there is consensus to do so. We ought not to say that people who disagree with the present formulation ought to leave the project--as long as they are willing to respect it. DGG (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. Admonishment accepted. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jheald, you'll note that I wasn't complaining about WP:NFC or WP:NFCC. I recognize and adhere to the compromise that it is. The problem is when other people insist on doing something beyond what it allows, and claiming we have to work towards a compromise and without it the images must remain. We already have the compromise in the form of the EDP. Yet, people routinely ignore it and wikilawyer to death when challenged on it. To date, we've been dealing with this with very soft means. It hasn't worked. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wider issue

Separate section to the rollback issue, so moved.

• Emarsee is not the only one doing this at the moment, whether it be with normal editing, undo, rollback, Twinkle or whatever. We recently appear to be overrun with editors who insist that their own pet articles and Wikiprojects don't have to comply with our non-free policy, and are perfectly capable of not only edit-warring, but wikilawyering for hours on end on spurious grounds to try to justify it. Furthermore, I don't believe the situation is going to get any better until we start enforcing the policy properly, and that means treating edits which restore violating material as vandalism, with the resulting sanctions. Black Kite 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the most common sense I have heard in a long time! I couldn't agree more. Jeni ^(talk) 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know the entire story behind the NFCC issue, as far as I know, Mike Goodwin has stated that using logos on articles constitute as fair use.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do constitute fair-use. However, our non-free policy is a lot stricter than fair use. Now you might not have realised that, but I'm guessing that's mainly because of certain people very active on relevant talk pages who don't realise the difference either and are very vocal about displaying their ignorance on the subject. They are determined that "their" articles should not be subject to the same rules as everything else, and their determination is now crossing the line into disruption - hence my comment. Black Kite 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see this discussed further, as the use of logos (and other fair use claims) seems to be increasing. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not entirely aware of the issue, and as such, I probably won't comment any further on this until I know the entire story. I'm bringing this issue up on WP:TVS and WP:WPRS.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The frequent misunderstanding about fair use policy is that wikipedia has a much stricter rule. A non-free image FIRST has to meet general fair use rules, at minimum. THEN it is further restricted by wikipedia policy to include only images that "add encyclopedic value", as opposed to being used as "decorations". That distinction, I think, is where nearly all the image arguments come from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Plus due to the vagaries of individual interpretation, one editor's "adds encyclopedic value" is another editor's "useless decoration." — Kralizec! (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, especially when you run up against those who think that what something looks like somehow does not add value. Which is why I gave up and stopped uploading images - except those that I took myself, which, ironically, constitute "original research", but wikipedia tolerates OR when it comes to picture-taking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:OI is specific about the use of original images not counting as OR ... in fact, it's encouraged unless the images are meant as supporting documents to original research (such as diagrams of the subatomic particles an editor is claiming exist).

Also, remember that creating an image yourself does not necessarily make it free (i.e., screenshots, pictures of copyrighted artwork (including, in the US, statues and sculptures)). Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Daniel) Er, well ... thankfully since "a picture is worth a thousand words" most photos sort of speak for themselves. While it is possible that someone might claim that this image is not the main entrance to the ORU campus, the facts of the image speak for themselves and indicate otherwise. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, the NFCC are subject to interpretation in some areas. Treating edits with which you disagree as vandalism is what brought us here in the first place, isn't it? Powers ^T 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Rollback should be used ONLY for removal of obvious trash, like "Hi Mom", random character strings, and vulgarities; NEVER for content disputes. If there is any question at all, they should do a normal "undo", replacing the generic edit summary with something meaningful. And if they abuse rollback it should simply be taken away. Very little discussion needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • An easy way to remember...if there's a multi-level template for it...you can usually do it. --Smashville^talk 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is always possible to start a discussion on adjusting the NFCC policy to permit logos for articles where they are the logos for the subject of the article. Since this is within legal limits the community has discretion to do this. Whether it will choose to do so or not is another matter. DGG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• There have been multiple discussions on this subject before; general consensus was that a single use of the current logo in the lede of an article was unexceptional, but to justify multiple non-free images (usually a gallery of historical logos) then there needed to be good reason why the overuse and significance aspects of NFCC did not apply; this was usually in articles where there were particularly notable or iconic logos. In some cases this led to the logo having its own article (i.e. Leo the Lion (MGM)) where the fact that the article was about the logo itself meant that NFCC#8 was complied with more thoroughly, but usually it was down to the availability of sources discussing the logos themselves, because without such sources editors were unable to reliably source the fact that the logos were in themselves significant. Black Kite 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Close RM discussion at Willis Tower

Resolved

 – Done by Mazca (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting that we are now at past 7 days into the RM discussion at Talk:Willis Tower#Requested move. As I commented in the section below the RM discussion (WGN-TV news), the nominator was an SPA that abandoned editing last Thursday and the other primary supporter of the move, Raime (talk · contribs) has conceded in his words: "there is clearly no consensus for a move back to "Sears Tower" in a comment within the Talk:Willis Tower#WGN-TV news section. There have been 8 additional !votes since July 24 with the overall total being 13 Support moving, 19 Oppose. I am requesting someone close the discussion. Sswonk (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably put this in the wrong place, s/b AN. Please excuse the misplacement. Sswonk (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... ~ mazca ^talk 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now  Done, it appears that we're keeping it at Willis Tower for now. ~ mazca ^talk 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara is right about one thing – her objection is unjustified. As I explained very clearly already, I have not changed the scope. I deleted unreferenced material, for which no consensus it required, and nothing I added is original research or fringe – it was all clearly substantiated. As the scope has stayed the same I have not been disruptive, and I don’t need to first obtain Zara’s permission. Zara’s blind reverts are an attempt to establish article ownership, which I believe is not appropriate. I am participating in discussions on this as we speak, but I see no justification to reinstate an article full of unsubstantiated OR while we seek Zara’s personal permission to go ahead and fix it. Wdford (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record. You added a section on Ancient Egyptian Art, and I doubt that such a section is relevant for the article. We can discuss this, but you are not even attempting a discussion. My objection at this point certainly is justified. Zara1709 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdford made major changes, ie. bold edits. Zara reverted them. Now a discussion should take place. Wdford should not continue to revert but seek a consensus if he wants his changes to stand. And I should note that I undid a change by Wdford here whereby he changed his user name to Zara's in the section's title. That's not on. U-Mos (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for 48 hours as there was real edit-warring occurring. Please reach a consensus on the talk page - WP:BOLD does have its place, but needs to be used sparingly on such a controversial article. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all the material I added is directly related to the controversy, and was substantiated. Most of it was expansions of existing sections, to which nobody has objected for months. The new headings I added are themselves relevant to the title of the article, and are mostly just brief references to existing wiki articles. And I don't consider that deleting unsubstantiated material that has been flagged for ages to be BOLD Edits at all. So what we have now is a huge amount of protected OR, and a demand to seek consensus before adding referenced and relevant material. Why the double standard - why was Zara not required to seek consensus from me before imposing her own POV of what the scope should be? Finally, the title of the article does not say anything about it being limited to the history of the controversy only, but Dougweller you are imposing an interpretation that has not been supported by consensus, and which has been recently objected to by a number of active editors. Again, why the double standard - surely the title of the article denotes the scope, and you should be required to seek consensus before limiting the scope in contradiction with the title? Wdford (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please at least review the edits in question before making accusations? Where in Wiki Policy does it say that the size of edits constitutes unco-operativeness? If any single edit I made today is inappropriate then please point it out specifically, but please don't threaten bans based on size of edits. And where does it require that consensus be achieved on the talk page first before deleting unsubstantiated material? Please could you be helpful here, rather than just threatening. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. A couple of abusive actions reverted the whole article to its months old state and blocked editors who were working cooperatively and collegially on editing it. It's no surprise that restoring a consensus version after this massive disruption has been choppy. Until something is done about admins like William Connolley, we'll continue to experience this kind of disruption. In the meantime, the usual dispute resolution mechanisms should be used. There's no set limit on the size of an edit and Wdford's work shows every indication of being reasonable. Admin enforcement is not an appropriate venue to try to win a content dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point. Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child. Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars. Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do. Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite, which is why I spent half a day deleting all the unsourced statements and original research. However Zara got upset because I ignored her right of veto, so she blanket-reinstated the whole hideous mess of unsourced statements and original research. It would help enormously if some admin who is actually themselves neutral could simply read the various contributions, and identify who is contributing constructively and who is breaking policy, and then administer the article correctly, instead of just protecting and blocking and banning. For some reason its always the most damaged version of the article that gets protected.

And just to help ROUX along, banning is not a logical response, its a lazy response, and it solves nothing. Children who suffer such abuse don't learn to "play nice"; they instead learn that parents can't be trusted, that the system isn't fair and that power is meant to be abused. Behind every aggrieved child who takes a machine gun to school, stands a lazy parent who thought the easiest way was to take away their damn toys already. Wdford (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time? I think not. So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all? Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As Dougweller has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that the archaeological record of Egyptain artwork hasn't been included in the controversy over Egyptian origins (which seems far fetched to me) and assuming that the notable and sourced content discussing those issues doesn't belong in this article, where does it belong? If given an article outlet to cover this topic, it seems to me the problem would largely be resolved. But if the issue is not whether the art is related to the controversy and whether it's notable, but a question of some editors thinking that no matter how well sourced it is fringe nonsense that shouldn't be included on Wikipedia at all, then that's another issue and explains why there is such a gap between the disputants. Isn't it untenable, given the number of sources and the historical record of notable discussions various soruces addressing the art in relation to the society, to attempt to exclude it all together? Certainly one of the primary ways of understanding who the Egyptians were and where they came from is to look at their depictions of themselves, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In principle the matter is fairly straightforward: find the secondary sources which discuss the debate and use them to write the article. If what you're mentioning has not been discussed, it can't be written about because it would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive section collapsed Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

AERC Proposal 1 Proposed: delete and salt the article, ban the SPAs. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Support As proposer, first choice. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose AERC Proposal 2 Proposed: topicban all users who have edited the article more than once in the last 90 days (barring clear vandalism cleanup), and instantly ban any new account that shows up to edit the article. Support As proposer, second choice. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose Roux I'm sure you mean well, but I find your proposals disruptive and not in line with the spirit of collaborative editing and cooperation that Wikipedia requires. What is the appropriate way to work out a content disptue? One of the issues is whether images of Ancient Egyptian art are relevant and notable to include in the article. Are they related to covering the controversy over who the Egyptians were and have they been discussed in reliable sources? Should outside perspectives be sought at the Article Content noticeboard? Let's work towards resolving the content dispute instead of punishing disputants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable. It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Topic ban to all of editors working on the article in the last 90 days? What a ridiculous proposal. This kind of abusive community ban proposal is indeed disruptive. Since the matter is within the ArbCom ruling, take it to AE instead.--Caspian blue 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I am breaking my self-imposed ban on responding to you in order to address your usual hyperbole. Nothing about this proposal is abusive, and calling it such is merely your usual reduction to offensive comments in order to discredit someone you don't happen to like, as opposed to actually engaging with what people say. This is the usual pattern from you, and is--depressingly--to be expected. One has hopes that at some point you will learn to respond to what is said and not to who said it, but such hope as is left is a small and lonely thing. And now to expand on what I have proposed above. The proposal is, in fact, made in good faith in order to start ending the mindbogglingly stupid POV wars that engulf massive tracts of articles on the site. Unless and until we start taking a hard line against that bullshit it will simply continue, fester, and grow worse. The "hey everybody let's talk nice" thing has not scaled to the size of (so-called) community that Wikipedia is now. Blocs of editors routinely line up on one side or the other of nationalistic or other disputes and simply refuse to budge their positions. The only thing that works is ArbCom stepping in and summarily removing people from those articles (and then, intriguingly, hamstringing those admins who actually try to do anything about enforcing such decisions). It is no longer possible to settle these disputes without a long and drawn-out ArbCom case which inevitably results in bans and/or topicbans anyway. So let's cut out the middleman and remove all of the SPAs from the article, as well as those continuing to feed the fire. 90 days was proposed in order to weed out any maturing socks, and the bans for new accounts proposed for the same reason. There is nothing here that is abusive, merely a hardline response to the sort of ridiculous warring that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock in the academic world and inherently untrustworthy by anyone's standards, not merely ours. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Roux, I've found your recent editing mostly pretty responsible, but you're going way off the deep end here. How about leaving this alone for a few hours so that you can get some perspective? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say insolvable; what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount. The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia, and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above, the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement. What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice. If the answer is no, then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Roux, your right above comment is almost WP:TLDR. I commented about the proposal not about you, so do not steer the topic to your self-imposing ban that none cares about, and please stay "focused" and be "WP:Civil". Do you already forget about your catch-praise? "Comment about edits, not about editor". I really want you to keep your own word if you do not want to make yourself hypocritical and rude. I'm also very tired of your typically disruptive personal attacks. I do not consider your ban proposal productive because the matter is in fact currently being dealt by ArbCom, so my suggestion for you to take it to AE is reasonable one from good faith. The issue went to ArbCom because it was beyond just content issues and the community (narrowly AN/I) could not afford it. I do also feel your ban proposals are unhelpful to solve disputes brought to ANI because you do not study complainers or complained people's edit history in detail. I do not agree with any sort of community ban, rather suggest them to take it to ArbCom. I'm entitled to stand by my disagreement of your ban proposal that I consider "abusive". I do not think that sort of community bans would do good for the community because that generally ignores one side of story. All people except trolls and vandals should have an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. --Caspian blue 23:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There are many things you are wrong about above, but the most offensive is your assertion that I don't study what's going on before speaking my mind. Again, Caspian, this is your usual pattern and I am disinclined to indulge it any further. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) You don't in my observation. Your personal attacks to me speak for themselves. Roux, I really want you to refrain from perpetuating such the typical behaviors to people. You should face that your proposals are not always welcome to people. Instead of personal attacks, you need to focus on the topic. Will you?--Caspian blue 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have made no personal attacks. I was focusing on the topic; you decided to throw around words like abuse, for God's sake. → ROUX ₪ 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I suggest this section be collapsed. The disruption and incivility shown by Roux is unacceptable. More mature and respectful parties should be given an opportunity to address the issues raised and to help steer the disputants in a direction that will allow them to work through their differences over article content issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Incivility? Where? Oh right, when I stated facts.. yeah, that's incivil. Nor, indeed, was this disruptive. If you would actually read what I wrote and try to understand where I am coming from you would see that. → ROUX ₪ 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Logging in to vote for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees election

Resolved

I voted, thanks. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems logging in to the special server. I can't imagine that I'm the only one. Is it the computer, or did I forget to register to vote? Bearian (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that you have cookies enabled and that you meet the requirements. Your username will not be shown at the top of the SecureVote page, only your IP address. Nakon 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusingly, the voting page also displays a "log in" link that isn't needed or usable, along with your IP address (which normally indicates that you're not logged in, when seen on Wikipedia). It's no surprise that people are confused by this. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is needed, because how else are the Election Committee members meant to log in and audit the voters to ensure that there's no double-voting going on? Daniel (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the ability to log in is needed, for the reasons you've mentioned, but there's no need to display a login link for people who have arrived through the WMF-side redirection; that can only cause problems. Removing the link wouldn't remove the ability for authorized people to log in manually. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User page being used as an attack page on a religion

Resolved

 – PMDrive1061 already indefinitely blocked them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stpdjokeass (talk · contribs) (username block?) started off by using a talk page as a forum to attack Christianity, now his user page has the same - "Christianity is nothing but the rape of Indo-European people by ancient Semitic religion" etc. Whatever I may think of religion, I don't think this belongs anywhere. I'm off to bed now though, and too tired to remember if I can just speedy this as an attack page, so if someone else could take a look please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the page and explained to the editor that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Someone can come along and apply some cluebat if this doesn't work. Friday (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of cluebat...is "Stupid Joke Ass" an acceptable username? --Smashville^talk 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I should be turned in to the usernames page, WP:UAA or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to UAA, and it's been blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Reyycool evading block

Seems like another one of his sockpuppets has appeared in a very sort time. The user Reyycool (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of Rcool35 (talk · contribs) and Coolrey57 (talk · contribs), he also seems to be editing in the 99.XXX.XXX.XXX IP ranges now. I'm just brining this to your attention but can we dicuss a way that we can stop him from creating usernames and probably blocking him from doing his vandalism with the IP's. --Taylor Karras (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. Exxolon (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaymack916

A quick check of this user's contributions tells me they are not here to help - lots of nasty racism, sexism and BLP violating personal attacks. Indef block methinks. Exxolon (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked indefinitely. You can report clear cases like this to AIV in the future. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving of Home secretary

The moving of Secretary of State for the Home Department to Home Secretary is once again up for discussion (here). This is after another editor unilateraly moved it from Home Secretary to the new title. The reason I bring it up here was this was only discussed two months ago and a consensus (all by it of only 3-0) was that it should be at Home Secretary. If this was an AfD or similar I'm fairly certain the debate would be speedy closed as too close to the previous discussion and the page moved back to home secretary. As I non-admin I'm not happy making such a close myself and as discussion is not centralised on one page I'm not sure an admin would see my recommendation until it come to the normal time to close the debate. I also think it would be better coming from an admin as there's probably less precedent for this in the case of requested moves than for AfDs and the like. Of course it may also be decided that either a) two months is enough passage of time or b) there's no policy for this so no one's happy doing it. If the later I'll start a discussion at the requested moves talk page so the policy can be changed. Dpmuk (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3E Wireless

I filled out a sockpuppet report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3ewireless several hours ago, but the bot never added it to the sockpuppet investigations page. Can one of you take care of the sockpuppet report? Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and blocked him anyway since it was pretty obvious. You can probably just come directly to ANI with stuff like this; SPI is for investigations that might require a bit more delving. I'm not sure what the deal is with the bot; I've haven't logged on to Wikipedia in a long time, so I'm not really familiar with all this newfangled bot stuff. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving my posts at talkpage

User Arab Cowboy have now several times moved my posts at talkpage although I have told him not to.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304974112&oldid=304970678 Here I ask him not to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304974701&oldid=304974112

2.Again he does it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304975240&oldid=304974701 comment here was not added in the middle of conversation but at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304968550&oldid=304968218

3.Third time he changes position to my response to his claims to a section where my post does not belong: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304978955&oldid=304978391

Please make him stop--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You two need to stop battling each other at AN/I and elsewhere. Perhaps if you two left each other alone and edited different areas from the millions of different pages on Wikipedia, none of this nonsense would be continuing.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say. How about both of you stay away from that article until September, hmm? And away from each other until, oh I don't know, the heat death of the Universe? → ROUX ₪ 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He have also changed position of another guys quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304989578&oldid=304985583 can someone just tell him to stop this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much info from a 13 year old

What do we do when too much info is posted by a 13 year old? See redacted. Edison (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say to blank his user page and then explain to him on his talk page why posting personal information is a bad idea per WP:CHILD. --javert (stargaze) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing that now. And contacting Oversight. → ROUX ₪ 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was originally created in the mainspace, but another editor subsequently moved it to Damian2dab's userspace. I think it could just be deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Julian, deletion is better than blanking. Couple that with roux's contacting oversight, and I believe that we're through here. --javert (stargaze) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for oversight HalfShadow 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If something like this happens in future, could you please take it straight to oversight and not to such a public place like this?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

that is now the second time you ec'd me saying what I was going to say. Get out of my brain! → ROUX ₪ 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to requesting oversight (which might take a while to get action, though quick enough in this case), an admin could speedy delete the page in question. Is that acceptable? Edison (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with oversight. When I contacted them once, for some reason the software sought to use my regular email, with my name attached, rather than the email account attached to my Wikipedia account. I have not used IRC, but I have also heard of posts to IRC revealing personal identity in the form of the identifying info in the email account. How does one force Wikipedia to use the anonymous email account associated with Wikipedia rather than the regular, identified email account? Edison (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses whatever email you have set in your preferences. It cannot magically switch from one to the other. However, what you probably did was click on the mailto link that creates a message in your usual client to be sent to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org. What you should do is use the Special:Emailuser/Oversight link. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have for the last few weeks been patrolling new user pages, and I'd say deletion the best. I leave them a note using a template - (User:Backslash Forwardslash/Userpageedited) - which explains things well enough. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Spaladium Arena and User:Jfrost81

Jfrost81 has been making edits to Spaladium Arena with edit summaries such as "Official changes by Spaladium Arena marketing department." Recently he blanked the page, with the summary of "spaladium arena director of marketing taking page down due to incorrect posts". He was warned once previously for deletion of material on that page. I have restored the material and left him a second warning, a COI notice, and a comment to review WP:OWN. This seems like a situation that could easily escalate to an office situation, so I'm asking here so that an admin or two might keep an eye on it. I'm also heading out of town shortly, and will have limited time for WP. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Landless Farm

User:Landlessfarm got blocked because of a promotional username and because the user createdUser:Landlessfarm/Landless Farm. The user made another account called User:Drala486 and continued it by creating the article Landless farm. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed for AfD issue

Hello,

A user recently rapid fire nominated 38 former American Idol contestants for deletion a couple days ago. I recommended they all be speedy closed with no determination of notability rendered. (Basically with the rationale that the large number of simultaneous AfDs would lead to "I like it"/"I don't like it" voting rather than a proper determination of notability based on researching sources.) A fair number of other editors have offered the same opinion and some of the AfDs have been speedy/snow closed as keep. However, the majority remain open. As such, I would like an uninvolved admin to review the situation and decide if the remaining ones should be closed or not. If they aren't going to be speedy closed, I would like to know so I can start researching the subjects and make proper keep arguments for those who deserve to be kept.

Here is the list: User:Dalejenkins/AmericanIdol

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I closed a few of the more obvious ones earlier today, but many of the remaining ones have now garnered good-faith arguments for deletion. As such I think it can't hurt to let them run their course. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience advocacy

[79]

An administrator really needs to go in there and clean house. There are three users in particular who have set-up shop and are basically known pseudoscience promoters on Wikipedia. I will not name names, but behavior such as this is unacceptable. Wholesale removal of so many entries is simply edit warring plain and simple.

I have no objections to people discussing individual entries and whether they fit the inclusion criteria. But there is absolutely ZERO discussion of this removal on the talkpage. It was simply done unilaterally.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Without accusations, I asked the most recent editor to remove 30K from the article to please use the talk page first, and reverted that content back in. I can't pretend that I fully understood each of the removed topics, but Lunar Effect, Polygraphs, and Iridology, three I read through, all were topics where I was either familiar with their status as pseudo-science (Lunar Effect, Iridology), or that they had significant citation thereof (Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, thus not evidence in court, but the summary went further into it than I knew.) Though my review was cursory, the editor removing didn't even make use of explanatory edit summaries, so I feel he can make the effort properly at the Talk Page. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems all over Wikipedia there are controversial edits being made without explanation every day. Not sure what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just keep on fixing them. ThuranX (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Consultant Pharmacist review is about twice as long as the other reviews in the article for no reason. I already discussed this on the talk page but I was ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I left that in because it shows a single critic talking about a flaw and it's problem. Someone who identifies a flaw usually will give short shrift to the fix, but that section, as he wrote it, seemed more balanced than the older version. ThuranX (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5

I'm doing this in a new section because the old one is just a back and forth between a handful of users and this needs more serious input that is not disrupted by the subject, necessarily. For the tl;dr crowd, skip down to the Cliffs notes.

Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He had previously move warred over the location of Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moving it to an alternate title four times until the page was protected from being moved again. During that time, he made these incivil and disruptive comments [80] [81]. Following a discussion where it was shown he had no consensus, he began a requested move discussion on the talk page. This is resulting in him still having no consensus for his request.

Tonight is when the actual violation of WP:POINT began. He began a requested move discussion for the article Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in the past had been moved from Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when several articles were renamed to match official romanizations from the parent company. This is a violation of WP:POINT because "Hurricanger" was for the longest time the title used by the Latin alphabet-using online communities, so he is making a point by stating that one page has an official title as its name and the other one has one that he deems is not official because of the existence of an English translation (despite various users on the talk page bringing up evidence proving him wrong). He is also following his actions on a different website concerning the spelling of this particular item, but that does not necessarily have to be brought up in detail in this discussion unless anyone wants any specifics.

The Cliffs Notes

Drag-5 is violating WP:POINT by pointing out the disparities of the use of the more common romanized title (but not official English title) on one page and the official romanized title (but not the more common unofficial title) on another by requesting page moves. This coupled with his inability to work with other users constructively, civilly, and calmly ([82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]) should be more than enough for a block of some sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong seems to be constantly attacking me and removing my comments and using foul methods to block what is an innocent following of wikipedia procedures.

ryulong seems to show a personal bias towards me characterised by repeated references to thing that exist in my personal life. he does not concentrate on the articles and the discussion of editing rather he makes comments towards myself.

I am feeling a very strong harrassment by this user and this is proof of it.

I have requested the moves on illustrated pages for sound logical reasons according to wikipedia guidelines and have produced evidence to back up my cases. I have made no comments that remotely support any theory that i may be trying to prove some point. my actions are focused on making wikipedia a more full and complete information source as they should be.

I was quite bold with my original mmove of said page. this is according to wikipedia policy. we are meant to be bold. when ryulong reverted my edit i perhaps should have not reverted it straight away, I cannot change what i did at that time, but since those reverted edits i have acted according to wikipedia policies completely. ryulong, however, seems to continually attack me and use personal information to try and block my discussions and he even has removed some of my comments on hte discussion page without my permission. Drag-5 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting way out of hand. He and I have been edit warring over the inclusion of the move request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger, because we both claim that we are violating different policies. He is accusing me of violating WP:TPNO and I still feel the request is a violation of WP:POINT. I would like something definitive to happen and I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the both of you have managed to make bogeymen out of each other and you are both taking it far too seriously. Also, in my experience, the common names rule usually trumps the official name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but google is confusing, as there are more results for the official name than there are for what he is claiming is the more common name. So it seems that the more common name is the one where the page is currently located.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the lead of CliffsNotes to be enlightening. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. I always thought they were "Cliff's Notes".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shazam! I had thought it was "CliffNotes" until just now. I expect they are called CliffNotes because that's a little easier to say than CliffsNotes. However, I never read Cliff(s)Notes in school. I tended to read the condensed versions, by John Moschita. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the specific nature of the personal attacks from Drag-5 likely say a lot more about Drag-5 than they do about anyone else. "TMI!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistant Incivility

Could you please warn Poeticbent about his disruptive and uncivil behavior in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia ? I have a detailed example with all the relevent diffs and links of him falsifying information here: [89]. When he got caught changing the info, he then decided to move it to the back of the article. The discussion with full context is here: [90] and abusive messages here: [91] and here [92]. This guy had been blocked before when writing on a similar topic: [93]. Ironically his user pages states he follows a 1RR policy, which is obviously false. I'm pulling back from further reverts with this guy for awhile. I'm not looking for a block, just a warning so that he settles down a bit. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)