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

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

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

---

• SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[1] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[2]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[3] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with great respect for the editors dealing with this problem, understanding of the scope, and willingness to help out. I see no concrete solution proposed here, it looks like fist-shaking to me. I understand the concerns about violating 3RR, and I restored the description of longstanding practice from the memory hole. There is no doubt here that SRQ is currently community-banned for 1 year from the date of last reset and all editors are empowered to revert ban-evading edits on sight, a named exemption from 3RR. If there is a one-year period of absolute silence, the editor will still have to clear the hurdle of asking for relief of their indef block, which can be commented on then. I find the worry that a naive admin will unblock without seeing the blatantly obvious red flags unpersuasive, and even so an indef block will just happen again if there is bad behaviour. I agree with Atmoz' comment on the value of offering a possible redemptive pathway and regard this proposal as purely punitive as it will not help to prevent anything. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with arguments made above.--scuro (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above, and my comment below; this is moot, against the spirit of WP:DENY, and the editors militating for this need to learn to ignore the troll they're feeding. RLY, Jack Merridew 03:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Your opinion was already fully considered amongst the "1" in the "3-1" figure with your earlier post: even "littluns" have a "clue" sometimes. Shall we keep this open another five days? Don't want to be "militating" about it, but is consensus going to sway completely the other way? Don't put your popcorn away, Jack, cause it ain't going nowhere. Good show... Doc talk 04:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure SRQ is enjoying your show. Jack Merridew 06:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[4] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[5], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[6], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm not seeing much of an answer beyond we know srq when we see her. Now, I do expect some are correctly identified, but also believe that there's a pretty wide tarring-brush in-hand; like all of Verizon ;) Jack Merridew 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the same response to similar concerns[7]. Which socks do you think are incorrectly identified? Do tell... Doc talk 04:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea; I said expect, not know. Get it? I'm Ignoring most of this; I recommend the practice to you folks. You have much experience with the real trolls? What do they want? (your attention;) Jack Merridew 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a "cause", Jack. As far as "real" trolls: a troll is a troll. Some are just better at it than others. Doc talk 06:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You know Jack it's easy to say ignore it until your orange bar lights up for some vulgar message from the troll. Now what to do, do tell please? User page is protected already, don't want my talk page protected too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See the history of my user and talk pages; I'm quite sure there's much more^{and nastier} trolling in them than in your pages' histories. And more has been oversighted. What you do is revert, and ignore it. Sometimes, others will do the reverting for you; I believe I've reverted trolling to your talk page. My user page is semi'd-forever, and my talk was for something like a year; see log. You folks really don't see how you're perpetuating this, do you? Jack Merridew 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to see is if any of SRQ's primary detractors have ever edited from a Verizon account. Ever. On top of that, have any of her detractors used Wikipedia's e-mail this user function to SRQ. Have any of her detractors been less than professional. Have any of them been stupid enough to suggest something childish like "don't mess with me". As we have seen below, it's damned easy to be on Verizon, and it's damned easy to be a prick from any ISP. Pinning it all on one person is pushing it, and loudly replying to every single statement on an ANI that seeks to permanently ban someone absolutely reeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have only 1 IP for myself and I don't have Verizon which editors here have emailed with me can verify. I have emailed with those you are assuming bad faith right now and they are also not on Verizon. I've received an email from SRQ but I didn't respond. I'll tell you what Bwilkins, you have my permission to email me and I promise to respond back so you can see my account info, how's that? I know checkusers wouldn't check for this accusation you are making but emailing each other definitely would so, do you want to try it? I've absolutely no doubt that the editors you are accusing are not setting her up and they are also not Verizon users. Send the emails since you started this. The question I would like to ask, are you in contact with SRQ now because your comments are not like you, at least not anything I've seen from you before? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually this fits in 100% with my philosophy that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". IMHO, SRQ's original block was manufactured. Everything single additional activity stems from that one railroading. If someone has manufactured something once, then they'll do it again and again and again. Yes, I know there's been confrontations, but no one side was ever 100% responsible, and no one side was ever 100% absolved from being at least partly responsible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How was she railroaded? Please supply difs for this because I don't know what you are referring to. Your an administrator, if you felt she was railroaded than why didn't you unblock her and say so? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, if we unblocked her one primary account we would likely see a) two or three pitbulls trying to push her into some kind of negative response so that they can say "see!! she's a witch!", b) a bunch of socks all pretending to be her so that people can say "see!! she's a witch!", and/or c) enough WP:ROPE to see her hang herself, and then we'll all say "see!! she was a witch'". Of course, I'm one admin, I go by WP:CONSENSUS, and unblocking her single-handedly might be considered to be WP:WHEEL. Of course, any such unblock would have had to include some significant interaction and editing restrictions. But, that's all hypothetical and in many ways unrelated to this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made claims here of bad faith like her being railroaded and editors setting her up. I asked for difs for these claims and you have not provided any. Please provide some difs for accusations you are making or refactor the edits where you are personally attacking editors with unjust statements. I know I haven't done anything to cause any of this and you pretty much say so on your talk page but anyone reading this report will not know this. You have attacked the integrety of good editors here. So again, please supply difs or strike your comments. I've taken pride in my work here and the hard work of getting respect from others. I do not think any of us should have to have comments made like you are making go without proof of any malfeasant. Also, are you in contact with her via email? I think this is a fair question to ask at this time since you have chosen to attack editors like you are. I just want you to be fair so I look forward to the difs or your stiking your claims. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ever see me actually make official accusations, I will ensure that I provide diffs. Please do not let your emotions (and they are valid based on the interaction that you have had with this person) get in the way of the way of reading my statements. Some of the people who I believe helped the railroading have themselves been gone from Wikipedia for some time. When I say a name, I'll provide diff's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the multiple allegations and insinutaions you've made in this thread are not "official" you are not required to support them with diffs? I think not, and I think you had best stop attempting to bully editors who have been the target of unwarranted attacks from SRQ. It's perfectly reasonable for you to ask for confirmation that suspected SRQ socks are what they're said to be, but it's not reasonable to pick on the victims of whomever is behind the campaign of harrassment. Please stop and back away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FFS, I am not picking on any victim - quite the opposite, thank you. I have an editor attacking me because they believe I'm talking about them althogh I keep saying I'm not talking about them. I'm not sure how many more frickin times I need to say it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're not talking about them, then who are you talking about? Who are a) the two or three pitbulls; and b) the putative sockmasters who will pretend to be SRQ? You must have someone in mind, or did you just construct the scenario out of thin air? Franamax (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly being referred to as one of the "pitbulls", as the filer of this report and the SPI: no biggie, really. The one who has been gone for "some time" was another SRQ victim who also happened to have a lot of other enemies on WP - and anyone familiar with this case knows who that is. She didn't even participate in the original ban discussion, and can't be blamed for SRQ's situation. How SRQ became the victim of people "pushing" her or "railroading" her is quite beyond me: I do know that she never seemed to understand the concept of WP:NOTTHEM. And still not one example of sock that is possibly misidentified - just that there must be one or more. The theory of others "pretending" to be her is, IMHO, "highly unlikely".

As far as this "Do not mess with me" and e-mail business: clearly you've been in contact with her, and that's no crime. Would you like me to provide you with the legal threat against myself and WP she initiated to my Gmail account, along with my response through Gmail and not WP's "email this user" (which sure as hell does tell her not to mess with me when threatening me with a ludicrous and unfounded lawsuit - if that's "stupid" or "childish" so be it)? I'd be more than happy to provide it. Doc talk 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume the bit about email contact is addressed to BWilkins as I have not had such contact. Franamax (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's for BWilkins - my first responses touched on your questions, but the rest isn't directed to you. Doc talk 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I made a huge guess about someone contacting SRQ. In my years on the internet, I have observed an interesting pattern, and it's oddly consistent. I don't care about the specifics in this case, nor have I ever cared, nor should my comment have generated the heat and light above. (I have more than once been one of the pitbulls, by the way, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it does not. Sometimes however it goes horribly). Sometimes when we combine the anonymous nature of the internet with the truly chivalrous of some people, it does not turn out as we expected. Over 15 years, I have seen the same sequence of escalation, and yes, in the past, I have more than once told the quarry "don't mess with me, because I'm more powerful" to very mixed results: some cave early, others escalate, and occasionally we create bigger monsters than we originally had. All this can start at the simplest beginning: a very minor exchange of words. The names change, the websites change, the overall situation changes, but 1 or 2 out of 10 escalates to where we are today, and nobody can back down. Seen it; done it; won't do it again because of the gigantic crater it leaves behind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you were meant when you said that the ban of SRQ was "manufactured"? If so, it may have been a poor choice of words, in that it implies intent, whereas the process you've described is more of a kind of runaway chain reaction (or something like that, I'm bad on analogies), something that picks up steam and then can't be redirected anywhere but to an inevitable conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Question #2

What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.

What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.

Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Move To Close

With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[8], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, SRQ is blocked indef and I very much doubt any admin would be willing to unblock if she asked, so it is a de facto permaban already. And I don't think there's any ambiguity in the resetting of the one year community ban, it gets reset every time SRQ uses a sock. Every time. She has to stay away for one whole year, and after that try to convince someone that she understands her errors - I really doubt that will happen, but I agree with the few dissenting voices that removing all possibility of redemption is either counterproductive or pointless. Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary everyday functional difference between a community ban and a permanent indef block is that the banned user's editing can be reverted on sight, and does not put the reverting editor at risk of a 3RR violation. If the de facto permaban also allows this to occur, then I suppose there is little difference between them. Still, considering her behavior since being blocked, I think it would be more fitting for her to have to convince the community at large to be reinstated, as she would if community banned, rather than simply convincing any single administrator, who may or may not be totally aware of the circumstances, to unblock her once her one year ban is up (if it ever is). (I would hope that any admin approached by her would perform the due diligence of checking into the background story, but stranger lapses have happened.) For these reasons, I still believe a community ban is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that if your communbity ban has expired but you are still blocked, you are still a banned editor, and if you get into an edit war using sock puppets, which is the only way the issue could come up, it would seriously prejudice your unblock request - so if the editor truly changes their behaviour, this won't happen. They will still have to pass the unblocking hurdle, and that won't be 'til at least 23Jul next year, but as far as I'm concerned will be a year from, like, 3 days ago. After that I guess I would just use "rv - block evasion / banned user" and do it as much as needed. Who would file the complaint, or better, has there been a problem with this before? But really, if you're spending as much time as to make 3 reversions you should pass it to an admin before the troll wins. So if I saw it happening in a pattern I would pass it over to AIV first, to get a quick response or RFPP if appropriate, then AN/I if needed, at which point I would claim immunity to 3RR if it ever came up. Defending the wiki, done properly, is a pretty high card to play. As far as the editor being unblocked by a naive admin, I would say trust the reviewing admin, but that might make you spit milk up through your nose. :) Seriously though, I think the admins who watch the unblock requests learn pretty quickly about their orange bar lighting up and they probably wouldn't miss the half-dozen comments below the unblock request. But even so, that possibility presupposes one whole year (minus 3 days) of total quiet. That would be a good thing IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ is already a "unique case" on the list of banned users under "Bans of fixed duration (currently active)", having a far longer entry because of the original reason for banning, and because of the clarification of the reset. To keep that page accurate, another reset notice (and another admin resetting) would have to be added, and this entry would become even less "standard" pretty quickly I would think. Several of her off-site postings at the "troll forum" (where, not surprisingly, she is also socking, even by their standards) prove utter contempt for this project, the same old stubborn determination that she is right and WP is fundamentally wrong, and a hypocritical "flip-flop" in her former condemnation of socking (I've got the diffs and can present them here, but DFTT, right?). SRQ could have waited out the ban and honored it, and she did (and does) not. She could have socked away peacefully, editing content, and never been discovered: but the same disruptive edit-stalking behavior always resurfaces. All of her socks were discovered initially because of disruption, and only after adding "2 and 2" with the edit histories was it painfully obvious who it was in each case. She does not want to participate in a community project: she wants it her way. And there is no changing that.

WP:List of banned users states under "Banned by the Wikipedia community": "Users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked indefinitely by an administrator with no administrator willing to unblock them. Although this has, at times, been considered a de facto ban, only an official community (or ArbCom) WP:BAN allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR." An indefinite block does not equal a community ban. I further think that it would be more unusual to keep resetting this ban, especially when she's apparently made no effort to actually appeal her initial ban (and still could, even if her ban was extended to indefinite) than it would be to make the next logical step and simply "file her in" with the rest of the community-banned users. Doc talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just on the first point, at this moment that user list says no such thing. [9] That was changed two months ago by an editor who appears to now be retired because xe couldn't stand the admin bullying, and for the life of me I couldn't find any discussion of such a major change in guidance. If someone can show me though where this all came about that we are not free to revert serial abusers, do tell and I will fall in line. Else I'll just use IAR and my own definition of banned - which means "you blew it, go away" for whatever duration it is or forever if no-one can be bothered to unblock. Franamax (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax: That's all well and good, and I certainly agree with you on the theoretical level, but if there's an admin who doesn't agree with your formulation, it exposes the good-faith editor who's been reverting the latest SRQ sock's edits to being blocked for edit warring, because the underlying editor isn't (technically) banned. That hardly seems fair, or a good way to insure that GF editors will counter her disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Has this been a problem in the past? If so, I would like to address it directly. I don't see amy admins jumping in to correct my formulation of "banned means banned", though it's early hours yet. Franamax (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this? There is a consensus, can anyone just update the information now or does it have to be by an administrator? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It has to be done by an uninvolved administrator. A 3-1 consensus is still clear, but this may be an "unusual" case that gets archived despite this, apparently. Doc talk 02:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon Abuses

A huge amount of abuse has come from Verizon ranges recently; see WP:ANI#Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible below for more info in this. Access Denied – talk to me 19:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied, what are your recommendations? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon users are impossible to stop. See my suggestions in the below thread. Access Denied – talk to me 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for review by uninvolved admin

Since this thread just scrolled off and had to be restored, can an uninvoled admin please review it and decide if any action should be taken? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We've had some major trolling regarding this thread and the one that used to be below it. Manually archived them after consulting with User:MuZemike in order to remove the target from view. I can understand the restoration. Let's get an uninvolved admin in here, get this resolved and get it archived before the troll comes back. N419BH 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What else is there that can possibly be done, seriously? Vandalism and trolling are a part of Wikipedia life. Deal with it and move on. –MuZemike 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike. RBI and that's it. We need to stop feeding the troll and start denying recognition. Goodvac (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we close the thread as "No consensus" when there's a 3-1 consensus in favor of it? Standard procedure, right? Doc talk 09:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant. I don't think any admin is gonna be dumb enough to unblock, so the user is de-facto banned indefinitely anyway. This entire thread serves nothing more than glorification of the troll's exploits. They're probably laughing with their friends right now reading this. We are accomplishing nothing here except making ourselves a bigger target for trolls. N419BH 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If they're laughing, it's because they're laughing at why this discussion resulted in the first place - due to the fact that the original ban proposal shouldn't have mentioned "1 year". Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the present indef block isn't the same as the actual ban amendment that has resulted from the consensus here, what is being requested here is for the block log to be updated - noting that the ban is indefinite (not to expire in 1 year as Sarek's block currently indicates). One of the reasons we had to go through this process was because there is simply no useful way to decide when a ban is being reset or not (a paper trail is not being completed on the user's talk or in the user's block log due to a separate page protection and block). Therefore, all we need is an uninvolved admin to update the block log to say "ban extended to indef per [link to this discussion]" and for a similar note to be left on the user's talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF would lead one to assume that this has been reviewed by a variety of uninvolved admins and the fact that it was bot-archived indicates that none took action because none is appropriate. The restoration was inappropriate. Jack Merridew 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well can an administrator adjust the log to remove + 1 year since this is unusual to see? If an administrator isn't necessary for this edit than I'm sure others, myself included, would be happy to made the edits. The log probably should have been adjusted when the block itself was adjusted. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes

Moved from WP:AN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been witness to several issues with Cirt in the past and wanted to point out to administrators that Cirt is not behaving in a manner consistent with wikipedia's standards for consensus, neutral editing and good manners. Cirt created an article, Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, an editor requested this be deleted on the basis of it being a coatrack and NPOV article against BLP (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System), Cirt proceeded to disparaging and personally attack every editor who requested deletion or disagreed with his POV, including [10], [11] and [12] ).

Cirt, against WP: Own, has sent messages to others to come to his support (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fainites&diff=prev&oldid=396172372) and has been objecting to any attempt to improve the article using every tactic possible, including now asking for a source that he actually put in the article to be declared unreliable because, due to other editors, he realizes now that it contradicts the POV pushing
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&action=historysubmit&diff=396337035&oldid=396336473 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&diff=prev&oldid=396341116 ). Spacefarer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• You can add this ad-hominem in the same AfD. This referred to a warning Cirt had placed her/himself on the user's talk page, "Copyright violation and plagiarism", while in a content dispute with the user.
• The edits which Cirt described as copyright violation and plagiarism were [13] and [14].
• Note that the user's edit summary was "The purpose as stated by the originator." There was no intent to plagiarise Erhard or violate his copyright, MLKLewis (talk · contribs) wanted to quote him. MLKLewis (talk · contribs) appears to be a newbie, with less than 200 edits. As a newbie, he may have been unaware that direct quotations should be placed in quotation marks in Wikipedia, and the matter could have been dealt with simply by telling him that. However, it is clear from Cirt's revert that Cirt objected to the edit on content grounds, and then switched to admin mode to put pressure on the other editor. One month later, Cirt solicited another admin to warn MLKLewis for deleting Cirt's warnings from their user talk page. Unfortunately, there have been many, many, many similar instances in the past. --JN466 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion in multiple forums. First, the accusation that Cirt is attacking other editors is not supported, even by the links provided by Spacefarer. It appears to be only one editor, and the statement by THF that "you are going to get both of us sued" does sound close to a legal threat, which is precisely what Cirt said. Second, Cirt has not sent messages soliciting support. He has placed messages thanking other editors for their support (including to me, in the interest of full disclosure). Not the same thing, although I suppose some might argue it encourages support; still, it's after the fact, and I see nothing wrong with people thanking each other on Wikipedia - it's kind of nice, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response from Cirt

1. I agree with the above comment, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you.
2. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking on this topic [15].
3. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been warned for disruptive AFD nominations on this topic [16].
4. I am the single most prolific contributor of Featured Article quality and Good Article-rated-quality-content to this particular topic on Wikipedia.
5. This section header is inaccurate. There is no "administrative" actions by myself as an admin (blocks, deletions, etc.) that are under question by the accusations made by Spacefarer (talk · contribs).
6. I agree with Bbb23 (talk · contribs) that the accusations by Spacefarer (talk · contribs) are not supported.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have at least two concerns here. Firstly, while it is always a good idea to ask Moonriddengirl for advice, you are an administrator and should already exactly understand the guidelines regarding editor leeway on their own talk pages. That's not something you should need to ask about. And your presentation of that talk page blanking in the AFD "recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" elides the fact that the bulk of what was removed was your warnings. That may piss you off, but again, if you want to be an admin you should be used to getting pissed off and dealing with it without fuss. Second, again, as an admin you should have a better grasp of NLT. Leaving the ominous possibility of blocking shuld be done with care, and telling THF something is "close to" a threat and not to do it again at risk of blocking doesn't meet the standard. If it's not a legal threat, you don't get blocked for it. Regardless of whether you intended to act on it personally as an admin, people can look up your status and will assume that you are the one threatening to block. So there's two things you are expected to know as an admin and you are demonstrating a shaky grasp of both. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to not request an additional eye/advice from another admin when it comes to any topic on Wikipedia, especially one that would/could lead to an indef block. Because of the way the written word appears, a certain phrase can have multiple meanings, and having someone look at it from their perspective is never a bad thing. I would rather err on the side of caution than to be dumped on for blocking due to a "bad interpretation" of what was said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced inappropriate section heading. --JN466 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax and BWilkins that there is no good reason not to request additional input, other than the possibility that even if the request is made there may not be any response in a reasonable time to the request. People get sick, take time off, etc, including any admins who might receive such requests for input. Perhaps placing the matter on one of the noticeboards might have been good, but some things there don't get much input either. I suppose I can fault Cirt for not doing these things, to a degree, but only to a degree. As for the implication that all admins should know each and every point of policy or guidelines at all times, yeah, that'd be nice too. As a fellow admin, who only became an admin to edit protected templates, I can myself say that there are several points of policy and guidelines I don't know very well, but that I tend not to deal with those matters so the subject doesn't come up often. I don't think that it is currently believed that every admin by definition is perfect. If it is, I can't see how the hell I was made one. There are always matters of judgement involved in some matters, particularly those that discuss what might be legal threats, and it would probably be a good idea to ask for input in such matters as a general rule, but this one did seem to come really close to the line, and individual interpretation of policy is something we have to take for granted.

Cirt probably shouldn't have done what he did in some of the above, and he should have known better. But he's human, just like the rest of us. I don't see that the particular points being raised here necessarily require more than a slap on the wrist, and a comment to the effect of asking for outside input a bit quicker in any similar situations in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's well known that the Queen of Copyright never sleeps, and when she responds to a question six minutes later apologises for taking so long to get to it. ;) It's certainly not required for every admin to know every policy by heart, but I think there is a minimal expectation they know where the policy pages are and how to read them. But yes, asking for advice is always good. I completely agree with your last paragraph. It may be a quaint notion, but I do believe that admins should model the best behaviour and be ready to admit when they have not, and apologize for it. Franamax (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious issue here. Warning someone is not the same as blocking them. If I see an editor engaged in edit warring, and I post a 3RR warning, it doesn't mean I'm planning to block them myself. The fundamental issue here is that people involved in litigation should not be editing related topics on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that people often treat warnings from admins as administrative actions. We know they actually aren't, but people know that we have the ability to ourselves proceed to a block, and that other users must ask indirectly. This inevitably givers our warning a certain weight. I find that even if I explicitly say I am acting just as an editor, people still are concerned that I will block them if they do not do what I tell them. This makes me very cautious in issuing warnings, especially formal warnings. I do not give final level warnings unless I would indeed be prepared to go on to a block if the problem continued. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think any editor ought to think twice about issuing warnings and/or seeking sanctions against editors they are engaged in content disputes with, especially in unrelated matters. I'm thinking particularly of the NLT issue brought up in Franmax's point #2. This is especially the case for admins, since as DGG points out, other editors are more intimidated by their warnings because they have blocking power. No one ought to use noticeboards or warning templates to intimidate editors they are in content disputes with, and that is something I expect all admins should know better than to do. I'm willing to AGF here and consider Cirt "human" and not intending to intimidate, but at the very least tell they guy he's acted less than ideally here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt has a habit of placing administrative-sounding warnings on the talk pages of users s/he is in content disputes with. These warnings are often uncollegial in nature, and overly dramatic (example). In this case, this was an established user who was able to stand up for himself. But the matter is different with newbies, and it gets compounded when Cirt later points out in an unrelated discussions that "the user was warned about violating policy ..." (as if they had been warned by an uninvolved admin). To the user at the receiving end, this feels like harassment. I can think of at least one user in good standing, PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who retired over what he felt was Cirt's harassment.
• There have been incidences of Cirt nudging and prodding admins on their talk pages to warn, block or topic-ban users s/he is in content disputes with. S/he did it yesterday on DGG's talk page, in relation to the thread immediately preceding this one: "perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed", meaning block THF). A few weeks ago we had a thread here where Cirt went offwiki to solicit a block review from another admin.
• There is no question that Cirt does a ton of useful admin work, and is an ace researcher and writer. But Cirt's actions do often leave other editors feeling hurt and harassed, because s/he gives the appearance of using administrative processes to win content disputes. It's something it would be worthwhile for Cirt to look at. --JN466 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have read the above, and I note there are some helpful comments and wise analysis given by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs), John Carter (talk · contribs), Will Beback (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs). In particular, DGG is correct - in that instances where admins give warnings may be misconstrued by the editors receiving them to assume that this selfsame administrator would then carry out a block. I will strive to be more specific and polite with my wording in the future in such situations, and take the above discussion under careful advisement. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice to get a promise that you'll think twice before dragging editors you're in a content dispute with to AN/I. The only other time our paths crossed you did the same thing to User:Njsustain because he found what I feel are very legitimate issues with another article you created - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. I wont deny that this has colored my view of the present situation. Like THF in the current deletion discussion of an entry you authored, Njustain was your main opponent back then. I don't consider this an appropriate way to deal with such disputes. When editors are disagreeing with you in a major way over article content, there are a bazillion uninvolved admins around here to deal with their behavioral issues if there are any, especially if, as in this case, they are unrelated to your specific editing dispute. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will take this under advisement as well, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page after user JN466 notified me of including me in this discussion. In regard to the above mentioned incident of Cirt accusing me of plagiarism, [17] I was taken aback that Cirt would be so aggressive in attacking me for trying to add what I thought was valuable material to the page. When I later commented at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System and was met with this accusation of being a plagiarizer it felt like I was being characterized as a "bad guy" so that my opinion on the matter of the AfD would not have any merit. This seems extremely abusive to me. While it is true I did not add quote marks to Erhard's statement of purpose, I did say it was his statement, and I had no intent to plagiarize. I will in the future edit more responsibly. However I should be able to edit without being attacked. And it seemed that Cirt made the accusation only because of not liking my edit. And then further used it to attack me again when not liking what I had to say.

Also, I have been following this discussion in different places in regard to the AfD nomination referred to here and want to add this diff [[18]] that points to the other example referred to above where Cirt attacked an editor who in this case was simply passing on a notice about the discussion for other editors to comment on.--MLKLewis (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought it worth commenting here after being the latest editor to be attacked by Cirt at the Afd. I don't take it personally, since it seems like every editor who has disagreed with Cirt about the article has been criticized, harassed or had their motives questioned by Cirt in some way, which seems like inappropriate behavior for an Admin.

The attacks aside, the behavior I find unsettling here relates to POV issues - Cirt, who readily acknowledges being Wikipedia’s biggest contributor to articles about Werner Erhard, didn’t put any mention of the retraction of the allegations by one of Erhard’s daughters into the article when he created it initially, when he almost surely knew about it, based on his extensive experience writing about Erhard. In an article that airs strong allegations against a living person, my understanding is that BLP policy requires one to be scrupulously NPOV, and I’m not sure Cirt is taking that approach. Another example - when a statement questioning the veracity of the 60 Minutes piece was added to the article, Cirt’s response was to challenge the source of that statement on the reliable sources noticeboard and then remove it from the article before a consensus had even been reached. I noticed that Cirt's response to the addition of multiple reliable sources saying allegations were retracted is to say that he thought the sources were wrong, and that he was looking into this. This seems strange for an editor who in my experience always harps on the importance of sticking to reliable secondary sources. All this creates the appearance of an editor who doesn't have a neutral point of view about the topic at hand, and will do whatever it takes to have his opinion prevail. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment by Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs). Please see additions I added myself to the article page diff link. Then, please note that these additions, after having been requested by DaveApter (talk · contribs) on the talk page, were subsequently complained about by other editors on the same talk page, as being irrelevant to the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As previously said, the retraction is not mentioned in the original version of the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they were quickly responded to. Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs) in his comments seems to imply wishing to penalize me for being the most prolific contributor of WP:FA and WP:GA content to this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is a strong possibility of meat puppetry and or vengeance seeking in this thread. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eastbayway and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt which resulted in an indef block of User:Spacefarer. The Landmark Education articles have been plagued with WP:COI editing and WP:SOCK and meatpuppetry problems for years. Several of the accounts in this thread appear to be shilling for Landmark Education. I strongly suggest they drop it, and stay far away from the topic, lest I request arbitration, which might not turn out so well for them. The uninvolved commenting here should familiarize themselves with the facts of the matter. It's a shame User:Rlevse has retired, because he was very familiar with these issues. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant threats seem to reinforce the concerns being expressed here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you already familiarize yourself with the two pages I linked immediately above? If not, please do so before commenting further. Uninformed comments on WP:ANI are not helpful at all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would take your advice a step further. People need to try harder to leave all their baggage at the door when commenting at AN/I. Of course that clearly means not trying to get retribution on other editors, but it also includes looking at these situations without preconceived notions of who is right and wrong because in the past so and so was battling socks or POV pushers (or what have you) on related topics. The most thorough familiarizations commentators here ought to be partaking in are with the current issue. I note a lot of sloppy descriptions of what was going on in the THF situation, for instance, that if one is to AGF would lead one to believe that some editors didn't actually familiarize themselves with what had happened (I say AGF because the alternative is deliberately misconstruing what happened). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please let's all tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. Cirt has a long history in this topic area, which goes back to the 2006 Hunger Project arbitration case and before, when she was still editing as Smeelgova (no one was sanctioned by arbcom in that case). I sometimes find that Cirt's articles start out with a perceptible POV, but then so do many editors' articles probably, mine included. Cirt can be defensive when challenged, but that's human too, and it's not helped by others becoming personal. It's worth noting that opinions as to the neutrality of the article were pretty evenly split in the AfD; some editors seeing BLP and COATRACK problems, others seeing a fine, well-sourced, NPOV article. So it's not as though Cirt is way off the mainstream here. Even Cirt's original article version included the assertion that there were factual inaccuracies in the CBS programme. I have more and more often found in recent times that Cirt will listen and/or do further research when approached politely with a reliable source, and may even do the work of researching for you, as in the case with Dave Apter's concerns above. That deserves to be recognised.
• I agree with editors above that there is nothing worth sanctioning here, but that there are things worth thinking about, like whether a less adversarial style might not be more productive and pleasant all round. Looking at the AfD, it seems certain that the article will be kept. So, if editors might agree that we are here to write articles here in a collaborative and collegial manner, rather than to attack each other, and would give that a good-faith shot, the entire situation might develop along more productive lines. --JN466 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, the biggest rhetoric is probably the continued reference to warnings as an "attack". If the warnings became slightly more aggressive in the way they read, it does not mean it's magically an "attack". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is completely normal for any editor getting warned by any other editor who they are in a content dispute with to feel like the warning was an attack, however mild or inbounds such an "attack" is. That's just a normal reaction, and it speaks to the fact that it simply isn't a good idea to issue warnings to people you are in a content dispute with, or on the other side of an AfD from. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pickup artist editing by 201.116.29.243

201.116.29.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks like another attempt to continue the past feuding on Wikipedia on topics related to notable pickup artists and their companies. Problems include spamming [19] [20] [21], removal of Seduction Community info [22] [23] [24] [25] [26], using Wikipedia as a battleground [27] [28] [29] [30]. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been some cleanup by editors, but piecemeal. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I only see one XLinkBot warning on the talk page prior to your notification Ronz. Do you think the editor should be sanctioned immediately (presumably as a sockpuppet/returnee who knows exactly what he is doing), or is a more detailed and specific warning in order? Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:BATTLE problems from this ip's edits, and he appears to have some prior editing experience given the terminology he uses in his first few edit summaries [31] [32] [33]. I don't see an obvious COI. I don't have time to search for possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I'll go ahead with some quick cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? I thought I was helping. I am only removing propaganda and adding verifiable information.201.116.29.243 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like a more detailed explanation of the problems already mentioned, just ask. Don't accuse me or anyone else of things that didn't happen [34]. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the problematic edits. Another editor, Danielrsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has taken to restoring two of the articles to the state they were left by now-blocked editor Craft of Charisma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Nazi images in an essay

Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has just created the essay Wikipedia:On being Jewish. He has also linked to it from the main BLP policy page and given it the shortcut name WP:JEWISH.

The topic of how we decide which individuals should be considered Jewish for purposes of writing and categorizing Wikipedia articles may be the legitimate subject of an essay. However, Christopher Connor has chosen to illustrate his essay with two images. The first of this is an image of Adolf Hitler leading a Nazi military rally or parade, and has been given the caption "a Nazi informs his personal army of the definition of a Jew." The second image is the file "Kiev Jew Killings in Ivangorod 1942" and has been captioned "categorizing an aryan as a mischling is a BLP violation."

The use of these images, with these (or any) captions, to illustrate a Wikipedia space essay on categorization, is offensive and reflects a deplorable indifference to the sensitivity of these images and the events they represent. Moreover, this is not the first time Christopher Connor has conducted himself in this manner. Last month, Christopher Connor used the same image of Hitler addressing a rally to illustrate his essay "Wikipedia:BLP Nazi" (subsequently moved in toned-down form to Wikipedia:BLP zealot). Discussion on Christopher Connor's talkpage and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi should certainly have made it clear to this editor, as if it could ever have been in question, that depictions of Nazi and Holocaust related events are not suited for decorating essays on editing policies.

That Christopher Connor has repeated this behavior suggests to me that this editor is deeply insensitive to the feelings of his colleagues here, and I recommend that he be blocked from editing or, at a minimum, that he be appropriately restricted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah, that's pretty disgusting. I'd support any restrictions or sanctions anyone placed on him. We don't need that kind of stuff here at Wikipedia. Not at all. Writing an essay about Jewishness and then filling it with images of Nazis, including one of Nazis shooting Jewish people is pretty egregious. --Jayron32 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's been speedy deleted. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Trout me if it was the wrong decision. I noticed NYB applied __noindex__ to it, so I restored it, then deleted it again, because I'm fickle like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't mind its being deleted. My only concern was that deletion would make it harder for non-admins to follow this ANI discussion regarding the editor who created it, but I put in a brief description of the content above in case of just that eventuality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 1 week, as well. He'd been warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Good call. Courcelles 06:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Why exactly is this user not instead indef blocked?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh...I thought about it, but his contribs go back a ways and he doesn't have a history. Hopefully he'll get the hint. Otherwise, yes, indef. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indef block until he gets it. There is absolutely no place for that kind of...(I don't even know what he was trying to do there, extraordinarily dark "humor" possibly)...anywhere on this encyclopedia. Indef block and wait for a full apology. This is a second occurrence. N419BH 08:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • An apology? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support one-week block. Not the first time this has happened and given prior warnings it's reasonable. Opposed to indef-blocking a perfectly okay content contributor based on just this, but CC must treat this as his very last warning, or an indef would be very deserved and appropriate. StrPby (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Both the one-week block or an indef block until the user demonstrates that he understands the problem are (or would have been) an appropriate reaction.  Sandstein  11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I can't see the deleted page, but based on NYB's description and the earlier "BLP Nazi" page (which I did see), one week seems to be appropriate to drive the message home. Hans Adler 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• A week sounds ok to me. Having peeked at the essay, didn't bother to read it through, given I found it so... ugly, guess it looked to me kind of like where failed sarcasm falls splat across the pale into trolling. en.WP's not censored but nor is it "ED II, the Unleashed." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, without the at best entirely thoughtlessly and provocatively chosen images and captions, there might have been a point to be made here, albeit that it's not, in reality, specific to Jewishness by any stretch of the imagination. For those non-administrators who cannot read the now-deleted revisions: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Ed Miliband, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Allegation of antisemitism, and Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were the primary drivers of this particular case. You don't really need the deleted page to see the issue and the argument, which was re-hashed here from the BLP Noticeboard and article talk page in an almost canonically ill-thought Godwin's Law manner. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Just want to add here that there was some other strangeness recently, when he wrote an article about, and was half pretending to be, this Christopher Connor. Submitted it for DYK, said he was particularly keen to have it used, then refused to answer questions, there and on the COI board, from people wanting to make sure he was a different Christopher Connor. Discussions here and here. It was a minor thing, but it was odd. He declined even to acknowledge that people were asking him a question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought at the time that that might have been being deliberately silent to make the point that according to Project:Outing an editor is not obliged to answer questions as to xyr identity, and that it's a little foolish to assume that there's just one "Christopher Connor" in the world. Or that someone's "conflict of interest" may extend only as far as having an interest in writing the articles about encyclopaedic people that happen to share xyr name. It seems that I was right. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Christopher has now apologised and agreed not to repeat his actions in an unblock request on his talk page. I think with his previously clean record, we should give him this chance. StrPby (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The article text and the images are at odds with each other as the text was not racist nor baiting but seemed to be an attempt tp clarify and help some BLP issues. The images were clearly beyond the line and the block seems to have gotten his attention. JodyB _talk 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unblocking. After the reading the diffs below I must conclude that this is a pattern of insensitivity. Although his block log was previously clean there is ample evidence that he has been and remains clueless. JodyB<subBold text> talk 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree there, the images are what hurled it over the line. If he'd further say he'll be more careful with any images he uses in hoped for irony, I'd see no need to keep the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've come to oppose an unblock, given CC's later answers on his talk page left me neutral but mostly because I wasn't aware of the DYK diffs shown by iridescent. Taken altogether, I've meaningful worries he may not have made these edits for encyclopedic reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think I oppose an unblock. "Categorising an Aryan as a Mischling is a BLP violation" under an image of Jews being executed by the Einsatzgruppen. Hard to know how to describe that if not as baiting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall that caption. I took it as sarcasm which was so startlingly botched, it indeed looked like trolling, but likely was not. I think almost all sarcasm is baiting in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock without question after seeing Iridescent's diffs, especially [35] [36] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock—so let's recap: this guy writes an essay at WP:JEWISH, which he illustrates with images of Hitler and the Nazis. He is blocked for a week. He says sorry. We unblock him after seven hours. Seriously... no. I cannot imagine any good faith explanation for his actions, other than possibly the most serious case of gross insensitivity I've come across in a long while.
  In fact, the case, bears a striking similarity to Berlusconi saying that he shouldn't be blamed for telling a Holocaust joke in a speech; rather, "the bad taste was in those who published it."
  This guy seriously needs a block for more than a few hours to demonstrate to him that the project doesn't consider this sort of thing acceptable, thus preventing further future disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  But blocks aren't punitive, and he knows that if he messes up again he'll likely end up indef-blocked. So what's the harm? StrPby (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  The harm comes from us sending out a message that blocks for the most outragoeous behaviour will be overturned within a couple of hours if the perpetrator says, "Oh, I'm tho thorry I made a mithtake." We need to make it plain to this editor that we will not tolerate actions such as the ones they took; if we do not make this plain, it is plausible or even likely that they will repeat them. And by unblocking this soon, it looks suspiciously like toleration to me.
  The let's-unblock-and-then-if-they-do-it-again-reblock argument should really only apply to behaviours which the person involved didn't know were problematic at the time. But this guy must have known that his Nazi snaps were inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Lord help me, but I'm actually going to agree with TreasuryTag on something; an unblock for something which no reasonable person could have considered legitimate sends out the wrong message about Wikipedia's values and aims. This isn't a one off incident ([37], [38], [39], [40]); this looks to be someone with an agenda. – iridescent 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Frankly, I one of the first to say Wikipedia can be over sensitive to Jewish sensibilities and throw round anti-Semitism charges far too quickly, which tends to have a chilling effect. However, this editor is clearly over the line. This is trolling. An apology might be good enough, if it had been a case of "he's learnt his lesson", but he was heavily criticised for his Wikipedia:BLP Nazi recently, and had evidently not taken the hind. A week block is very lenient, and should be served. Next time, I'd propose an outright ban.--Scott Mac 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On the boosterism problem: Can either of the two of you remember where the criticism was that Wikipedia biographies tended to start in their first sentences with a whole string of religious, ethnic, sexual, and geographic associations, each with reams of citation cross-links, before even getting to the important stuff about a person for which they are actually known? I think that we already have a non-Godwinized essay on the general subject, which is far from specific to Jewishness, but I cannot remember where I saw it. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I fully endorse every word of iridescent's rationale. Hans Adler 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock This Editor is not a a noob, Mr. Connor knows our norms here. Especially on the heels of the BLP nazi incident. Commons sense should have WP:CLUED him in. Its not rocket science to figure out that having an essay filled with images nazi would cause an adverse reaction with out the essay being called Wikipedia:On being Jewish. We are extremely lucky one of us found it and not the Media or a one of the many Jewish advocacy groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - User should be on a short leach also when it expires. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. What Iridescent said, and the diffs Iridescent provided. Saebvn (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I agree with Iridescent. There is something not quite right here. In addition to the diffs Irridesent gave, there are many other questionable edits, for example just recently a DYK with unnecessary details of a lynching. [41] In the diff where he created Jewish lawyer stereotype, he claimed to be one.[42] That article has problems going back to its creation: Shylock evidently was not a lawyer in the Merchant of Venice (the "lawyer" in the play was of the fairer sex). Thank goodness he forgot Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth in that first irksome diff. Was it some kind of bad taste joke? Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • When Christopher Connor created that article, it was actually entitled Jewish lawyer. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't help very much, does it? Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There was relevant discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 65#Jewish lawyer, which was more about the article in general and an edit that Jimbo had made to it, and his belief that it needed to be made clear that the article was about a stereotype, which was part of the impetus for this proposal (by me): Talk:Jewish lawyer stereotype#Name change? (though of course "stereotype" was not in the title at the time.) The whole article was (and remains) at least a little disturbing, but at least the title is better. The discussion also had the collateral benefit of getting Jewish mother renamed to Jewish mother stereotype, though that is a much older article and Christopher Connor does not seem to have been involved in that one. Neutron (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Renamed back to Jewish mother stereotype note. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I edit conflicted with Gwen Gale on declining the request. Editors have expressed concern over his edits in the past, in relation to DYK hooks and elsewhere, and those concerns should have given him pause - but did not. I appreciate that this editor works on articles where few editors are wont to tread, but that doesn't give him license for these edits. It may be helpful if he were able to show that he understands why everyone is so upset over this incident, and the previous ones, before requesting unblock again. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at the moment. I'm not convinced the content was intended to be as bad as it was, but intent only gets you so far. Also, it's not necessarily racist to point out that "x% of people arrested for jaywalking are Lower Slobovian", if the police have a predilection to bust Lower Slobovians and let Upper Ombrians slide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock It's pretty clear from his talk page that he doesn't get it and is blaming everyone else for the mess he finds himself in. N419BH 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs. There is also something ineluctably weird about the apology itself. Not buying that. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Up to indef

My reading of the discussion above, especially the comment by Mathsci, is that we cannot trust this editor not to engage in subtle vandalism to insert anti-Jewish rhetoric into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• support the diffs by Iridescent show crystal clear agenda that is harmful to wikipedia. The Article created log makes the pattern even more disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What harmful agenda is being revealed by 2004 European Open (snooker), Smolarek, Personality of the year, Protection of Children Act, draw sheet, and Climbié? Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I said the diffs provided by Iridescent, show an agenda.[43][44][45][46] Creating articles like Indigenous Australians and crime, Talk:Black people and crime in the United Kingdom, Lynching of Ell Persons, Jewish lawyer, The Color of Crime, Racial hoax, Criminal black man stereotype combined with Today's Nazi page show a troubling pattern which i think can be reasonably identfied as an agenda. I could also support the Topic Ban as well which would probably solve my concerns as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You also said that that agenda was part of a pattern shown by the likes of List of Israeli ambassadors to France, 2004 Grand Prix (snooker), Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, and 2007 A.S. Roma–Manchester United F.C. conflict. These are your examples, that you pointed to, remember. Moreover, what's "troubling" about racial hoax? You seem to be conflating an interest in race relations topics with some sort of unspecified "troubling" racialist agenda. Have you not thought that you're proving Christopher Connor right? Write about race relations topics, and people will not look further than the titles and accuse one of racism. What's "troubling" about education.gov.uk? What's "disturbing" about Stationary office? What harmful pattern is Office of the Children's Commissioner revealing? ‎ Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not saying Stationary office is a bad article thats a straw man. Singularly Nothing here is "bad." But combine with the creation of the the articles I specified combined with the diffs Iridescent's. I dont think its unreasonable to have concerns of pattern. I would love to assume no clue but all this together looks suspicious. Take this DYK suggestion I am looking at a dozen less provocative facts that could have been used in the Article same with Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. The conversation that followed indicates he doesnt get it why people might have an adverse reaction. I am NOT saying he is a single purpose account to promote racists views on Wikipedia. But I have to question what he is thinking when he does pulls stunts like what I discussed above becuase I have a hard time believing and Editor can be that Clueless. I said I would be willing to accept a topic ban as alternative but some of his editing patters do raise flags in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak opposeHaving read others comments a critique of my arguements and some thought off Wiki. i have stricken by support of topic ban. I still have serrious reservations about this editor but a topic ban seem to more appropriate for now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the block for the present essay creation (and the BLP nazi one earlier). However, I'm not seeing a pattern of vandalism. I'm seeing a number of politically incorrect editing interests, and nominations, but nothing more. Has been inserting stuff unsupported by sources? Perhaps he's being deliberately provocative — but I've seen worse. The essays are over the line, and he needs to get it, and not repeat it. But I don't want to ban for being offending liberal sensitivities.--Scott Mac 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, broadly per my comments above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support His unblock request clearly demonstrates his lack of sincere apology, including a non-apology apology. It is clear he does not appreciate the horror of his actions have caused. No small number of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I strongly support an indefinite block and severe future sanctions. Basket of Puppies 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No block history, quite a few contribs. User had not been sufficiently warned for an indef. Remember that he's blocked for provocation, not for being anti-semitic (or generally white-supremacist), and it's just too easy to conflate things when reading his apologies or unblock requests. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I doubt this will gain consensus, but it appears this user is doing quite a bit of race baiting here. If this isn't enacted, a topic ban is definitely in order. AniMate 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now. Block log was clean, I don't think it's fair to indef without warning an editor who in over 3 1/2 years has made over 3000 edits with few if any kerfuffles. At the very least, he has tried to sensationalize some racial articles and two essays and this is worrisome, but edits to racial topics have been a small slice of his editing history. His answers to questions about his edits tend to be a bit coy for me, it may be how he is though, I don't know, but it's why I don't support an unblock. The week long block may be needed, giving him time to think things over. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. Although I agree that some of this user's edits, and his lack of comprehensive explanations for them, are disturbing, the level of disruption is not very high. This is his first block and a repetition of this behaviour would quickly lead to a much longer block. I do not believe this editor engages in, or is likely to engage in, subtle vandalism to push any particular viewpoint; in fact he engages in somewhat odd borderline trolling and introduction of controversial material for unknown reasons. If he were trying to push a viewpoint, he would not be deliberately courting controversy as he appears to have done on occasion --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(clarifying my comment - I should have said "the level of disruption is not very high when compared with the constructive contributions" - I was not suggesting that the offensive behaviour itself was insignificant, even if not intended to be offensive) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to this thread by Christopher Connor

On his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the whole thread on his talk page: User_talk:Christopher_Connor#Block_note

Regarding "But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted", you've had it explained to you (repeatedly) what the issue is, but each time go into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode; see the discussion here for instance. You're cherry-picking facts (e.g. "15.7% of those convicted for homicide in Australia are indigenous", "indigenous Australians make up 2% of the population"), disregarding other information (differential conviction rates, relative probabilities of success of police investigations in close-knit communities vs large urban areas) to come up with the synthesis of "Indigenous Australians committed 15.7 percent of homicides in Australia". If this was a one-off incident then yes, these things happen, but as you yourself recognize you have a long history of being warned for inappropriate comments and suggestions (from most people I'd take this as a ham-fisted joke, but in this case I'm not sure), but your response seems always to be that the problem is with everyone else, not yourself. – iridescent 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - topic ban

I suggest letting the week long block stand, and then imposing (preferably with his agreement) a topic restriction on all race-related content, commentary and comment. He also should not initiate any new essays without consulting others as to their appropriateness.--Scott Mac 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Without consulting others" is a woolly and meaningless phrase which is essentially courting disaster. Needs tightening. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; just make it clear that he's prohibited from initiating new essays at all if he cannot be trusted, or throw the last line out altogether. As for essays relating to race, that's covered by the first part of the topic restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Supportin lieu of full of indef block this seems to be a good alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the most reasonable action for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support the topic ban. The nature of the restriction on creating essays needs to be made clearer, if there is to be a restriction at all.--Korruski^Talk 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support the topic ban, can't see the point of the essay thing (assuming the topic ban wld preclude essays dealing with race/ethnicity issues)appears to be more a problem of pushing peoples buttons occassionaly, hopefully the block will get the message thru--Misarxist 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support The block should stand, and if an indef block isn't applied he should at the very least be restricted from all race related topics. AniMate 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, strongly. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support ban on racial topics/edits, broadly construed, throughout the en.WP space, which he can ask to be lifted after 3-6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Good solution. As others have said, it should be broadly interpreted so as to include all the problematic articles mentioned so far. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, but... when I read this whole thread, User:Wassermann, indefblocked since June 2009, kept popping into my head. You remember Wassermann's incessant bad-faith category lawyering? Connor's ban must, apart from articles and essays, include categories, very broadly construed; i.e. he doesn't get to add categories touching on nationality or ethnicity in any way. We need to set something up that doesn't take up too much of the time and energy of other editors to check on and argue about. Do we also need to make a sock check? I'm asking, not accusing; not being much good with socks. Bishonen | talk 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Comment A broad topic ban across the en.WP space would mean categories were out of bounds, too. So long as the ban was broadly racial/ethnicity, I think that would cover any contentious nationality cats. A topic ban needs to be simple and straightforward, easy to understand and follow, otherwise breaches and a long block are more or less foregone, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - The essay alone shows he can't be trusted in this area, let alone the other dubious edits he's made. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support The diffs provided above show the editor is using Wikipedia to push an inappropriate agenda: if there is no indef block and no one is volunteering to closely monitor the editor, a strong topic ban is required to avoid further wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - have you looked at the article he created on the Lynching of Ell Persons?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Yes, that was a worthwhile contribution to the project. I could support a time limited topic ban to allow him to edit constructively in areas unrelated to race and to gain some trust and more understanding of policy, perhaps three months? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Toddy1. Just let the block expire as planned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - A single article does not automatically make him a constructive editor. I'm going to need more than that to prove he's able to keep his opinions to himself. Given the essay, I don't think that's going to happen.. not to mention his past behavior. It's a problem that he can't figure out, and thus cannot be trusted with. Support topic ban per Toddy1.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose In a nutshell, this situation is too complex at this moment for a simple solution like this. What puzzles me about this issue is that, prima facie, except for the images used I found nothing objectionable to this user's now-deleted essay: it was a a banal restatement of a number of such truisms as a proposed definition for labelling someone a Jew, that being identified as a Jew can be controversial, etc. This does not mean I endorse the essay: I just don't see why anyone would bother to write it, thus leading me to suspect that there is something in it only someone familiar with anti-Semitic hate speech would catch. (And while the apology on his Talk page isn't exactly what I'd label a "non-apology apology", it isn't what I'd expect to see in a sincere apology either.) In other words, this guy seems to be playing games with the rules, & while I can't say what his intent could be I don't entirely trust him. Subjecting him to anything but the simplest & clearest restrictions will only make the rest of us work harder to sanction him if it becomes clear that he is harming Wikipedia. I believe letting him come back after a week with no new restrictions -- but keeping an eye on him -- will be the simplest & best solution. If this guy pulls another stunt like that essay, we can then ban him for good without needing to take any further steps; if he is editting in good faith, & this was simply a case where he was putting his foot in his mouth, then all of us can step away from this with no unintended bitterness or dramaz & move on to better things. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda

re: Swami Krishnananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be the seeds of an edit war forming here, and edits by some involved suggest WP:OWN as well as WP:AGF.

Drmies (talk · contribs) made several edits providing reasons in all edit summaries for the changes. In response, 67.49.74.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun wholesale reversions of these edits with the summary "reverted more of user Drmies' drastic and unwarranted editing", without addressing any of the reasons provided in the original edit summaries. I've reverted to the version by Drmies, as the reasons appeared valid, as the original version contained several pieces of self-sourced puffery that were not in a NPOV.

After looking onto Drmies talk page, I found related comments by Advedom (talk · contribs) which twice mentioned that "The only way any of your edits will stand is through collaboration with me."[47] and "You clearly do not want to discuss constructively the edits you are making to the Swami Krishnananda page, so I will just revert all of them, at the end of every day."[48], which suggests that Advedom believes he/she owns the article and that changes can only be made if he/she approves. The IP has stopped for now; but I would appreciate having some other eyes look into this, as well as looking at my reversions of the reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: involved parties have been notified of this discussion on their user talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Barek. I welcome other editors' input on my own actions and those of the other editors involved with the article. Comments on my talk page suggest a group effort to support the article, which is fine, except that I don't know what the group is and who it consists of--but these IP operations seem secretive to me. I have refrained from editing the article any more since I really don't want to ruffle feathers, but the article, in my opinion, contains much that runs counter to our guidelines, with an insistence on primary and non-independent sources supporting content that is far from neutral. Well, I could go on, but that's neither here nor there, and certainly no matter for ANI.

  If my tone, in my responses to the somewhat belligerent messages on my talk page, was inappropriate, I gladly stand corrected; I do hope you recognize that I tried to make an effort to argue my points, both in edit summaries and on my talk page, and that I haven't been chopping willy-nilly. I would appreciate input and oversight. Barek, thank you again for your attention to this matter, and let me assure you that I am not about to get into an edit war. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, and I concur with actions of Drmies who has behaved impeccably. There appear to be significant ownership and conflict of interest issues here, with what seems to be a collaborative effort by an off-wiki group to control virtually every aspect of this article. A number of editors and anonymous IPs (often connecting from coffee shops, hotels, or other "Wayport"-style services) have tried to turn the article into a puff piece for the subject and related organizations, seemingly (from glancing at the article history) for quite some time. I think this article would benefit from some administrator attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have watch-listed the article and will semi-protect as well if things start up again. For now all is quiet. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I edit this again, am I stirring up trouble? I have half a mind of going through the article again, paying close attention to the statements sourced to the subject's own work, but I don't want to pour gasoline on a smoldering fire. Are there any non-involved editors around who have nothing better to do right now? Drmies (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything in there is self sourced. If we clean it up there will be little left. I will ask User:Goethean if he has any sources. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We must also be mindful that although this is not a WP:BLP (subject is deceased), a certain standard must be maintained per WP:BDP. Self-sourced material of a contentious or extraordinary nature should be verified or removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:89.211.65.21

Resolved

 – Lame edit war stopped by blocking the edit warriors.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring § User:89.211.65.21_reported_by_User:Seb_az86556_.28Result:_.29

Today 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has decided to continuely revert the Admin Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) on various articles, saying 3RR still applies to their 'edit war' even though the IP is a block evading sock of a Qatar located user, can some one sort out this IP and make him leave Beyond my Ken alone--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was, anyway what do we do with the IP, they are being highly disruptive towards BMK, and according to him 3RR does not apply to block evading socks, is Ken right? I sure hope so as he would be 8RR by now if this was an edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR applies to everyone. No one is above policy.
The IP broke 3RR on both Royal Commonwealth Pool and Steve Collins, but both you and Beyond my Ken stayed at 3 reverts each. Let me caution you that if you revert again, you could be blocked for edit warring. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think you'll find it's the other way about. Look at the changes he's making - trying to include info that's either irrelevant or inaccurate. Just happened to be 'checking my edits', he says, which no-one else had an issue with. He's an ADMIN? He's a stalker and a vandal, too. Let me put this simply. I am not evading a block and I am not harrassing BMK but if he agrees to stop stalking me (the evidence is there) then that's good enough for me. But I cannot tolerate vandalism and stalkery. I'm astonished that this guy is an admin, frankly. Can this be revoked?! --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, sure Ken's edits are worring but the Beyond My Ken I've seen on ANI would never do something so silly, I believe you are in the wrong 89.211 --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ. I don't accept that I am harassing him, I do think it's the other way about and a couple of his edits (one of which you have now picked up) are quite simply wrong. I'm happy for anyone to pick over this and these edits in particular. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I have never been an admin, I have never claimed to be an admin, I have no desire to be an admin, the community would never make me an admin, I will never be an admin.

This IP is the "editor from Qatar" who has appeared on this board a number of times before. He recently admitted to having an account (which he refused to reveal via e-mail to Daedalus969), and claims he was "forced" into editing as an IP by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. HW thinks it might be User:Magpie1892, but I don't think he ever followed through with an SPI to confirm it. The IP claims not to be indef blocked, but since he's admitted to having an account, and he edits with IPs (others I know of are 89.211.116.220, 78.101.227.119 and 78.101.170.55, but I'm sure there are others), he is, by defintion, a sock. And, he's a sock who objects to having his edits scrutinized and reverted or corrected based on policy, calling it "Wikistalking". He's a pain, he acts like a spoiled child, and I would very much like to wash my hands of him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the description; I was having trouble acquainting myself with the situation without diffs provided. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are blatently being disrupting and being Uncivil to him, you just accused him of being a vandal and a stalker Beyond my ken is none of those things, he is a long term respected editor here, if he is in the wrong i hope the ADmins here are merciful, BMK does not deserve a block to blemish his record, now stop harrasing him 89.211--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Beyond My Ken's standing is. This all boils down to deliberate disruption and edit warring by a sock. 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs) should be blocked. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Beyond my Ken) I'm sorry if I mistook you for an admin, you are a well respected editor here and I've seen you frequently here on the ANI board, of course if you don't want to be an admin, I'm happy to see you continue working here as an ordinary editor --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure others would disagree, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will the permission of the filing editor, I have changed the title of this entry, since I make no claim of being harrassed or wikistalked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, regardless of who the IP may or may not be, that edit warring to put in a nickname of a place without a source is poor form, and BMK should know better. GedUK  09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

by that logic it should not be called Commie either, the IP had no right to revert BMK on either of those articles, and 3RR does not aplly to those that have been blocked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ged UK: Actually, the nickname was in the article already, the IP removed it on the basis of personal knowledge, which is WP:OR -- but you're right, I got carried away and shouldn't have continued. I guess he got under my skin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And now BMK both you and I can't revert him without facing a block--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) has jumped in. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, the "RC Pool" nickname was likewise added based on personal knowledge. It's probably best to remove unsourced nicknames and leave it at that. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of what is "the truth" is over. You don't edit war 3 different people... Man. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Both nicknames are cited now. Out of conflict comes chaos... and citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... let's close it. 89, you may continue to edit-war without consequences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, it's a nice little object lesson in why we don't allow OR. The IP knew from his own personal knowledge based on 35 years of living there (he said) that no one ever called it anything but "the Commie", and made the deletion on that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have just been reverted again... I lost count. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, considering this comment the IP left on Goodvac's talk page. He's unhappy that I found a citation for the othger nickname. I'm actually getting the distinct impression that this person doesn't understand how Wikipedia works at all.

I note that this deletion was of referenced information, which is a big no-no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely within procedure to remove referenced information if the cite doesn't back up the text. Perhaps you 'don't understand how Wikipedia works at all', I don't know. You should know that I cite has to actually support the position? Ask Hullaballoo, he'll clear this one up for you sharpish. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oy! He's arguing that a citation from the Guardian is not good enough, because the writer is not from Edinburgh. Someone else needs to deal with this ... person, I am officially hors de combat. (I suppose people could go to the article's talk page and agree that the citation is good enough, so that a consensus will have been found, but I assume he'll disregard that because we aren't from Edinburgh.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous, at best. No problem with the RS of course, but, as has been noted by another, the cited text does not support the position of 'RC Pool' as a colloq./nickname for the pool. Find a citation that does support this assertion, and put it in. Simple. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@GedUK: I removed your "resolved" banner, because while I did provide a source for the name, from a very reliable source, the IP has rejected it, and reverted my edit, on the basis that .... Well, the bottom line is that the IP just knows it's wrong, so he's made up some stringent requirements for what he will allow as being an acceptable source. One of the UK's most prominent newspapers isn't enough, the writer must be from Edinburgh, and have used the pool at least 12 times in the past or something -- it doesn't matter, it's gotten to be quite ridiculous -- but, unfortunately, not resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'stringent requirements' you mention are but one: that the cite supports the position. You're being a little childish here, and still disingenuous. It wouldn't matter if the RS was the word of God Almighty if it didn't support the claimed position. Which this cite doesn't. The bottom line: if 'RC Pool' is a colloquialism used by more than yourself, then you will easily be able to find a citation supporting this belief. So do it (or stop whining). --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus has agreed no to RC pool and yes to RCP via a new source, reverting has stopped for now, mark as resolved?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE DO IT --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the colloquial name of a swimming pool? How did wikipedia come to this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because even though "everyone can edit", not everyone should. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to do the honors and add this to WP:LAME? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours for clear edit warring, and also blocked BMK, because he was up to 5 reverts (depending on how you count the first one). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Marking as resolved and as remarkably lame.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support "lame". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the block of Beyond My Ken was necessary. Under all the circumstances, I believe a cautionary note would have been ample. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

After we discussed the nature of his edits and the strict definition of revert as given in WP:3RR, I unblocked, because it didn't seem to be serving a preventive purpose anymore. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad: I have no beef with Sarek's block, although it is possible that a strongly-worded warning might have provided the short, sharp, shock required. My editing behavior last night was far below any standard that I hold for myself, and I needed to receive my comeuppance for it. Not my finest hour, by any measure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Alex Spade

Alex Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user undo twice my editions by deleting his personal aggresive from him. I thnk he should be more concretic if he wants to say something about my editions and not to use lang-wikilinks to show my editions in another language wikipedia. I asked him to delete or rewrite this at his discussion page too, but he does nothing, only back his personal aggressive again. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are always useful with something like this. So I think that what you are referring to is this edit [49] by Alex Spade, which you deleted here [50] with the edit summary "Deleted personal aggressive", and Alex Spade restored his and your comment to the project talk page here [51]; and also this edit [52] which you deleted here [53], again with the edit summary "Deleted personal aggressive". The deletion also included your own reply which had previously been made in this edit [54] which included your (Ksaine's) comment "Any Your contributions without answer to this message - and I'll delete it myself or talk admins about deletion." However, looking at these contributions from Alex Spade, it is very hard to see that he is being unreasonably aggressive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I see nothing aggressive or otherwise objectionable in these comments. Please do not continue deleting them. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements. Marking this as resolved.  Sandstein  18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I note also that you used the edit summary "Deleted agressive" when editing Alex Spade's comments in ANI archive.

• Firstly there was nothing agressive in his comments.
• Secondly you are NOT permitted to edit another user's comments.
• Thirdly you should NOT edit an archive.

Note also that when you brought this to ANI you should have notified the other user. See the instructions at the top of this page.

David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• As it said here, “Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.”...“Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.”
  

Let's look at his editions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University): “Some same problems have appeared in some other articles about Russian universities” - and gives a link to my contributions, then he add a comment after undo my deleting with the next text: I suggest, you actions in the articles...must be reviewed by WikiProject Russia editors explaining why he don't want to delete the text, in flagrant violation of a rule written above.
So, I ask that you remove these personal attacks. It is similar to harressment also. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 22:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. He has concerns about your contributions and has said so. You have just removed his comments on the page again after being asked not to do so. Please stop. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A side, but relevant issue

As the user above, Ksaine, is continuing to edit war to remove the comments of another editor, in direct violation of WP:TPO, and is exhibiting signs they don't understand, I believe a block may be in order to halt their disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Warring at Park51

Regarding Talk:Park51#RfC_-_Is_it_a_.22Muslim.22_community_center.3F

I started this RfC to settle a debate between between a group of editors.

Hauskalainen edits my RfC in a somewhat uncivil manner [55]

Hauskalainen reverts & deletes my comments after I undo his edits and move his comments to the appropriate area [56]

Hauskalainen reverts & deletes my comments again [57]

I think Hauskalainen is in pretty obvious violation of WP:CIVIL. Additionally I think this is a technical violation of WP:3RR, as well as a violation of WP:RfC "Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions."

Notification given - [58]

Some help with this editor would be most appreciated. NickCT (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My main objection is that NickCT initiated an RFC without referring properly to the issue which actually had been discussed in some depth in the previous section and he actually summarized the issue incorrectly and implied that the view he was resisting was POV despite us very clearly showing that this was not so. The issue was not simply whether Muslim Community Center or Community Center (impying somehow that we were pretending there was no Muslim connection) as he implied. A great deal had been discussed as to why Muslim Community Center could be misconstrued. This is why I added the comment immediately below the RFC section intro by pointing those led to the article to read the earlier discussions before making a comment. Then I was infuriated to discover that NickCT had the audacity to move my comment away from the intro section of the RFC where it might not be read. Have I breached civilty rules? Personally I do not think so but I am willing to be judged. I am not willing to have NickCT move my comments to where HE wants them placed. THAT was uncivil IMHO. Because he made his comments in the same edit as the move of my comments I was not able to determine where to place his comments and I invited him to put them where he wanted, warning that I had deleted them. But instead of adding them back where he wanted them he repeated the move of my comments fully intended to be in the lede section to the RFC. And I am sure he knows that. I am going to insist that my comments go immediately after his own RFC comments given that the wording of the RFC had not been previously discussed. If he wants to claim 3RR for this he must, in all logic, be in breach before me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the full-bore, bold text UPPERCASE APOPLEXY approach that you used in your comment ("PLEASE BE AWARE THAT NickCT IS DELIBERATELY MIS-STATING THE ISSUE.") probably didn't help, because it assumes bad faith. I suggest a more measured, calm objection to the RfC's phrasing would be better. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been better to simply point out that NickCT was mis-stating the issue, and leave it to the other editors to determine if it was deliberate from the facts (or else indicate, though some might think it understood, that your statement as to intent was a statement of opinion and not of fact). But at the same time I do wonder whether that's not considerably off the main topic here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you and with the edit before you. And for the overemphasis I apologize. I was enraged more or less by two things. Firstly that the RFC has been raised without first agreeing how it would be worded and though it was written fiarly neutrally it did not really reflect the weight of argument on the other side. A reference to the previous discussion would have been order. What really enraged me though was his comment that removing the word Muslim was POV! That direct accusation had not come up previously and my actions (I will not speak for the other opponents) have been only to clarify and not to hide the issue of the Muslim aspects of this project. I am far from being POV in this matter! To have NickCT them move my comments around the Talk page to where HE wanted to place them was the last straw. I have just left a note saying much the same thing at NickCT's talk page and suggested there that we try to cool it. Perhaps he can follow suit and apologize to me and the other editors for making the POV accusation first time in his RFC and for obfuscating the issue by doing so. And for moving my addition to the RFC. (I will now tone it down voluntarily) --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - Two points - 1) The POV comment was stated as my own opinion and was not in the body of the RfC. 2) All the edits you've made on Park51 have been in defense of the "community center". To be frank, I support the proponents of the center, but I don't seek to write my opinion into WP. Admitting that POV might be motivating some of your actions here is the first step to editing in a neutral fashion. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My God! NickCTYou have just repeated here on this page, intended for Admins, a clear insinuation that I "write my opinion into WP" just because I removed the adjective "Muslim" from the word "Community Center" when the sources we have quite clearly make it plain that the Community Center is for local people of all faiths! Your edits before and your actions now seem in short measure to those unfamiliar with the arguments we have had that removing the adjective "Muslim" before "community center" is a POV position - presumably trying to deny the involvement of Muslims in this project. But that clearly ridiculous because of my edits such as these make it totally clear that I am not trying to hide the role of Muslims in the project at all and that I just removed the adjective because it could be misinterpreted to mean that the center was for Muslims alone. So pray tell me, how am I trying to add POV to this article? And what is the POV that I am adding? I am inclined to think YOU are adding POV because "Muslim community center" to me (and I am sure to many others) would be taken to mean "a community center for Muslims" which this is not because only 1 floor of a 13 floor project is dedicated solely for Muslim activities. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue does not warrant attention at ANI and should be closed, since there is no administrative action required. It would have been better handled at WQA. The RfC did not seem neutral because it asked, "Is park51 a "Muslim community center" or just a "community center?"" Obviously most editors would vote for calling it Muslim, probably most would rather call it the "Ground Zero Mosque". It does not encourage editors to examine the sources, merely to provide their opinion. Hauskalainen of course should not imply your intentions and should change his comments so they do not do so. TFD (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "not encourage editors to examine the sources" - You'll note that I did request people read the debate preceding the RfC? Surely this encouragement to examine the sources..... NickCT (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Most editors will not spend considerable time reading through the lengthy discussion above, checking the sources given to support the various arguments and will instead provide the answer that they have heard in the media, it's Muslim. If you read the responses to the RfC, this should be obvious. This is not helpful for getting input. TFD (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought "the media" counted as RS (certain parts of it at least). Anyway, I feel this is a debate for elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed obvious vandalism

Resolved

 – Not an incident. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to ask: how does this happen? Don't we have edit filters and 20 different vandal bots and 100 vandal fighters? And yet, someone slowly removing almost 90% percent of the content - including categories and references - from a living baseball Hall of Famer's article over the span of six minutes goes unnoticed for almost 3/4 of an hour?! How do we not have the pending changes feature turned on everywhere? Wknight94 ^talk 20:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but this is not an incident requiring the technical intervention of administrators. You may wish to go to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:Edit filter or somewhere like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is "somewhere like that". But I guess this isn't enough dramahz, sorry. Back to the endless discussions of who needs to be banned or unblocked or who should be desysopped. Wknight94 ^talk 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, that is what this noticeboard is for... ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how many edits go through this site in a five minute period? Yeah. HalfShadow 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously, HalfShadow, you dropped the ball. A vandalism happened and you missed it? I'm confiscating your Game Cube--you'll have to play with a dead trout for the next week. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wasn't online until 1. If I were, this wouldn't be here. HalfShadow 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing and edit warring by User:DavidOaks at Folk etymology

Comments by User:Medeis

My apologies, this is a technical subject and a long-running dispute. I have tried to summarize the details of User:DavidOaks's (1) edit warring, (2) personal remarks in the article text, (3) misrepresentation of sources, and (4) canvassing. For convenience, the relevant actions are bolded and numbered.

Dispute Background

There is a dispute on the article folk etymology regarding whether that article should be about the well-defined linguistic concept of word-form change (asparagus > sparrow grass) which goes exclusively by that name (a translation form the German Volksetymologie) in numerous prestigious textbooks and dictionaries, or also be about the concept of false etymology in folklore, sometimes also called "folk etymology" and "fake etymology" and so forth which deals with urban legends about the source of a word, (fuck < For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) but not with any historical linguistic change involved. There had long existed two separate articles.

Longstanding issue:

Without consensus, and without any references to sources identifying the two as the same phenomenon, the User:DavidOaks proposed moving the merged articles from the older title "folk etymology" to the newer title "false etymology." This proposal was universally opposed and failed. Yet the move suggested by DavidOaks from "folk etymology" to "false etymology" was effected against consensus anyway. (Sorry, I do not know how to find move diffs.) I saw from the discussion history that the move was effected against consensus and proposed moving the article back under the title "folk etymology" in order to preserve the edit and discussion history. The discussion was unamimous in favor of reverting to the original title, with a comment being made in favor of de-merging false etymology as a separate article.

Recent problems:

Once the article was moved back to "folk etymology", I proceeded to remove the material relevant to the prior article on false etymology, saving it on the talk page for future expansion of false etymology (now a redirect) into its own separate article.

This was met with opposition from DavidOaks who made (1) repeated reversions to the same text rejected by consensus:

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]

Note that in each of these wholesale reversions (2) DavidOaks admonished me by name in the text of the article itself: "Medeis, this is your source, so you'll have to supply the rest." (Note that the material he refers to as a "source" was added to the article by him, never me.)

Frustrated by his repeated restoral of a "basic sense" of the term unsupported by references, I sought out the advice of User:Kwamikagami whom I knew to be well-versed in the field to advise me where to find a discussion board to post the dispute. He suggested WP:Wikiproject Languages where I did post a notice. He also took it upon himself to comment at the article, where he reports that while "initially sympathetic" to DavidOaks, he has become increasingly less so. User:Taivo also responded to my post at WP:Wikiproject Languages

DavidOaks' response, in addition to continuing the edit war, now against Taivo and Kwami, was to make accusations of canvassing and to file an ANI complaint against myself and Kwami which resulted in no sanctions against us, but with doubts expressed as to the relevance of DavidOaks' sources.

Furthermore, DavidOaks continued (3) misrepresenting sources as supporting his POV when they do not even mention the term at hand ("One you quote from Snopes does not use the term (it only appears in a quotation pulled from the internet); a PDF file you use as a ref does not use it at all.").

After the article was frozen, I proceeded to compose an expanded version of the lead based upon the sources. DavidOaks was advised numerous times to consider creating another article or expanding false etymology from a redirect to its own article. He has been warned by others and myself about his edit warring. His response has been snide condescension, and he is now, (4) actively canvassing specifically of editors he judges to be interested in folklore with appeals on their talk pages.

List of Canvassed Editors

This last (the private notification of only editors whom DavidOaks judges to be interested in the topic whose viewpoint he takes, rather than a notification of past editors of the article, or the placement of a notice on a relevant discussion board) is an intentional attempt to gain majority support from editors he judges as potentially sympathetic. The fact that he advises the editors that he is "not" seeking a specific pro- or con- position from them makes it obvious that he is aware of the impropriety of his actions.

• Bruxism
• Woohookitty
• Malleus Fatuorum
• 7&6=thirteen
• Sigurd Dragon Slayer
• Brett epic
• Cynwolfe
• OlEnglish
• Resident Anthropologist
• Phatius
• DBachmann
• Odysses

(End of comments by μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

All much too personal. I'll just say Medeis has facts wrong; a long time ago I expressed an opinion on a move -- I personally had nothing to do with the action, and later saw things differently. Wouldn't know how to do such a thing anyhow. To the issue: I very definitely canvassed. Consulted WP:Canvassing first to make sure I was within appropriate bounds: my purpose was to broaden contribution to discussion, I did not select people for known views, I gave (my best shot at) a neutral description, and publically announced my action to all participants for transparency's sake. DavidOaks (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This most certainly is canvassing. You sent personal messages to a string of editors known personally to you [clarification - by interest, not personally] based on the specific criterion that they be oriented towards folklore.

This is a matter of opinion of appropriate scope, not of fact, apart from David's mistaken belief that the loose definition of 'folk etymology' is the primary one. IMO, the main article should cover the technical term as defined in the OED and MW (not just linguistics sources), just as we do with evolution, force, Ten Commandments, etc etc etc, with the looser topic in a separate article under one of the numerous names used by David's sources. It would perhaps not be inappropriate for the topics to be merged, as David would like, though without the claims of primacy for the loose definition that David placed in the lede. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. If I ever saw DavidOaks' name before he left a message on my page, I don't recall it. I've certainly never communicated with him directly. It's unfair to accuse him of rallying allies in an attempt to stack the deck, if I'm an example. But I do have one opinion: growing efforts to impose artificial restrictions on how WP editors are "allowed" to communicate with each other has a deleterious effect on the encyclopedia. And it's disgustingly hypocritical in a project supposedly devoted to sharing information. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No claim has been made that you are personal friends or acquaintances or that you yourself, Cynewolfe, have done anything wrong. Likewise, this canvassing on his point is only the latest, not the first straw on this camel. What is relevant in the canvassing is this: DavidOaks self-identifies as arguing as a folklorist. Unable to make his POV prevail through a universally opposed request for move, through mischaracterized citations, through endless argument alluding to but not citing sources, through a backfires AN3 complaint, through an RfC with a biased title, through tit-for-tat accusations and repeated personal challenges on the article, he has resorted to recruiting only editors whom he personally selected based on the sole criterion of their being interested in folklore to privately request them to make comments.

You might as well ask only mice to comment on a dispute over the article Tom and Jerry, being careful, of course, to tell them you aren't soliciting a pro- or anti- mouse opinion.μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For more background on the dispute, see a 3RR case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Kwamikagami and User:Medeis reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: Protected) which led to the full protection of the Folk etymology article. The protection will expire on 19 November. Oaks wants to cite Snopes.com in the article. Nobody has yet asked at WP:RSN whether Snopes is an appropriate source to use. The editors could certainly create a WP:Request for comment on how to organize this material, and what meaning of 'Folk etymology' ought to prevail. Lacking a talk page consensus for a new definition of 'Folk etymology', DavidOaks' four reverts of the article between 2 November and 4 November do look like edit warring. (One revert might be WP:BRD, but four reverts are warring). EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an RfC listed by DavidOaks with the title "Has the case been made that the term “Folk etymology” has standard and related uses in linguistics and in folklore?"

As for whether Snopes is an adequate source, here are some other, perhaps more reliable, ones:

• Oxford English Dictionary (on line) "usually, the popular perversion of the form of words in order to render it apparently significant"
• Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, David Crystal, Ed., 1997, p 427: "altering an unfamiliar word to make it more familiar"
• Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, p 415, "Process of word formation based on reinterpretation of meaning"
• Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics, R. L. Trask, p. 124, "an arbitrary change in a word of opaque formation which serves to make that word more transparent in form" or
• Historical and Comparative Linguistics Raimo Anttila, (Benjamins, 1989) ISBN 90-272-3557-0, p. 92: "Another distinct case of iconic remodeling is folk etymology. The term is quite technical, because it is neither folk nor etymology. It means that unfamiliar shapes are replaced by more familiar ones."

μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numerous errors of fact here: never asked for a move -- asked whether others wanted one; I have always been for a single article covering both, as was the case before a unliateral deletion of material that had been in place for years. Never said the folkloric sense was primary -- said it's documented by WP:RS and in steady professional use in juried journals for 100 years (documented). Repeatedly pointed out that Snopes refs were for illustrations on the talk-page to demonstrate usage, never proposed to use them in the article itself. Repeatedly agreed that the term is defined in linguistics. Specifically stated the ref to another user's source was to honor that person's sensitvity to precision. Each of these things is being repeated after correction. I'd rather not be bothered with defending myself. Trying really, really hard to maintain WP:AGF. I am assuming that this is not the appropriate place to continue (or repeat) discussions of the article's substance, so I'll refrain from responding to those matters. DavidOaks (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Lilbadboy312 just does not understand regulations or working with others

Resolved

Sighs, sadly this is the second AfD regarding this user and article(s).

Primary offender

• Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article(s) in question

• In the Dark (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD

• See Report filed 29 September 2010

Issues

Lilbadboy312 had previously been recreating the song article at In the Dark (JoJo song) and due to comments made on the talk page and via revert edit summaries I request full protection of the page which was fulfilled. I then had no chance but to report said user as he/she was forking article to try and find a name that could be used to create the article. This resulted in an Report filed 29 September 2010 AfD posted on 29 September. Since then the said user has complained that its not fair but when pointed to WP:NSONGS he/she cannot address the concerns that "In the Dark" meets the minimum notability standards. On November 12, 2010 Lilbadboy312 has found a new way of creating the article... he's moved In the Dark (song) (which was originally about the Tiesto song) to In the Dark (Tiësto song), in order to create the article for JoJo song. Is there some intervention required here? Surely its a case of WP:IDHT. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the new version, history merged it to the redirected one, and then redirected and protected it again. Moved the Tiesto version back to the original name. And final-warned the user. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So, does that end the recently started discussion of the proposal to merge the article about "In the Dark", the JoJo song, into the article about the album Can't Take That Away from Me? The discussion is at Talk:Can't Take That Away from Me#Proposed merge from In the Dark (song). If the discussion is going to continue for the usual minimum of 7 days, In the Dark (JoJo song) should be restored to an article until the discussion is over. If not, In the Dark (JoJo song) should redirect to Can't Take That Away from Me, instead of to JoJo (singer). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No - the song article shouldn't exist on its own, that was the previous consensus; however, the only question is where is should redirect to. If the consensus is that it should redirect to the album, then contact myself or any other admin to alter it. Meanwhile, the history of the song article is still there for editors to access if they wish to merge any of the material. That's why I merged the history into the exsting In the Dark (JoJo song). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Can this post serve as my official request to have the song redirect to the album, instead of to the musical artist? That's the usual practice in such cases. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't Take that Away from Me is a mixtape not an album but either way thank you both for your interjections/interventions. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge (offenses on my talk page)

• Heitor C. Jorge (talk): Vandalism here and here (he wrote in Portuguese) - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know Portugese, but I know some Spanish, and I recognize his first comment to mean "shut your mouth", i.e. "shut up", which in English is considered a rude comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Edwardo, please see the note at the top and notify users you are reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• It would also be best (though I'm not sure it's a hard-and-fast rule) to keep talk page conversations primarily in English, this being the English wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Cala boca, shut up, shut your mouth, its the kind of thing your children say to you...Nao seja idiota - don't be an idiot, stay of my talkpage, I am busy improving the project..... Someone needs to have a word with him and ask him to please stick to English as this is the En Wikipedia and ask him to read WP:CIVIL a stiff word should suffice. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done that  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both editors were writing in Portugese. Perhaps a caution to both, to write in English, and maybe I should give google translate a shot at it? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its, a bit rude a minor personal attack, first warning should suffice, no swear words. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Retired Trolling.

I dunno if anyone cares about his except me but please take a look at User talk:MJfan9 Specifically the last two subsections labeled retiring and the smart quotes. I'm of the opinion if he wants to retire that's his choice but when he starts putting things that are borderline insults to the people here we should draw the line. If this is not a big deal fine but maybe protecting the userpage and having them email if they want to contribute usefully is in order? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The "smart quotes" section doesn't make clear who he's talking about, and isn't especially offensive anyway. The other part only makes reference to Wikipedia where it says "i have no use of the Nerdy Overloaded Information Website they call Wikipedia" but I think we can probably manage not to feel too insulted at that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF, "Overloaded"? Surely they mean Overlorded!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

im sorry put how Exactly is that an insult? also i said i was Retired in the sense that i dont edit any articles anymore but i do occasionally come back and edit my talkpage ([[User talk:MJfan9#top|Hi! why dont you sit down for a minute and talk?]]) (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest Hell In A Bucket should unwatch that talkpage and stop worrying about it. A few other people have watchlisted it by now, so if something genuinely appalling were to be posted there, it will get dealt with. This is rather a storm in a very small teacup for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks based on nationality

Hi,

I was trying to avoid this but now this has gone off limits. So here is the deal:

There is some discussion about which pictures should be included in the History section of the article Arc de Triomphe. This started on September 26th when DIREKTOR added the image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg to this section. This image depicts German troops marching on the Champs-Élysées with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Some heated discussions and reverts happened next, actions that I did not take part in.

The result of these discussions were that 3 images stayed in the history section, leaving this section over-imaged. Also these images were all depicting events from the 20th Century remotely connected with the Arc de Triomphe itself. (see the article at this state).

I then decided to be bold and try a new set of images for this section, depicting events more closely related to the Arc, namely a drawing of the project by the architect of the Arc himself (File:Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile - Projet Chalgrin - 02.jpg), and a drawing of the return of the ashes of Napoleon (File:Retour des Cendres - 1.jpg), Napoleon being the one that ordered the construction of the Arc.

I knew these changes would be controversial but did justify them in the discussion page of the article ([64]) and did personally notify the 2 contributors involved in this edit war ([65] and [66]). I was also prepared to have these changes modified but was not prepared for what happened next.

DIREKTOR started to be arrogant and insulting me. This is how he commented my contribution : "Rv (badly disguised ;)) image censorship." ([67]) and this is how he commented is addition to the talk page : "Nice try" ([68]).

He has falsely accused me of removing discussions from Frania Wisniewska talk page. ([69]). He also accused me of considering other contributors as "stupid". ([70])

All this attacks against me made me decided me to set up a request for comments on that issue so that it could be finally settled with more than 2 contributors. I made sure to present the issue in the most objective way I could. ([71])

DIREKTOR once again misunderstood my request for comments by claiming that I have an "agenda" . ([72]) For this he cites a discussion between me and Frania_Wisniewska which happened prior to the RfC. I did not discuss this RfC with anyone so I am wondering what agenda DIREKTOR is mentioning. He also mentions my presumed "patriotic sentiment". ([73]) He goes on with calling me a patriot Frenchman as part of the "patriot Frenchmen" he mentions. He uses an arrogant tone by using the expression "you and your buddies". ([74])

In conclusion, in this issue I wanted to improve the article by correcting the layout and the chronology of the pictures. I knew there would be discussion over this change but justified my changes and notified people. When the discussion stopped because of attacks over my nationality, I opened a RfC only to have DIREKTOR come back to his rant against the French people. Badzil (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• LOL, you made my day. Thanks for the chuckles... buy don't we have a policy on edit warring. Although he is now into personal attacks. Well see what the admins do about it. --Hinata talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not complain on edit warring, I complain solely on the issue of personal attacks. The edit war should hopefully be settled by the RfC. Badzil (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Is 'patriotic Frenchman' really an insult? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course not, this is a content dispute ad hominem report. I did not insult anyone nor will I. The user needs to read WP:NPA more carefully before trying to get rid of me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• For background, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Content removal. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I certainly do believe it is obvious a group of French users is ganging-up to remove a (very famous) photograph image of German troops marching in Paris - from several articles. And I do believe this is the (dare I say it? :) agenda of those users. The image had already been removed from the lead of the Battle of France article contrary to previously established consensus, and now the same is being attempted at the Arc de Triomphe article. Likely there are more examples.

The user is trying to get me blocked for opposing his edits based on my statements of the above. Instead, I would like to invite you guys to have at this strange mess [75]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• One of the user(s) there claims there is a conspiracy against the French military. They have also complained in the past that that iconic image of the Nazi troops marching near the Arch of Triumph is somehow connected with support of the Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Talk of various conspiracy theories doesn't seem very helpful here, nor grouping users together according to their presumed nationality. There are compelling reasons for the prominent use of this picture in articles like the Battle of France. There is an obvious irony, however, in using it with WP:UNDUE prominence in an article about a French triumphal arch, since it shows a moment in history which was decidely not about a French triumph. In an article about an architectural feature, is this not just trying to make a WP:POINT? For comparison I looked at Eiffel tower where there is a very balanced set of pictures and detailed content about the German occupation. As far as "iconic images" go, the victory parade of De Gaulle qualifies just as much. The images have been moved around a lot lately: my proposal would be to gather relevant images, including this one, in a gallery, with detailed captions. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [Multiple disclosures: I have contributed to an article about another triumphal arch in France, the Porte d'Aix. I am not a member of the French military or any other category that might come to mind. I have received money from the French state.]
    • One can take it personally or one can accept that that is certainly one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch - and also the only one which shows it being used in its actual function. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that I am part of an agenda to remove that image. I stated on DIREKTOR's talk page that this is indeed not my goal. And how does the creation of a request for comments show my non-acceptance of the fact that the picture is "one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch"? How about letting users comment in terms of relevancy without again starting a nationality-based rant? Finally apologize for your false accusation of me deleting discussions and remove it from the talk page. Badzil (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of interesting images could be put in a gallery without endlessly discussing their relative merits and demerits—that's always subjective. As far as French sensibilities are concerned, perhaps the issues with this image might be similar to those with equally "iconic" images of the collapse of the twin towers in Manhattan (see below and the image actually used in the article). Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks

Talk:September 11 attacks could use a few more eyes. There's been an uptick in aggressive fringe-pushing, Catalyzingevent (talk · contribs) being the latest, accusing other editors of "vandalism" for trying to keep order. The two latest SPAs have been formally warned of potential ArbCom enforcement measures. Acroterion _(talk) 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser time...the style and disruption is likely from one individual...the IP's and SPA's all have the same message..all the IP's came from the same origination..my guess is the ongoing bogus account creations are the same "editor".--MONGO 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a repeat of bad Wikipedia behavior - don't like someone, call them a sock. The better way is to conclude that fringe pushing, whether by 1 editor or 25 editors, is still fringe pushing. It is too childish to complain about socks just because one is too juvenile to explain their reasoning. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to suspect the same. All the recently created talk page sections read like a single narrative to me, with a single author, regardless of the differing signatures. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You can invade my privacy and extend formal apology after examining results of your illegal conduct based on utterly unfounded, if not ludicrous, allegations. Catalyzingevent (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been a lot of "new" accounts that have been showing up with the same message...all the recent IP vandalism has been from the same origination point...that doesn't mean you're the same as the IP's....if I've offended your editing contributions contributions I apologize.--MONGO 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mongo, it is obvious that we're dealing with controversial and (to many) excessively uncomfortable issues. However, and in my opinion, we should take good care, to avoid rash, "automatic" decisions. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes...I concur. It's important we maintain perspective about the facts of every case...and apply the principle of Occam's razor to those things that seem circumspect.--MONGO 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I had heard that UFO's may have had something to do with 9/11...one was spotted there but a little more than a year before the event...[76]--MONGO 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you? I've read you had publicly admitted working for Department of Homeland Security, I'm sure it's a load of bull... Catalyzingevent (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that I, being a secret employee of NASA, have inside info that the reason the twin towers were destroyed was to cover up information stored therein that would have revealed that we never went to the moon; that Elvis is alive and well; and that the one true religion is the Church of Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not bull...I am personally in charge of sending out all the black helicopters to ensure all those that don't comply with the official government message are whisked off for reeducation.--MONGO 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Illegal" conduct??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, you see, what is illegal is determined by your local administrate, some administrates think that privacy is fundamental right, if you breach it, you become a villain. Some legislators take it so far that it is safe to say that "upcoming" regulations and criminal offence categorization will impact internet as we know it. If needed, I'll gladly update any dedicated article we have, but it is certainly not something we should debate here. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You subject yourself to IP tracking by editing WP. Please see our privacy policy.  7  04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "illegal" about wikipedia checkusers tracking down your IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Catalyzingevent--Hi. Welcome. Have you edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? And just so I'm clear, who are you asserting is engaging in legal conduct> What conduct in particular are you saying is illegal? Where are they engaging in this illegal conduct? For example, are you saying that it is illegal for Wikipedia to review editors editing and IP addresses, to determine if they are one and the same? And if you think that conduct is illegal, where does that leave us?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regards, if I'd to guess, I'd say it leaves us with fully implemented or partially implemented recommendations and/or regulations… these are pretty well framed within our own policy, one that will most certainly reflect any forthcoming global policies regulators are keen to establish. Did you know that regulators in EU are enthusiastic about chipping people? Wonder where does that leave us and are we astray? I've already said that you can freely, that would be with my consent, verify unfounded claims made above.., there is just as much time I can dedicate to project… and this really seems like a waste. Perhaps you could examine "aggressive fringe-pushing" allegation and circumstances that brought us here in first place? It would be grand if discussion there could unfold without… disruptions. I'll have to read your take some other day though. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What has implanted chips got to due with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with the ol' blocking bits please compare this diff (link to included diff) with this diff and do whatever seems appropriate? — Gavia immer (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WP:DUCK --Tarage (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him. There is no reason to keep dancing with him for days; he has no interest in anything but getting his fringe theories into Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've blocked 174.89.53.180 (talk · contribs) who's evading a 48-hour block on 174.89.52.62 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 20:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Followed immediately by a rampage by Freedom5000 (talk · contribs), now blocked by PeterSymonds, so that part's been clarified. Acroterion _(talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catalyzingevent is started, hopefully we can get some range blocks down The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Truther attacks on talk page was unrelated Catalyzingevent. So normal drive by vandalism The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Article being moved repeatedly without discussion.

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

discussion has begun in earnest at the talk page. No need to keep this open anymore --Jayron32 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Chnou (talk · contribs) has apparently missed the D in WP:BRD, and thinks that it is WP:BRBRBRBRBRB. See the history of Franco American* (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (yes, WITH the asterisk), where it is right now. This used to be located at French American, and a user boldly moved it. Fine, but based on rapid disagreement popping up at the talk page from several editors, I reverted the move; for one there was no prior move discussion, for another the perplexing use of an asterisk in the title has not been explained at all. He just now moved it BACK to the asterisked version over my revert. I'd rather not let this escalate further, can another admin, who has never edited the article, please return the prior status quo and encourage this person to use the talk page in lieu of repeatedly moving the article against objections? --Jayron32 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The asterisk is there, because I could not move it to Franco American without it. I would have preferred not to have it.--Chnou (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have lived in New England all my life, and not once did I hear someone say that they were French American. They say they are Franco-Americans because their ancesters came from Canada, and not France, between 1840 and 1930. To put it in perspective, it is like saying that Americans who immigrated to another country one hundred years ago, are no longer of American descent, but of British, German or whatever. Time has changed, and people, languages, cultures and civilisations as well. There is now a greater difference that separates French Canadians with Frenchmen than Frenchmen with Germans. Too negate all that is too say that none of us are truly american in the sense of the word. If the majority, who are of French Canadian or Canadien descent cannot be called by their rightful name, Franco-Americans, then I suggest that there be two sites, one for the Frenchies, and one for the descendants of Canadiens and Acadiens.--Chnou (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine. But after your move was reverted, you need to discuss the matter. No less than 4 editors objected to your move. Please take up a discussion at the talk page of the article, and arrive at a consensus BEFORE doing the move again. --Jayron32 05:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I put a CSD-tag onto it. And before you come up with more weird stuff, Franco American©, Franco American², Franco American@ or whatever are considered page-move vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Now, hold on Seb_az86558, there's no need to drop accusations of vandalism where there are none. It is clear from his explanation that he's acting in good faith. Please don't call things vandalism if it isn't. Edit warring is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarize yourself with what is, and is not, appropriate to call vandalism. Mislabeling anothers edits as vandalism rarely results in productive discussions moving forward. Lets instead focus on the behavior that HAS actually occured, and try to work on fixing that. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • • It is clear (or should be) from context that this referred to future actions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Future actions would still not be vandalism. Vandalism is all about intent. He's not attempting to degrade the quality of the article intentionally. He's trying to make it better, in his own eyes. Any attempt to make articles better, no matter how misguided, are not vandalism. They may be edit warring, tendentious editing, refusal to get the point, etc. etc. There's lots of ways one can be wrong, but only one of them is vandalism. Please use the term correctly.--Jayron32 06:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Uh-oh! SpaghettiOs!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree and close this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that! --Jayron32 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Request for Removal of Sanction

• Thread regarding this.

Back in April, I was put on an effective ban from using "Vandalism" button on TWINKLE. Since then, I haven't, but a couple minor mistakes (four to be exact), have no issued any vandalism warnings (the ones issued by mistake were reverted in seconds) and have only issued warnings for "edit tests" just I have just written out vandalism warnings. I feel the ban has done its job and gotten me to examine what is and isn't vandalism more closely and I wish to have the sanction/ban removed with community approval. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support lifting of restriction. Contributions look good, using rollback properly. So long as Neutralhomer follows the standard vandalism warning progression (huggle does this automatically) I see no need to keep the editing restriction. Do however be sure to respect WP:CIVIL when dealing with the inevitable mistaken revert (as well as the angry vandals). N419BH 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• The terms of the probation that Neutralhomer agreed to said that he would stop using "vandalism" in edit summaries. I see four instances in which he did so in October,[77][78][79][80] and one in November.[81] That's disappointing but, on the plus side, in each of those cases there was actual vandalism. Neutralhomer is clearly acting in good faith and with abundant energy. I support lifting this probation, so long as he is fully aware that he is responsible for every edit, even when he's using a semi-automated tool. If he returns to over-eager use of the "vandalism" button on Twinkle then he has already used up his chances and that tool should be removed. I expect that won't be necessary and wish him well in his clean-up efforts.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as per Will, user seems to have understood the correct use of the button. The occasional mistake or miss hit shouldn't be a removal issue going forward but if the user returns to a pattern of misuse then removal of the tool may be the only solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment - have the supporters seen this thread? [82] .. sorry NH it just seems like you are still very eager to accuse people of vandalism.. but i don't know the whole story so i'm not voting just commenting. BEARinAbasket (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Giving the editor another chance. If the pattern returns then the tool should be removed. I don't have a issue with the four miss clicks that have occurred. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Since s/he has been manually checking things out,I say give another chance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban; user seems to have learned from the experience, and has since performed very well with only a couple of minor mistakes. Dreadstar ☥ 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment - this is very upsetting [83] .. NeutralHomer has just accused me of being a sock of the user he was trying to get blocked, above. Is this what happens when someone questions his attitude? Also - did anyone who "supported" read through the original thread? NeutralHomer (as much as I like his name) seems to have problems with wikistalking. I see this as evidence of that. I'm not sure what to do about this actually. BEARinAbasket (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on user's talk page

Usually I'm of the opinion that a user's talk page is more or less their business, but this is a pretty nasty personal attack [84], particularly since it's essentially taunting a user under a topic ban. It's also pretty preposterous in that it insinuates the user is somehow associated with Nazi-sympathizers. Will someone at the very least tell Petri to remove that crap? Note that Petri's got a history of such behavior. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bull! Despite our differences in opinion and wikilayering at WP:AE, we are simply having a friendly chat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the article in the New Your Times: John Demjanjuk was acquitted. Based on the this, one must conclude that the Latvians – whom Volunteer Marek prefers to call Nazi-sympathizers – did a great favor to justice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk had a small circle of supporters to be sure, but why must you "conclude that the Latvians (all 2.2 million of them) did a great favor to justice"? --Martin (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, thank you Volunteer Marek, certainly in the era of conflict what you cite would most definitely be baiting. And in fairness and full disclosure, that did immediately cross my mind. (And to Petri, contending semantically that it was Volunteer Marek—not yourself—making Latvians out to be Nazi-sympathizers is disingenuous at best, and you know that, so let's not play that game.) That said, I have made a proposal to Petri at Offliner's enforcement request which I consider to be a touchstone for whether Petri chooses dialog or conflict, that is, whether we were, or were not, simply having a friendly chat over the Demjanuk matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

racebaiting by 220.220.159.189

220.220.159.189 is adding unrelated POV redlinks to Antisemitism in Japan, vide http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=396741244 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=397000952 . When properly reverted, he screams antisemitism. I am tired of seeing the racecard here where none is warranted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed the user and left them a message. Other contributions are unproblematically constructive, so hopefully they will listen. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory remarks

I bring to your attention derogatory remarks made in my talk page User talk:Kumarrao by User:Indianprithvi against an Indian social group Kamma (caste) and also branding me as a caste fanatic. The user has reverted my edit with proper citation several times in the article Rajus and is annoyed with me for making the particular edit. Kumarrao (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be an advantage if an Indian editor could take a look — cultural dimensions are taken so much for granted on that talkpage that I found it a little difficult to be sure what was going on and who, if anybody, was at fault. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen,

Please refer to all the edits and conversations between User talk:Kumarrao and myself (User:Indianprithvi) for the past two years or so. Mr Kumarrao always comes up with some half knowledged points and when I give the proper explanation he jumps to some other point or give some irrational/absurd answer. I always said evidences should be based on rational and which make sense. I never engaged myself against any other Indian caste, it can be verified. While Mr Kumarrao has been up against several Indian castes, he clearly follows one rule for his own caste Kammas while he makes a different rule for other castes. He has reverted several of My edits in Kammas as well as Rajus which were genuinely accepted by Indian historians. While reverting he never justifies the logic and rational. There is nothing racist in my comments. These can be verified by the admins. Indianprithvi (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Peace is contagious

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat to "sue for libel" here. Despite being asked to retract it by Doc9871 (talk · contribs) here, the user has not. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not (Kyle Baker) the subject in question over the line 'I lie all the time', I was informed that I cannot sue (anyone) for libel. So this issue is moot. And the line seems to now be in context within the article, instead of randomly placed near the end. Yworo seems to be an over-zealous comic book fan. (SIGH) Cheers! Peace is contagious (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace you have been asked to remove it, unless you do that and retract it, you will likely be blocked (again) wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Near of the end of User talk:Peace is contagious, at 16:53, 16 November 2010, 40 minutes after the above, User:Peace is contagious again makes legal accusations against me: "Mr Tenebrae seems to be a bit slack w/ his Wiki edits, if not even libelous. I suggest u take a few law school classes urself, sir."

As someone who has indeed taken classes in journalism and the law, I can tell you the first thing you learn is, "Truth is not libelous."

In any event, Peace is contagious himself expanded on the quote and moved it to a section of the article where it fits perfectly well. He did this at 15:16, 16 November 2010 — so even after doing so, when presumably the quote is no longer an issue with him, he specifically returned an hour and half later to made his accusation against me. That just seems gratuitous and a late shot, for no reason other than to maliciously attack another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out the irony of someone with the name "Peace is contagious" threatening anyone with anything, but I think you all get it. HalfShadow 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind the old satirical definition of peace: "Short period of preparation for the next war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think with the excuse that the editor isn't somebody else doesn't matter. A threat to sue is there and not retracted so I think no legal threats needs to be applied to get the point across much stronger. This is not a game to play which is what it is starting to look like with doing it again an hour and half later. Make sure this time it get through, no legal threats are allowed, period. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are not to be tolerated, and the editor refuses to retract. So why is the editor not yet blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed a very good question Bugs. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And now answered by an admin. He gawn (until or if he retracts). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year

Resolved

 – Thanks, guys. Bishonen

I'm scared of blocking IPs altogether, it always turns out I've blocked the whole of Saudi Arabia or something. But I've now blocked 75.147.76.9 for a year. This is a vandalism-only account which had just returned from a year's block set by J. delanoy.[85] My notion is that, though I know nothing of ranges, I'm sure JD does, and I'll be safe as long as I imitate him. I still feel a bit nervous, though. Could somebody please tell me this block is OK, or unblock if it isn't? Bishonen | talk 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

• Looking at this or similar web pages showing IP allocations by country may help (which I have to look at from time to time, as one time early in my adminship I inadvertently blocked the entire United Arab Emirates). –MuZemike 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• I actually fixed the ARIN hyperlink that you'll find at the bottom of the account's contributions history, a month or so ago, so that it contined to work. Follow the "America" link, and you'll find that not only are your worries based upon the improbable eventuality that Saudi Arabia has moved to Philadelphia, but that it's fairly clear who and what the person is (combining the geolocation information with the favourite article). Or you could just see the big notice at the top of User talk:75.147.76.9. ☺

  The long-standing problem with this sort of situation is that although we have ways to contact the ISP we don't have (a) ways to contact the parents nor (b) ways to make the reports to the ISP more credible to the ISP than merely people on a WWW site, who don't even run the place, with pseudonyms like "Bishzilla" and "Uncle G". If you'd like to encourage the construction of a mechanism for rectifying the latter, please join me at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Things that you could really help us by doing. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Little uncle reminding me: have encountered these little pests? Perhaps more credible for contacting parents? bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

I think this block is appropriate. I am 90% confident this is a school. The IP is registered to Comcast, the large American ISP. Treceroute data shows it's a business or organizational customer of Comcast's in the Philadelphia area. Comcast's business IPs are pretty static. Also, unlike many other ISPs, American cable TV companies like Comcast and Charter seldom identify their end business customers, so schools using Comcast are usually not identified in Whois or traceroute data. Looking at the edits over time, I see a lot of childish edits. All the edits occur during American school hours and none over the summer or holidays. There are many edits to Archbishop Ryan High School, a Philadelphia school -- I'm guessing this is probably that school's IP.

We have many good school-aged students editing and administering Wikipedia; contributors like that can always log-in and use the school's connection the way you've set up the block. In the meantime, bored kids looking to fiddle with our articles will have to do their school work instead. If this was a different sort of IP (hotel, college or something more dynamicly re-assigned), I'd block for a shorter period.

The account was blocked 6 times before with escalating time periods, the last being a year. Personally, I would have chosen 20 or 21 months to get to the end of the next school year, but 12 months is certainly fine. I wouldn't go past 20-21 months.

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Your block does that while allowing access to serious contributors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's highly, highly likely to be an IP at Archbishop Ryan High School. Fitting block. Nothing to stop a GF editor from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Stinks of a school. I've always said school IPs should be soft-blocked upon discovery, but whaddya gonna do... HalfShadow 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say confirmed, since this IP also edits elsewhere in regards to this school. This should be added to the templated msg on the talk page IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the IP is almost certainly connected with a particular school, maybe one of our admins (preferably one with something resembling a real name) could contact the school about this problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A school will likely be a Nazi and say "no Wikipedia for anyone". Wikipedia is against change but if there were a system where if you have shown you are a good editor and have edited a bit, you can edit from any school, even if the school has troublemakers. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem could easily be addressed by requiring registration. Someday, though probably not soon, the lightbulb will finally come on for the wikipedia community, and they will decide that anyone can still edit, but that they must be registered - as with any other website that allows input from the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested this for the last couple of years, at least for schools, as that's where a good amount of the vandalism comes from, but nobody will go for it. HalfShadow 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They won't go for it until a critical mass of exasperation accumulates. Apparently we're not there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible misuse of Twinkle

Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edits listed below by Львівське appear to be a misuse of Twinkle. Also, three of them refer to "vandalism" although they appear to be content disputes.

• "removing soviet propaganda and alleged 6 month duration"[86]
• "vandalism"[87]
• "vandalism"[88]
• "reverted 1 edit"[89]
• "(Reverted 2 edits by Paweł5586 (talk) identified as vandalism":[90]

TFD (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, you have talked to them about the issue before coming here, offering advice? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I expected a reply like the one provided below and would prefer that someone else explain it to him. TFD (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on now. This is cherry picking. Pawel's edits were disruptive, that's why he's on vacation now and teetering on another year long ban. The Patrick Kane revert was vandalism, someone was throwing in random crap to the article ("this player is dating Jane Doe" comments are flagged and removed all the time from hockey articles). The Ukrainsche Hilfspolizei revert was justified (the other user broke the 3R rule and was also reverted by another user), Khadr edit was being discussed on talk page; and the Petri material was yet another vexation of propaganda use and following the same pattern of disruptive edits that Jo0doe (now permanently banned) was doing (Petri is trying to get him unbanned so it's not odd that hes following his edit style as well). Honestly TFD, you've been disruptive enough in your attacks on the Holodomor article, and have already shown that you follow me around looking for fights [based on your comments in the talk page there] so quit this cherry picking nonsense.--Львівське (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

... you really don't understand either what vandalism means, or how to use Twinkle, do you? I would recommend giving yourself 48 hours off of its use to read the appropriate policies and documents or else a longer break may be given involuntarily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen Twinkle misused. Sometimes, it's used as a "I don't like it" tool rather than a tool against vandalism. Part of the problem is that there is too little discipline in Wikipedia. ANI is another area that shows that there is too little discipline in Wikipedia. Unruly regular editors, I can see, but administrators should always display the highest caliber of behavior. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the diffs do not show clear vandalism. The user should be more careful. If he continues to misuse Twinkle it may be disabled.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Review

I did this, which is a bit of a conflict of interest considering I also started the WP:AFD. Considering it was front-page material I figured it's better to minimize visibility into that, so I removed it instead of asking someone else. Now that that's done, I'm asking another admin to review it. I'm not asking for an essay on "why you shouldn't have done that" etc., if you disagree with me, just undo it; I won't be able to log on for the next few hours anyway. I'm just posting here for visibility into the potential issue. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-admin) Fair enough, we just need to stick back in some other blurb to regain balance on the main page...as I recall, we try to keep it about the same length so that the right-hand side stays about the same length as the left, and it looks off on the particular monitor I'm using. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process

There is some really disruptive and confusing behavior going on at this AfD. Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has moved the article being discussed Aircraft design process to Aircraft design. He then removed the redirect at Aircraft design process and started a new article. This seems like a blatant attempt to disrupt the AfD process, and is in line with Colonel Warden's recent actions. He was just here for unilaterally removing tags from articles without addressing the problems raised by the tags. He isn't a new contributor, and surely he knows how AfDs work, even if he thinks that no articles should ever be deleted. I think something needs to be done. AniMate 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• He's skated-by being blocked several times recently, so block for a week for the disruption, and apply some sort of restriction going forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Editors can read the discussion for all the details. The short form is that there are ~24000 books about aircraft design, respectable books such as Aircraft Design. Nevertheless, some editors seem to think that we shouldn't have an article on this topic, which seems quite remarkable. Anyway, if the consensus is that we should delete all this well-sourced material then we still can. What's the problem? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  The AfD was supposed to be about a specific article-text at the title "Aircraft design process". You have disrupted it all by re-stacking the deck and trying to make this seem to be about the general topic of "aircraft design". WP:DE, WP:GAME, WP:POINT... you're ripe for resolution. Jack Merridew 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I haven't seen either article, there is the potential to have both articles. Aircraft design could cover things like biplane and jets. Aircraft design process is a different matter. It could be about the steps or process to design airplanes. Aircraft buffs and engineers can probably say this better than me.

As far as the first sentence of this complaint, this is not disruptive IF there is a genuine article to be written. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is disruptive because it confuses the whole AfD process. Which article is currently being discussed at the AfD? Is it both? It is the original article? Is it the newly created article? It is disruptive. AniMate 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This was an article with obvious significant underlying content and validity as a notable topic; there's no requirement that we must delete a bad article for an obviously good and notable topic and then recreate it, rather than start fixing it, just because someone asked to delete the bad one.

Warden has for all intents and purposes deleted the old article and started over again with the content work, which has a ways to go but is headed in the right direction. This is the right outcome. The process used was perhaps slightly hinky, but not a process violation. The request here - to insist that he be punished, that the article be forced to be deleted, then restarted from scratch, rather than let him continue working on improving it now that the objectionable structure and content are all gone, is approaching a shrubbery.

There's no actionable issue here. Let it go, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the thread at User talk:Black Kite#Colonel Warden is at it again? Jack Merridew 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Two incoherent articles instead of one? How could that be disruptive? Both are forks from Aerospace engineering for the moment, though I could see a split (written by someone whose actual done an overview of the literature) eventually of Aircraft design -- though it would be a lot of minutiae. It's part of the process of fragmenting things into poor bits of information, rather than making it possible to have larger bits of actual knowledge (and adds to the problem of unwatched and unedited articles). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the AFD at now? is it closed> ... here is it, lost in limbo Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aircraft_design - It looks like disruptive activity to me and disruptive of process, creating a new article and redirects during an AFD on an article flagged for rescue. I suggest the new stub and the redirects be deleted and Colonel Warden advised to let process run its course correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft design is what the article nominated was renamed to, that its original name before being changed. Check the discussion in the AFD. It now links to the proper AFD, that fixed. After sorting through the information, he decided to make an article for the design process, which is a totally different article, nothing to do with the one that was named that before. And this situation was closed. Go to that AFD and joined the discussion if you want. Dream Focus 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Give over, its a fork recreation in the middle of an AFD, totally disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe a rule should be instituted that articles at AfD can only be moved if a consensus is reached in the AfD to make the move. This would cover most reasonable moves (e.g. person's name is misspelled) and prevent moves that might be contentious. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is somewhat reminiscent of another editor who repeatedly merged articles during AfD to confuse the process. It is disruptive to derail the discussion in this way and should be discouraged. pablo 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Messing around like that during an AFD messes up the discussion completely, people come along and go, what is actually going on here and they are unable to pass a simple opinion. Its hard to see good faith in such actions, although I am looking for it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe he believes that he's improving an article. It's hard to see good faith reasons if you're already convinced it's bad faith.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, he clearly didn't improve the AFD on that article, you may as well close it now as in truth, its been disrupted. Close -procedural close only - process was disrupted. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Improving articles > improving AFD discussions.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Col Warden's controversial behavior aside, the article being improved is unambiguously the right outcome here, and process wonkery isn't helping. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats basically true but we need the process without it the whole thing falls into diss-aray. Demeaning the AFD process by renaming and forking out and creating redirects in the middle of one to create a three line stub that has not been created for the last six years is not worth the belittling of the AFD process, or are you suggesting that renaming and creating redirects in the middle of an AFD is an acceptable option that we should see happening without issue? Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If your actions show that you believe that the article needs a different title and different contents, aren't you then by all logic supporting the deletion of the original article, instead of supporting keeping it? The logic of !voting to keep an atricle in an AfD, when in reality you aren't keeping anything from it, escapes me. Anyway, clearly disruptive. Fram (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

A time-line to all of this would be useful

• At 20.00 10 November the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process.
• 22.37 11 November This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden
• The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design.
• 09.44 16 November Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page querying what article the AFD should be discussing.
• 19.20 16 November Uncle G had to move the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled.

The effect is that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Despite being told at 09.44 16 Nov there was a problem and acknowledging the warning by responding at 12.58, no corrective action was taken and it was left to Uncle G to fix Col Walden's actions. This is highly disruptive and I cannot see how the AFD can possibly stand now as it is utterly tainted by the confusion over the page. This is unacceptable I the fact that Col Walden took no corrective action when warned makes me think that this was intentional to derail the AFD. He is experienced, claims to understand policy but his behaviour is now becoming disruptive. Please can someone deal with this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could everyone please take a deep breath and calm down for a moment? There's a lot of bad faith being thrown around here toward Colonel Warden and almost no one is considering the fact that he, most likely, did this to improve the article. Yes, he should have discussed it first before he did so, but his efforts were clearly to improve the article in question, which he saw to be at an improper title for the information. Overall, he has drastically improved the now two articles and clearly shown their notability. In this instance, it seems that Colonel used our WP:IAR policy to improve the encyclopedia and he has overwhelmingly done so. The AfD has really not been disrupted, unless you believe that articles should not be improved while an AfD is ongoing, which is against the entire purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here. Punishing Colonel for something he did to improve Wikipedia is definitely not preventative or even punitive, but vindictive. Silverseren^C 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  I endorse this sentiment. I honestly fear that some here are more interested in "winning the AFD" than coming out with an improved article(s).--Cube lurker (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  If a deletionist did this you would both be up in arms. This cannot possibly be excused by IAR and is an appalling waste of other editors' time and efforts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't. It doesn't matter who did it, since it's quite clear that they improved the article by doing it and made it a very obvious notable topic. That gains my approval any day, as it should for every editor of Wikipedia. Yes, he disrupted the AfD, but I still don't understand why you and others believe that Colonel Warden expressly set out to do that. I believe he set out to make a better article and accidentally messed up the AfD in the process. Go ahead and make another AfD if you'd like, but I don't see it ending in Delete for the topic as it is now. Silverseren^C 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good faith is not assumed blindly and IAR is not a shield to do whatever you want. IAR means you are still responsible for your actions. You still have to explain why you did them and you're still held accountable. Colonel Warden has been around the block enough to know when he's being disruptive, and this was clearly disruptive. No reasonable person could think otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't we have a recent thread about renaming articles during AfD? Was that one Warden-related, too? I personally never do it, even when recommended (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Medical Eponyms Discouraged Because of Nazi Associations) because of the perceived disruption. I agree that renames during AfD should be avoided, although I have no personal familiarity with the topic under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  The last time I see that this was discussed was here. There's no apparent participation by Colonel Warden in the discussion, but the consensus is clear that moves during AfD may be appropriate when the name prejudices the discussion, but must be done in a way that preserves the AfD history. Colonel Warden did not do this in this case. At the same time, it does not appear that he was requested to do so in the notification listed in the timeline, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  Colonel Warden also renamed Clear Heels after it was put up for discussion. They then proceeded to add sources which did not support the cited material (see comments in edit history for examples) and stacked the AfD by involving the "Article Rescue Squad". That article, incidentally, was created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Wiki brah, who has a long history of creating articles like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Thanks for the timeline Spartaz, very clearly shows how the edits make the AFD worthless.. Fair enough, he says he did it with good intentions but it messed up a lot of process for no or close to no content improvement and he needs telling not to do it again. And someone might as well close the AFD its valueless now.Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• My thanks, too, for the timeline; I think it's right... To be blunt about this, Colonel Warden is engaging in much the same sort of behaviour as his now-banned friend A Nobody engaged in: confounding AfDs. It's that simple. This particular AfD is a screwed-pooch, so I expect it should be closed, the behaviour be strongly addressed, and the debris deleted. Ya, that's at AfD, too; same damn wiki-problem. Someone do something about the big-picture-problem, ok. Jack Merridew 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  We could just ban everybody and shut down the encyclopedia. That would solve everyone's problems. –MuZemike 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  Not that I'm in favour of it, but one possible future of the project is largely-locking the content down and a few remaining editors engaging in 'maintenance'. Another is that most serious people simple stop caring and the IPs and littluns edit away without rules. Or we could defend the project. Jack Merridew 23:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Precedents

Here are some examples of previous bold moves during AFD:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-line
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterography
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Pig (2nd nomination)

I am familiar with the latter case as I gave Uncle G a barnstar for his fine work on that occasion. I am just following the good example of editors such as Uncle G, Tikiwont and Tim Vickers. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I've moved things during AfD, but the one I'm recalling involved punctuation. You're actively disruptive, however. Jack Merridew 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The change I made in this case was a minor one too. At the time I made it, the difference between Aircraft design and Aircraft design process seemed a minor one - just neatening up the title and making the article's title the same as its bold lead, which had been Aircraft design all along. This made the article conform with WP:BOLDTITLE, which was not previously the case. To be pilloried over a simple matter of style, seems absurd when you have done this too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall what the article was, but the move was about a dash/emdash of some sort, and I moved the AfD, too. I don't believe anyone even commented or much noticed, or what the result was. It was a few years ago; have fun hunting.

Your move was not minor and I don't believe you intended it as minor thing. It was about boosting the ghits for your AfD posts, offering a moving target to the AfD participants, and generally confounding AfD as you and a few others have been intent on for several years. Jack Merridew 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seemed minor at the time - the complaints came later as a surprise. The issue was then fully discussed in the AFD discussion. There was no secret made of the matter and it was open to any editor to revert this action if they had wanted to. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic-Ban Proposal

Since someone has to formulate something, here's my draft. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the various actions listed above and discussed previously on ANI, to include 1) moving articles during AfD without appropriately updating links, 2) making edits using edit summaries that omit key features of those edits, such as undoing redirects, and 3) removing maintenance tags from articles without making appropriate impvoements, Colonel Warden has lost the faith of the community that his actions on articles being considered for deletion (ostensibly to improve them) are, in fact, undertaken in good faith. As a consequence, Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months. For the purposes of this topic ban, Colonel Warden may not 1) edit any article currently subject to a deletion process (AfD, speedy deletion, or PROD), but may contribute to the improvement of such articles by suggesting appropriate improvements on such articles' respective talk page, or 2) edit any Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk space process dealing with Articles for Deletion, to include individual AfDs and DRV conversations.

Discussion

• works for me. Jack Merridew 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as drafter. While I think this represents the fairest interpretation of what Colonel Warden's critics are saying, and I can clearly see where they're coming from and empathize with their frustration, I think this is premature and risks alienating a contributor by forcing him out of his chosen niche. There must be some line, however, beyond which "another chance" or "another issue" strains credulity to a breaking point. At the same time, a temporary block would be punitive and do little to improve Colonel Warden's standing--if the sum total of Colonel Warden's deletion discussion interaction have indeed lost the good faith of the community, a topic ban which gives him time and space to improve articles absent any participation in deletion processes seems the least disruptive, potentially effective measure which can be imposed. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe that this issue or other issues raised above are of a degree that requires this sort of topic ban. All of the things that i've seen brought up about Colonel Warden are good faith attempts of his to improve Wikipedia. Especially in terms of the current article and AfD, it is quite clear that he has tremendously done so and I do not believe he should be punished for such improvements. Silverseren^C 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - woops, missed a bit, still I support it anyway, if he states he will not redirect or rename or move any articles at AFD I could accept that, if not then yes, its needed to stop future disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions have the ability to have "unintended consequences" at the very least, this one even more so. CW is surely aware that the move was, in 20/20 hindsight, unwise. What more ought to be sought? Collect (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support My efforts over time to get him to stop using deceptive edit summaries convince me that Colonel Warden doesn't really care about editing in good faith if his efforts prevent an article from being redirected or deleted. Ends do not justify the means, and that needs to be driven home.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IP obsessed by birds...?

I've been doing some vandalism patrolling and come across an IP editor making edits to a large number of Birds in (A Country) articles. No edit summary, and I have no idea if this is vandalism or not, but thought I should raise it. See Special:Contributions/96.4.125.2. I asked on the talk page but no response although edits have continued. The IP is from a US school and came off a year block about 3 days ago. Please could someone have a look? Mechanical digger (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears they do not understand the term extirpation and are removing it and replacing it with extinct. Should probably use twinkle rollback AGF and leave a note explaining the terminology. N419BH 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

98.65.217.30 (talk · contribs) was making similar edits a couple of days ago too. The edits are similar to what the IP was blocked for last year too. I'll start rollbacking as the edits are clearly incorrect but any help would be nice. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All rolled back 68 pages in total. I can't explain biodiversity well some one wanna leave the note? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. At the shallow end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)