Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive676

More vandal fighters please

We need more vandal fighters on a regular basis. This has been up for nearly a full day, and this was up for five hours. Who knows what else got missed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is borked right now, which is why NPP is getting flooded as well. Hopefully that's resolved very soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, all this edit needed was a CN-tag, no? ;) As for Twinkle--that's irritating enough. Fortunately some of the old folk around here still remember how to type "db-band" and "subst:uw-vandal1." Hear that, Blade? A blast from the past! Practice your typing, and re-read this--I'm quizzing you tomorrow morning. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is for pussies anyway; I don't use it and on good days I'm so fast I get mistaken for a bot... HalfShadow 05:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I manually tagged pages for months before I started using Twinkle; don't worry. It just takes longer, that's all. ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, this is a chance to bring our automated edit percentages down, to satisfy those who hate 'em *ahem*WP:RFA*cough*. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• cough*Huggle*cough* I've long preferred it to Twinkle. Banaticus (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism, yes; for NPP, I'll stick with Twinkle, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing things manually while Twinkle isn't around, but I'm much slower at it when I have to dig out and paste in warnings manually. Also, I suspect a lot of people will just have stopped NPP altogether while they wait for Twinkle to be fixed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's back (although still not marking pages as patrolled), I've been running full tilt- I have to stop for a few hours, but it's good to be back all the way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some way to keep track of the number of active vandal fighters at a given time? Some automated way to see the number of users who have made GLOO or HUGGLE edits in the past 15 minutes or so. I've had a few times lately when I've gone RC-patrolling in GLOO where it seemed like I was the only vandal fighter on duty. The alert levels are nice, but they don't tell you how well-manned the defenses are and that I feel is important for best allocating labor between building the encyclopedia and keeping vandals at bay. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to watch the recent changes feed and count the number of edit-summary adverts for the tools. –xeno^talk 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

STiki from the University of Pennsylvania is also worth a look. It uses a different metric and a revert/pass/innocent trichotomy. Pass edits get returned to a "pool" for other users to check. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

TW is back up. What we really need is a tool that interfaces with Cluebot. Whitelist-based tools are simply ineffective in my experience. You have to wade through dozens of good edits in order to find one case of vandalism. A cluebot-interfaced tool would monitor pages recently reverted by cluebot, users recently reverted by cluebot, and the edits cluebot didn't revert on but were close to the revert threshold. Such a tool would be much more effective. Anybody know how to write code for that? N419BH 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As the author of WP:STiki, I'll chime in here. My tool does interface with Cluebot, it is one of several "queues" that users can pick from. When Cluebot suspects an edit is vandalism, but doesn't have enough confidence to pull the revert trigger -- it is shown to user's of my tool. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-organization of Amusement Parks and Summer Camps categories and content.

If you look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amusement_parks_in_the_United_States_by_state

you will find more defunct parks than active parks in many states. Since there is a category for defunct parks, and since it is a great waste of time for people looking for active parks to click on all the dead parks, I would like permission to move all inactive parks to the defunct category. This is also true for summer camps.

Also, every state has a subcategory of waterparks, which creates redundant entries and rather ludicrous directories, like a state that has 2 parks, and a sub-category with only one waterpark. So, I would like to get permission to migrate all waterparks to the state level.

Wiki commons has a single category of parks for all states, and that list is going to get huge, as North America has 65 combo parks, 34 large amusement parks, 237 waterparks (and hundreds of smaller aquatic centers and fun parks, which should not be in a Wiki anyway). So I would like to create a set of commons sub-categories for each state, identical to the wiki articles.

With over 850 traditional summer camps (not including scouting, day camps and special needs camps) it gets confusing to have summer schools in the list. I would like to utilize the category for schools, and clean out the traditional camps directory.

I am doing all of this in preparation for a massive 2011 update to the summer vacation wiki categories. Tons of photos will be uploaded, all CC3.0, and hundreds of Wikis created. After that I am going to walk on water and ascend to heaven.

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer Vacation (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! Can I ride on your coattails in that last part? (Seriously, though, that sounds like fun. Let me know if you need help creating articles.) David Able 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As a Category Gnome, let me weight in on this. If your intention is to have a separate "Defunct Park" category for each state, and have that category under the current category for the state, then I would agree with the idea. It seems like a logical separation, and would serve a useful purpose.

I'm not really sure what the ultimate use of this current posting is, though. It's not really an idea that needs Admin assistance or input. If you are looking for general input, you might be better asking at an amusement park wikiproject, or at the Village Pump. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This is a clear case of refusal to get the point and vandalism. User talk:Mathiiuz is continually changing the sourced cover of Blow (song), this has been ongoing for weeks, he will not discuss it, he just changes it despite multiple warnings, and a warning on the actual page stating if the cover is changed without discussion its vandalism, yet he still changes it. a block is in order. Please share your thoughts. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

+

Took a look, and it doesn't appear to be vandalism. It appears to be a content dispute. Both users are changing to their

preferred cover. L-1 CLK-1-1 appears to be using a downloaded cover, Mathiiuz is using the actual album cover. I'm not really sharp on all image policies, so I'll let someone else who knows that area better than I say anything about which image is got the right useage for it and what not, but , as I said, this appears to be a content dispute. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies maybe im incorrect on it being vandalism, if so i apologize. WP:VANDTYPES, "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. <---- which is vandalism, but also a content dispute i guess as well, continual removal of an sourced cover is not in good faith, especially when he is refusing to read his talk page messages or communicate. Am i incorrect? O_O - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:IllaZilla acting as though he is the owner of The Boat That Rocked

User:IllaZilla is acting as though he is the owner of The Boat That Rocked article. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He has undone almost every edit that has been made to the article by other editors since his first edit on January 6th. I raised this issue at his talk page, but it has not altered his controlling editing. What can be done to loosen his editing grip on this article? Mice never shop (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most recent 50 edits to the article go back to late December 2010 and don't include any edits by you. Furthermore, IllaZilla's edits seem to be documented and, generally, make reference to existing policy. Whether they are correct or not is perhaps subject to discussion, but the appropriate place for such would be on the talk page of the article, not here. Finally, I don't see the required notice on User talk:IllaZilla regarding this thread being started. Did you see the big orange bar at the top of the page when you created the section? (I will add the required notice.)  Frank  |  talk  02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On an close issue. Would you please declare your sock puppet on your user page. (Your are claiming "I" did something but that is another account.) I am currently assuming good faith/that you don't know how this works. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)It seems that signbot was a bit jumpy. I read the signbot signature and then looked at the diff. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sinebot fooled me when an apparent e/c was corrected by a possibly unrelated user. Still, I see two edits by you (User:Mice never shop) that were reverted by IllaZilla, and that was weeks ago. I still don't see the issue here.  Frank  |  talk  02:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinda agree. Its not uncommon for users to keep pages that they edit regularly on a watch list, so it just looks as if IllaZilla is just keeping up with general upkeep of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by the accused: I think this is fairly groundless. To my recollection I reverted User:Mice never shop (MNS) on 2 issues: (1) where he split up what he perceived as a run-on sentence and broke a paragraph after only 2 sentences, which I perceived as poor structure and to which I left direct explanations both in my edit summary and at the thread he started on my talk page, and (2) another where he insisted on adding "coming-of-age film" to the lead, an issue which I discussed at length in a thread that MNS started on the article's talk page (a discussion in which MNS never commented beyond his initial post, and in which an RfC—not started by me—involving 5 editors determined that Mice's wording was not appropriate). I don't really think I need to say anything more, except that since I started work on the article in November all of my efforts have been to improve it: trimming down the plot, tidying up the cast, removing unref'd & irrelevant trivia, and reverting vandalism and other unhelpful edits like overlinking. Any content disputes that have arisen I have directly addressed and discussed on the article's talk page, whereas Mice has only ever made 1 comment on the article's talk page. I can't help feeling that this is simply MNS lashing out because consensus didn't go his way. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ugh, that run on is particularly nasty and should be fixed. Other than that; from here your actions seem fine here. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Augsburg Railway Park

Would an admin look over the recent history of this article and maybe do some REVDELs as necessary please. I'm not 100% sure of using this part of the toolbox, so I'd rather leave it to someone who is. I've blocked the perpetrator indefinitely and see no reason to let them back any time soon. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All other editing by Hälleren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be looked at. Use of German obscenities seems to be being picked up by CluebotNG. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got some; somebody else is also on it, I see. I left the ones to his own talk page, as they are (imo) garden variety and not BLP issues, even though one of them is personalized. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so, it's apparently the real name of another editor. As such, it should go. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done that one myself. The Foxtrot Oscar one is not serious enough to worry about. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's way worse than "so and so is a pig" in my userpage vandalism history. :) "ordinary" incivility and personal attacks are excluded from revision deletion, and that seems to fall into the latter to me, but I'm not that nuanced in German. Perhaps "schwein" has far more dire associations than I know. In any event, I'm not comfortable using revdeletion on such a statement, though I'm not bothered if you do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so much that, but the BLP OUTING issue. I know who is being referred to but am not saying on here. Erring on the side of caution, but if another admin reviews and undoes, then it is fine with me. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't follow that it was the secret real name of another editor. :) Yes, that should go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotional editing by Ramosa138

• Ramosa138 (talk · contribs)
• Love Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick Savoy ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramosa138 is a new editor and WP:SPAM, that has been repeatedly warned for adding promotional material to Wikipedia, whose very briefly responded to those warnings here.

Additionally, Ramosa138 submitted this for article creation.

Since receiving a final warning, Ramosa138 added this to Love Systems. I believe that it is enough for a block for continued use of Wikipedia for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would block right now, except that since you referred him here, he might want to make a reply, or the report may have persuaded him to stop. . But if he makes one more substantial promotional edit, I will block to stop the ongoing promotional disruption. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ramosa138 made some edits while I was writing the above that were a step in the right direction, and has now contacted me about this situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read the messages and because of that i have decided to delete the changed. I promise i wont make this mistake again. I am now looking at in detail to the tutorials and instructions of that is right and what is wrong. please give me one more chance. thank you. "" Ramosa138"" ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

That's fine with me. I do think it would be helpful if others could provide some guidance here, on Ramosa138's talk page, or at the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical edits at Ron Atanasio

Ratanasio has been adding unsourced information to this article. I reverted the edits and tried to explain various policies and guidelines such as BLP, V, RS, NPOV, etc, but the user reverts me and has not communicated. Some assistance would be most helpful. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the sourced version and left him a note directing him to discuss any issues he has regarding the accuracy of the article on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a better infobox and removed all unreferenced information. GiantSnowman 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to understand another user's block

Hallo, I'm trying to understand the block of Otto4711 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely on 25 September 2010 by user:Vanished 6551232. So far I found the page

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive,

which however does not explain the reason for the block of Otto4711. Also, around the time of this block I found the threat

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#PROD_nominations_by_Are_You_The_Cow_Of_Pain.3F.2C_sock_of_indef-blocked_user,

and from there to the Diff [1].

First I first thought Vanished 6551232 would be some kind of name, however it turns out that this is the former account "Rlevse", which entirely has been deleted as an account by another administrator. Why has Rlevse been deleted, and is the person Rlevse still an administrator in this project?

I understand that according to a Difflink provided by Rlevse, Otto4711 has changed a signature of Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) in an AFD on 26 July 2010: [2].

Also both accounts, Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711, have been Checkusered, again by this (former?) administrator Rlevse/Vanished 6551232. And Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711 have edited on a large number of the same pages. However, I don't know of a discusion, where both accounts would have edited stimultaniously without revealing their possible identity, or how one of them would have used the other as a Sockpuppet in any other abusive way.

So, from what I know so far, I don't understand how Are You The Cow Of Pain? or Otto4711 (or the person behind them if he is the same) would have abused the project, and what the excact reason for their blocks is,

--Schwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Otto, but I do know that Rlevse left the project not too long ago because of certain incidents and asked for his account to be deleted under the right to vanish. That's why his username is like that. Silverseren^C 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder why people dig into these things, but the SPI report is quite clear: Otto4711 created an account named "Eddie's Teddy" in order to evade a block.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the Wikistalk result comparing Schwalker (the OP) and Otto4711. There's not a great deal of article overlap between them, but what there is cannot be explained by simple commonality of interest: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, List of persons considered father or mother of a field, Godwin's law. I bring this up not because of a lack of AGF, but because there doesn't appear to be any particular reason for Schwalker to care about Otto4711, and he or she is being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject of Otto4711's block. Naturally, that brings up concerns about motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask Schwalker how they missed this on the block log: ‎(Abusing multiple accounts: do not unblock without contacting arbcom first), which would have indicated that the place to go to inquire about this block was ArbCom. Why have you not contacted ArbCom, instead choosing to post on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 and here? Why not go to the source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the archive, confirmed socks of Otto4711:

• User:Eddie's Teddy
• User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• User:Jetblack500
• User:Greatsouthbay
• User:A Radish for Boris
• User:Cosmo Donovan
• User:Sousa Blaine
• User:Sapphire Steel
• User:Seventh Thief
• User:Archibald Noaccount
• User:Screaminsista
• User:A-List Arrangement
• User:Derek Tenley
• User:Eddie Tenley
• User:Pranking Member
• User:Orrin Knox
• User:I Want My GayTV

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your responds. I don't have the impression that all of my I questions have been answered so far, but since some questions have been posed to me, I will try to answer them.

Thanks Silver seren for the information about Rlevse. I've now learned that he has left the project, so he probably formally ist no administrator anylonger. I don't know of the "certain incidents" for which Rlevse left the project, and if he did something wrong as an administrator, but am not yet convinced it was all correct what he did in the case of the Otto4711 account.

Kww, you probably misread the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive. Otto 4711 had been acused in October 2009 of having evaded a block by using the account Eddie's Teddy. Back then, Eddie's Teddy was blocked, and Otto4711 was warned, but not blocked for using a sockpuppet. But this old incident is no sufficient explanation for blocking Otto4711 now in September 2010.

As already stated on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711, I don't know Otto4711, but have read very reasonable contributions in many discussions about categories, so I'm completely surprized by the block of this user.

I must also admit to feel a bit surprized by tone and content of Beyond my Kens's answer. Actually, when I posted this request here yesterday, I did not expect that the first thing an administrator would have in mind would be to start a statitistical analysis of my own edits, and compare them with the edits of blocked users.

How Beyond my Ken can easily see, I had made exactly two edits so far yesterday concerning the case of Otto4711 (here on the admin noticeboard and on the sockpuppets inverstigations talk), so I don't know how he comes to his assessment of me "being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject". Further, how "being fairly persistent" would even be a matter of "concerns about motivation" is beyond me.

I did not miss the block log entry. I am no administrator in this project, so I can't unblock users, and even have no very concrete idea what an "Arbcom" is or does. Since the "source" of this block is user:Vanished 6551232, to my understanding Vanished 6551232 would be the first place to inquire about the block, who however as explained above has left this project.

Of course my concern is that a mistake of law should be avoided. That is to avoid a situation, where first an able author (who probably has a number of opponents in this project) is blocked infinitely for unclear or even unjustified reasons, and then other sockpuppets are again and again attributed to this user, so that eventually it is almost impossible for him to return to the project.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the reasonable suspicion, Schwalker does not match Otto4711's recent socks on a technical basis, and I personally don't find the behaviour compelling evidence. To answer Schwalker's basic question: whether Otto4711 originally should have been blocked is really no longer the question. His account is blocked, and he has been using alternate accounts to get around it. He's been doing that so persistently that now the only way to get his account restored is by contacting the arbitration committee and making his case.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: User:Beyond My Ken is not now, nor has ever been, an admin. Also, despite the negative CU check (which did net a couple of new Otto4711 socks) Schwalker's interest in Otto4711's block remains inexplicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yep: inexplicable. Just not compelling in my view. There are a lot of things people do that I can't explain. Heymid has gotten very interested in a few sockpuppeteers that I deal with, for example, but there's substantial evidence that he isn't any of them. He just found my treatment of them objectionable.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally taken an interest in blocks I'm not involved in, mostly if I am trying to learn more about the finer points of policy or if the reason for the block wasn't entirely transparent. In this case the block log is pretty clear, but I can see how a block log with a final entry from "Vanished 6551232" would look odd to someone who isn't familiar with the right to vanish. I'm not comfortable with the way the spotlight was quickly turned on Schwalker (even though I'm aware that boomeranging is always a concern). It's not like they could inquire with the blocking admin, after all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but they could have contacted ArbCom, which would have been the logical thing to do, given the notation in the block log. And Kww, I'm not disputing your decision not to block, with the negative CU that was entirely reasonable. The behaviorial evidence was, in my opinion, sufficient to run a CU, but not enough to block on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good evening.

A basic question is not answered by simply claiming that the question "is no longer the question". So far, the only two sockpuppets of Otto4711 which were confirmed through checkuser were "Eddie's Teddy" in 2009 and "Are You The Cow Of Pain?", according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#21_October_2010 and the answers by Rlevse on his user talk. To my understanding, all later accounts have been attributed to Otto4711 because of their edit behaviour, but not by direct checkuser with "Otto4711", "Eddie's Teddy", or "Are You The Cow Of Pain?". While I would agree that it is likely that they are sockpuppets of Otto4711, the only "abuse" would be to evade the questionable block by Rlevse from September 2010.

Can anyone please explain to me what is going on here? First I have to read that apparently I am under "reasonable suspicion". I've been working for this project over a period of more than four years now, and have collaborated on articles and in discussions with a number of other authors.

Then I have to read something about a "technical basis". I really cannot believe this, but have to ask if this means that you have now checked my private user-information, just because I've asked a simple question here?

Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really aren't seeing what Schwalker did that was so bad here. If he would like to question a block I would say he has every right to do so. Now, would someone please answer his questions? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to answer his questions, but I'll try again. A user doesn't get to create socks to evade a block he believes is questionable. Questionable or not, the initial block has to be undone, or any subsequent account believed to be from the same user will be blocked. It really doesn't matter why Otto4711 was blocked in the first place, his actions subsequent to that block are blockable in and of themselves. And yes, a checkuser was run on the Schwalker account. I provided a link to the investigation above.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Schwalker hasn't done anything "bad." However, there've been a lot of blocked users who come to ANI using a sockpuppet account, trying to argue they should be unblocked, while pretending to be an uninvolved party. Folks here are a bit gunshy when an uninvolved person pops up randomly asking about a blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This inquiry is possibly related to Schwalker's recent retirement from the German Wikipedia, although I haven't read much into that. It would of course be easiest, if Schwalker were more forthcoming in telling the reason for this inquiry, rather than calling it a "simple question".--Atlan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, Schwalker is not letting go of the issue: [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why we have editors failing to assume good faith here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see any good, faith or otherwise, in editors white-knighting for one another. If Otto4711 wishes to be unblocked, then he can make a request to do so on his own. We don't need wiki-public defenders. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it. If an editor wants to call an action into question, let them, and treat them civily and assume good faith, particularly if it is an established editor as Schwalker is. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by demeaning the idea of a "wiki-public defender.".. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between assuming good faith, and not applying due diligence for the sake of it, also known as naivete.--Atlan (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making about "wiki-public defenders" is...don't be one. If a user wishes to be unblocked, the solution is in their own hands. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your second statement is undoubtedly true, up to a point. However I have seen many cases where someone has needed a "wiki-public defender" or at least would benefit from one. We even had a system for it at one point. And while I would advise anyone who asked me "don't be one", I still have admiration for anyone that takes on that role. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

And I can't believe we ran a checkuser on Schwalker, maybe the system has changed, but last time I read the procedures that would have been counted as a fishing expedition. Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

This is a clear breakdown of good faith here, the check user was a fishing expedition and inexcusable. If I questioned an editor's block, would I then have a check user run to see whether I am somehow related to them? That's ridiculous, I may just question a few editor's blocks to make it more commonplace if that's the case. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's only fishing if you have no idea which account is linked to which. In this case, the Schwalker account was checked to see if it was related to Otto4711. I think the checkuser was kind of a knee-jerk reaction, but I certainly wouldn't call it "inexcusable".--Atlan (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." We've had so many socks troll this page trying to get themselves unblocked that it's at least worth questioning why an unrelated account is becoming involved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc has frequently accused me of bad faith because I defend other editors, even editors who may have been doing some things wrong. I consider doing this a moral obligation for myself as the way to prevent the ill effects of bullying and mobbing. The classic explanation for defense attorneys in the legal system is that anyone is entitled to defend themselves, but the system is so complex and technical that most people need somebody who understands the rules to speak for them, and their role can be seen in the same way as the role of a translator: they say no more than what the person would say himself if he knew how to say it. A second frequent reason--the reason why lawyers themselves employ other lawyers to defend them--is that nobody can be objective in their own case, and will not be able to tell what are the arguments that should and should not be made, or know when it is best to remain silent, or will defend themselves in so improper a manner as to arouse antagonism. The refusal of effective defense counsel is generally seen as characteristic of tyrannies. In the US, from the beginning of the Republic, such refusal was one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independences, and reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps Wikipedia should be a place where this is not necessary, but that's contrary to the plain facts. The system here is complicated, with many of the rules both abstruse and self contradictory, with many of them unwritten, and no one who is not very experienced in how we work here can properly defend themselves against an attack by someone who does know how. The system of community judgment is very susceptible to vote-stacking and sockpuppetry and manipulation, leading to piling-on and mobbing. And, of course, people who get into trouble are frequently inept in being apply to articulate a proper defense. We are not a formal governmental structure, but even administrative agencies preserve this right. Wikipedia --despite initial expectations--is now so important in the world and so prominent that this gives us a commensurate responsibility to act and be seen to act, in an open and equitable manner. This applies very strongly to our articles: that why we found it necessary to adopt the rules of BLP and (probably) accept the inconvenience of pending changes. It also applies to our treatment of one another.

If anyone wonders, I'll give a personal note: the reason I did not become a lawyer is because I could not face the emotional effects of losing cases involving people whom I would inevitably come to know personally. The reason I can adopt a role like this at Wikipedia is that I do not know the people personally and thus can maintain sufficient emotional distance. I am aware that some people employ this sort of emotional distance here to attack more freely than they would be willing in the real world--the counter to that is to use it to muster up the courage to defend them.

As I understand ethical defense attorneys do, when someone has obviously done wrong, I advise them to admit it, & if they intend to conduct a clearly dishonest defense, I will not assist them. And I am saying this in the context of an attempted defense of Otto, an editor with whom I came into very frequent context. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the check here is well within checkuser discretion. There's at least a reasonable suspicion that Schwalker may have been Otto. Second, if we are really going to borrowing from legal systems, then forgive me for not seeing how someone who is not Otto has standing to challenge Otto's block. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the running of a checkuser in this situation, nor am I disagreeing the block. But with respect to the question you ask, I think any user has standing to challenge any action by an admin. The unique feature of being an admin here is our ability to take drastic action even without prior consultation. Hence the need for accountability to anyone who might ask: the necessary counterpart to our very facile use of authority is the knowledge of the very facile ability to challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh. That's totally not the impression I got from your soliloquy above. Thanks for clarifying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone should have the right to question any admin action at any time. That is one of the few, and yet weak, protection against rogue admins. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone does. Anyone that investigates the block of someone with 19 confirmed socks should expect that reasonable people will suspect that he is sock 20.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of a "Fellow traveller" argument? Are you now or have you ever been a sock of Otto? :-] Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

OK bottom line. Otto was blocked by a then ArbCom member, and the instruction was not to unblock without asking ArbCom first. As far as I know Otto has not requested an unblock, therefore no one has the desire to ask ArbCom about it. The reason for the actual indef block (as opposed to previous blocks) remains obscure. Is that correct? Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Not obscure. Checkuser confirmed socking combined with a block log like Otto4711's would have prompted many admins to issue an indefinite block.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but Cow edited in 2010, and Otto's last block was 2009, so there was no question of avoiding a block. There's no injunction against multiple accounts in general, there has to be evidence of abuse - which there may well be. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

During the first CU, Otto was issued with this warning "so I am going to let Otto4711 off with a firm warning. He needs to stick with one account and not further violate the WP:SOCK policy, including the "Misusing a clean start" and "Avoiding scrutiny" items". Even thought a CU clerk (or a CU) can't issue any sort of binding warning, if a user has already received such a warning (and gave this response [4] [5] indicating they read it even if they didn't agree), I would argue a block of some sort does seem fairly appropriate for later concurrently using another undisclosed account which was blocked once already and also did stuff like [6] before the sockpuppetry allegations came to light, even if it's a year later. A year isn't really accurate anyway since the Cow Of Pain account had been used since February so they'd started that stuff about 5 months after the warning. (In fact it wasn't the only account of theirs that had been blocked independently either, [7] was too although not discovered to later.) Whether an indefinite blocked was warranted at the time, I can't say although what we've learnt now along with their recent behaviour suggests it is now so I don't see asking arbcom as necessary anytime soon even if they do request to be unblocked. As to why an arbcom member got involved, I don't know but from [8] (which was after the block) I take it someone had been emailing people and it reached arbcom. BTW, while using multiple accounts in a non abusive manner is allowed, I would argue the CU clerk's warning was entirely appropriate, editing wikipedia is a privilege, even more so editing with multiple accounts. When you have already shown yourself to have problems with editing to the extent of multiples blocks and in the (fairly distant by that time) past of using multiple accounts in a very abusive fashion which you then resurrected in an apparent attempt to avoid scrutiny after you were blocked, and when you come up with lame 'room mate' defences when caught you have to expect people are not going to trust you with using multiple undisclosed accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good detective work. I had already seen the Eddy Teddie stuff. However in the Graboid AfD it appears as though Otto is taking steps to be avoid even giving the appearance of abusing a sock, by re-signing Cow's comment (even though its not a !vote - and even though this reveals his sock). The other observation I would make is that, not counting blocks of socks, which I didn't factor in, I noticed Otto's block record does improve dramatically 4 in 2007, 2 in 2008 and 1 in 2009 and no more up to his indef,if I remember correctly. Still unless they request an unblock the matter is moot. Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Explanation Needed

Hello. I am having a problem with another editor. Out of the blue last week I was given a very stern warning by Fut.Perf. on my talk page which stated that if I continue pushing a fringe POV I would be blocked. I then asked this editor for specific details regarding my actions as I consider this a serious matter but have been ignored instead. Is it considered just to threaten another editor with sanctions and not specifically explain why?

I also noticed that three other editors (Immortale, Arydberg, and Killdec) were blocked for certain periods of time from the aspartame controversy talk page within a period of less than a week (Feb. 8-14). Each of these editors (including myself) at one time or another expressed concerns on the talk page stating that they believed the aspartame controversy article was biased. Is it possible that these warnings were given to each of us because our efforts conflict with other editors? Can a fair uninvolved administrator look into this please? Jmpunit (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To fill everyone in on the missing details...Immortale (talk · contribs), Arydberg (talk · contribs), Killdec (talk · contribs) & Jmpunit (talk · contribs) received warnings, blocks and/or topic bans after various ANI discussions (e.g., 1, 2, 3) highlighted tendentious editing by a series of WP:SPAs at aspartame controversy. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) distributed sanction warnings based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision; Immortale & Killdec earned blocks for their edits and behavior related to this article. — Scientizzle 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still wondering about the specific edits that I made which deserved the warning that I was given. Scientizzle, I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you but I did ask for uninvolved administrators for help (which you are not). So again I ask the above. Jmpunit (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an overall pattern of unacceptable behavior which you all exhibited. Count yourself lucky that you didn't receive a block or topic ban. You got a warning, and that should have been enough to keep you from making this frivolous complaint, wasting more of our time. Read that warning and just heed it. If you can't see what was wrong with your behavior after all the times you have been advised, warned and read our policies, then maybe you really should get a topic ban. You all exhibit the same type of behavior, which is rather discouraging. It's a pretty bad case of "I didn't hearitis". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of not hearing: I asked for an uninvolved administrator. Not only are you one of the most involved editors on that talk page Brangifer (at the moment) but you are also not an administrator. Jmpunit (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't make the decision as to who replies to you. I am not preventing an uninvolved admin from commenting, but as one of those whose time you have wasted, I have a right to share my opinion, and I think you've got a problem with understanding the nature and seriousness of your disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith and be civil. Jmpunit (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like the editor who placed the warning to kindly come and explain exactly why they felt the templates were necessary if I may? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not helpful to expect admins to take half an hour to respond to ANI posts on matters like this. A glance at Aspartame controversy and Special:Contributions/Jmpunit should clarify the situation (the article concerns how conspiracy theorists have once again found another conspiracy, and some editors cannot grasp Wikipedia's NPOV procedures). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your editing history, Jmpunit. All of your edits since August 2010 have been on the subject of the aspartame controversy. 83% of your total edits have been on the talk page of that article, which you have now edited 167 times ([9]). There have been concerns about inappropriate POV editing on that article and disruptiveness on the talk page, about which I believe you were aware, and your edits indicate that you have strong feelings on this matter and appear to be interested in adding your own views to the article. In my view, the warning was correct, and any further disruption on this article or related ones should be met with preventative measures. I would very strongly advise you to diversify your editing; there is plenty of constructive work which can be done, and arguing on talk pages is very rarely fruitful. Consider this a fair, uninvolved administrator's view if you wish. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times I have edited a talk page no one has discussed SPECIFIC edits that I have made that show that I am pushing a fringe POV there. As I said before, this is a serious accusation and I do not take it lightly. I feel that I have a right to know what specific edits are in violation of pushing a fringe pov. Since I have caused much "disruption" these statements should be easy to find. If these specific edits are not found I would ask that my warning be withdrawn. Jmpunit (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy with rules that precisely regulate who can say or do what (see WP:BURO). All we need to see is that you are stridently pursuing a POV in an article concerning a conspiracy theory—that is not Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Please provide specific edits that I have made that are stridently pursuing a fringe POV. Jmpunit (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell us that we have completely misunderstood your stance all along; that you have not been pushing for and defending the edits, content and POV made by User:Immortale, User:Arydberg, and User:Killdec? Your arguments and actions have been so identical that sockpuppet investigations have been filed against two all of you! Single edits cannot show a tendency, but the accumulation shows a very strong POV which you, along with the other editors, have very aggressively pushed against the objections of many much more experienced editors and admins, over a very protracted period of time. You have all been warned and instructed many, many, many, many times on the talk page, and that should've been enough, but it wasn't for some and they got blocks and topic bans. (There's an abundant supply, so keep pushing here and you can have one, free of charge!) Since you were all obviously so allied in your actions and POV, Future Perfect at Sunrise was very justified in placing a warning on all of your pages, even if you hadn't edited for several days. You could have taken it as a friendly "FYI" and kept it in mind for future reference, but instead you caused more IDHT disruption by posting here. That's a frivolous use of a noticeboard, and many of us don't take kindly to such a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to mislead other editors and lie about me (to push your points and muddy my name), no sockpuppet allegations have ever been filed against me. КĐ^♥ 18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Killdec. You were the exception regarding sockpuppet investigations. I have refactored by comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate it. КĐ^♥ 16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Again, since you seem to have ignored that in favor of repeating your demand for specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg has left an unhelpful comment on Jmpunit's talk page. While this isn't Jmpunit's own fault, it shows that these editors still labor under mistaken impressions of what Wikipedia is all about. Maybe Arydberg needs another explanatory warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer you continue to repeat false accusations (i.e. sock puppetry, pushing a fringe POV, etc.) but you have NO EVIDENCE. You continue to be rude by invalidating my concerns calling them a "disruption" and threaten me in a sarcastic manner saying that there's an abundant supply of topic bans "FREE OF CHARGE!" Then you post an irrelevant message on the aspartame controversy talk page saying that there is an issue here on this message board that is relevant to the talk page, as if trying to recruit others here. Finally you give the trifling revelation that one of the editors that was blocked contacted me and somehow (even though it's not my fault) their message proves that I and other editors are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. You make many claims without providing facts- doesn't this go against the article in question?

It is editors such as the above mentioned that continue to hinder the progress of the aspartame controversy article. When a reference is presented that does not go with the view of some of these editors it is immediately shot down and the presenter is accused of "wasting time" or being "disruptive". These editors are attacked with sarcastic comments and threatened to be blocked such as I am now. This is why that talk page is a mess because a significant number of editors who read the article and are concerned about its neutrality state so on there and are met with antagonistic, uncooperative editors who refuse to allow a collaboration to take place. Jmpunit (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the "unhelpful comment" is not a reflection about you; it simply shows that there are a group of editors who have no clue about Wikipedia's role (hint: the encyclopedia is not available for partisans to push their points of view). Your stridency (repeated requests for "specific details" and comments about "no evidence"), along with a glance at Special:Contributions/Jmpunit, is all independent editors need to see that this case is exactly the same as the hundreds of other cases that appear here. Editor who cannot comply with WP:5P will be removed, eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to have a little input from someone who ran across your complaint and has no vested interest, you seem to be missing a major point here, Jmpunit. The warnings you received were in no way an official administrator action. Absolutely anyone can post a warning on any user's page. So it's not an action that has to be justified, as you were suggesting when you linked that admin policy, nor is it something that needs to be or should be brought to this noticeboard. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite correct in this case: it was a notification in the context of a "discretionary sanctions" Arbcom procedure, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Warnings. Those are in fact "official" in some sense, and they are normally handed out only by such administrators as would also be entitled to enact the actual sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, how am I pushing my POV? I keep asking this because I don't see how I have and I haven't been given any direct answers (saying that my edits in general push a fringe POV do not explain anything). Fut. Perf. now that you are here I am asking that you justify this warning per WP:ADMINACCT Jmpunit (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a bureaucracy, and not for advocacy (see WP:NOT). In the above, several independent editors have commented, and this section is now almost 2000 words. No one has supported your position, in fact the reverse has occurred. Experience shows that debating the finer points of procedure is not productive. Please read the links already given and refrain from attempting to extend this because the only result would be to confirm all the advice given above, and to strengthen the need for the warning on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Having glanced at the talk page and article, and some edits, it does seem that Jmpunit was far less of an offender than other (now blocked) users, and that the talk page was rather "robust" from both sides of the argument. I did not see " a coordinated campaign" although I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I do think that it would be far better for Jmpunit to question the nature of the warning on FutPerf's talk page than bring it here, where it simply attracts comment from others who cannot answer for FutPerf. With luck FutPerf will be able to share with Jmpunit enough of the reason for the warning to enable Jmpunit to avoid the sanctions the warning is about. Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I did go to FutPerf's page and inquired about the warning. I got one response which read "The warning was not directed to any one particular posting, but to a long term pattern of editing. It came to my attention through a recent report at ANI which dealt with the overall activity by several editors on that article." The warning was received on Feb. 14th though my last edit there was Feb. 4th (10 days). In this last edit I explained that if a phrase was not in a reference then it should not be in the article with that reference used to support that phrase. I didn't see how this was pushing any POV but rather an effort making sure that we used sources in a proper way. I had asked why I received a warning a week and a half after my last edit but this was never addressed. As for the ANI which was referred to, I was falsely accused of being a sock. The evidence supporting this was misleadingly taken out of context. (Can someone find this in the archives I'm having trouble?) Since I never heard back from FutPerf and his talk page remains active I came to the conclusion that my concerns had been ignored. It was only then that I came here. Jmpunit (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to repeat and endorse Jmpunit's request for specific differences which show the concerns you have. This discussion is pointless unless someone kindly provides these differences. You claim its a pattern, if it is so it shouldn't take much trouble for you to look through and find us a dozen or so examples that show this pattern. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would like to simply invoke WP:SHUN. This thread is a simple extension of Jmpunit's main avenue of argumentation- "If you can't back up everything you say, to the standard I choose, I'm correct by default". The truth is, Jmpunit, you know EXACTLY what you're doing (attempting to wikilawyer the system against itself), and I'm not going to poke through your contributions to pull out a list anyone can go get themselves. You're not entitled to it. --King Öomie 03:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was shunned by you before that ironic message. It is assuming bad faith to think that one is wikilawyering because they ask for an explanation regarding warnings that they have received. To say that one can not ask for justifications regarding these administrative actions is to say that administrators can do what they want without having to explain themselves. It's illogical to say that questioning the reasoning for these actions reinforces the actions themselves as citing rules accusing them of these offenses (wikilawyering) is hypocritical since you stridently push the "letter of the law" which is the foundation of the accusation.Jmpunit (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sinharib99

Sinharib99 (talk · contribs)

User:Sinharib99 Is currently (or was recently) creating dozens of very short articles about rulers named on List of Assyrian kings these articles do not really expand on what is already contained at 'List of Assyrian kings'. I feel these should be tagged as CSD A10, but due to the shear number would like to garner some Admin input before proceeding. Pol430 talk to me 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest redirecting them to the list article ... that way, if someone really is searching for them, they will find them. One liners about kings for whom there is no information and will never be any expansion do not seem to be useful. --B (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion B, thanks Pol430 talk to me 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have informed Sinharib99 about this discussion... GiantSnowman 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GS, it was remiss of me not to remember to do that, all relevant pages have been redirected Pol430 talk to me 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I do not agree. There are almost no figures for whom something can not be said beyond the list, if checked in the appropriate specialist reference works, such as the series of Cambridge Ancient History. Our normal practice is to regard every named figure from the ancient world as notable, certainly if there is some information beyond the mere name, , and also to regard every monarch as notable, and I see no reason why these practices should not be applied here--I might not be so positive if only one of them applied, but they both do. . I plan to expand and revert the redirects the redirects as soon as I have the chance to get some more information; since while I support not deleting minimal stubs for notable subjects, I don't myself like to make them. and then you may take them to AfD if you please. ANI does not deal with questions about whether the subject of an article is notable. This question should have gone there, or to a suitable content noticeboard. It does not belong here, unless there is the suggestion the editor is being deliberately abusive. I've offered my assistance to the editor if he chooses. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm thoroughly confused. No one ever called into question the notability of the kings. The point made by Pol430 was that someone was making a large number of articles with almost zero information in them, and the information that was in them was already contained at the list article. Therefore, they are just useless kittens. If you or some other editor would be interested in adding a minimal amount of substantive information (and sources) to these articles, then by all means undo the redirect and edit away. Until that time, a redirect is better than a duplicative stub. —SW— ^communicate 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohio-based IP's introducing hoax articles on TV shows.

Resolved

 – Users and IPs blocked, and articles that have been repeatedly created have been salted.  7  06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

76.190.159.177 (talk · contribs), Ziah978 (talk · contribs), Quenn 234 (talk · contribs), Odpod34 (talk · contribs), Zt123 (talk · contribs)

• Macey & Michel
• List of Macey & Michel episodes
• Beat Night
• List of Beat Night episodes
• Round It Up
• List of Round It Up episodes

Admins only for the last two I'm afraid as they've already been deleted (twice). Looks like throwaway accounts are being used to create the articles an then an IP is editing them and removing speedy deletion templates. The articles are blatant hoaxes as there is no information on the shows anywhere except here. Also, how would one know the plot of an episode airing in 2012?

I will now notify the IP and user in question, and restore the speedy templates that have been removed AGAIN. N419BH 01:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to point out the throw away accounts like Ziah978 (talk · contribs) so they can be checkusered.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see them anymore as I cannot see the deleted articles' histories. Admin assistance required. N419BH 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they all also seem to try to remove the redirect on The Bad Girls Club (season 8).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dug through my contributions and found another throwaway userID. N419BH 02:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can see who a bunch of them are if you look at the history of The Bad Girls Club (season 8). There's a new one continually restoring the article right now. is there any way this could be page protected?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the redirect page for one month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that just leaves a dozen socks to deal with and an IP address adding massive quantities of unsourced content to several dozen articles. They seem to be focusing on Disney Channel shows and actors. N419BH 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added more, this is clear socking now, taking this to SPI. N419BH 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OFF TOPIC: Beat Night sounds like a pretty cool show from the title. :P _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

user:97.90.124.232

Unresolved

97.90.124.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• This request was completely ignored for 36 hours before being archived by a bot. Restored. 63.134.128.4 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-notified, for fairness. Also, 63.134.128.4, are you Simon Dodd? GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I just forgot to sign in. It happens. I wouldn't have thought that renotification was necessary since this isn't a new issue?. It's a little disappointing that a dig through the archives (and this conversation) became necessary, truth be told. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of socking or whatever, I just wanted clarification - it happens with me as well! I re-notified because the IP may well have seen your notification, come here, and found nothing (the discussion already having been archived) - now they know that 2 days later, it's back up, and the issue still isn't resolved. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• T+62 hours. Would this be better served by taking it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe, what's the COI? Maybe have a try at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and solve the dispute? GiantSnowman 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, as I mentioned above, the user is an SPA; that, plus the tone and content of their edits and talk page comments tell me that there's a COI problem. The article edits are too numerous to detail here (check the history), but the talk page comments in particular are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," user:97.90.124.232 objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was trying to do, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." And as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.

Having opened this case here at AN/I, I don't feel that I open a case anywhere else without leave from an admin (I'll be accused of forum shopping). I opened the case here because at the time, my immediate concern was the user's actions in blanking my user page in retaliation for proposing a merge and the attempted removal of the merge templates. Well, that was two days ago (certainly demonstrating the kind of prompt admin response that encourages people to use process rather than dealing with problems themselves), and those problems haven't yet recurred. At this point, the COI is the larger problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You could easily defend yourself from any accusations of forum shopping by pointing them here - you've posted twice over a period of days, and received no reply or help from admins. Now you've explained it a bit more, maybe the COI noticeboard is the place to go. GiantSnowman 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Case opened at COI; I'll notify the user. I'd still like an admin to do something about the user page blanking, so I'm leaving the request here open.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP seems to have stopped editing on the 20th, and a note was left about the page blanking. I'd be inclined to let it go as a newbie mistake for now. Sorry no one responded to your post, I guess the drama-filled threads are more attactive? Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich—I guess it's good that I'm not bringing drama! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• User is back and being disruptive again, removing the merge templates: [10][11][12][13][14][15]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I have reverted the tag removals and warned the user again.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Still unresolved and basically unaddressed after six days.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? Until opining on the talk page last night, the IP hadn't edited since removing the templates (which you had already reverted). If the IP vandalizes again, we can block it. --B (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "until"? There was the original incident which led to this report being filed. And then, as I mentioned above, there was another round of it after five days of this report languishing unanswered. So are you saying that you will block them if they come back for a third round, or that you'll block if if they come back for a second round, which has already happened since the original report was filed?

As to what admin action I'm asking for: I want someone other than me to slap the user's wrist (whether with a warning or a brief block), because obviously hearing it from me—whether because I'm involved in the dispute or because I'm not an admin—ain't getting it done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that a 24-hour block would have already expired anyway. Regardless of whether the user should have been blocked, it is now three full days since their last bad behavior. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and there's nothing to "prevent". If the user returns and demonstrates by their conduct that there is something to prevent, then they can be blocked. --B (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I moved this request down to the bottom so that it will attract more attention. The submitter, quite rightly, feels that it has been ignored and I am moving it down here so that other admins will have a chance to see it and opine or take action, should they care to. --B (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with B's comments above, and I add that if the IP should remove the merge templates again, the place to report the vandalism (as such it would be) is WP:AIV. LadyofShalott 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simon, the IP in question hasn't edited (bar one small contribution to a talk page) for 3 days; I'm pretty sure you've managed to scare them onto the straight-and-narrow, and so no admin intervention is required. Should they start acting up again, report them to AIV. GiantSnowman 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For anyone looking at this situation, FYI, Simon Dodd has been blocked. --B (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have blocked Simon Dodd for 3 hours for disruption - any admin is free to undo the sanction without further reference to me, if considered excessive or simply wrong - as ANI is a venue for requesting the assistance of volunteers, specifically admins, rather than an arena for haranging the habitees for not acting/commenting as desired. Of course concerns should be presented here, and certainly appropriate action or commentary should occur - and this issue may have been better actioned; but nobody need be slagged off over it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on "any admin is free to undo the sanction without further reference to me" and affirmation of the same at LessHeardvanU's talk page, I have removed the block. As always, I welcome review of my actions. --B (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Nope, good unblock. GiantSnowman 01:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I want to thank everyone who got involved and got the block reversed. Everyone on the receiving end of a block thinks it was an injustice, and it's really gratifying to see other people step in and say that the blocking admin made a bad call.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon, if there's any further interference with your user page, then post a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. As said above, nothing we can do whilst the issue is stale, but further disruption can and will be acted upon. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

New page disambiguation problem

Resolved

Hello,

I just made a new page for a published author, James Robison (Writer). My problem is that there's another James Robison (televangelist) who prevents me from loading my page with only the name "James Robison." I tried creating a disambiguation page, and have put headers in both articles with disambiguation redirects. I have a draft disambiguation page, but I don't know how to make it go live. Please help!

Best, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfitz00 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of questions are best for WP:HD :) But I will fix it for you... CTJF83 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My Hero! Thank you! Kfitz00 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're welcome! I also renamed James Robison (author) for a lowercase "a" CTJF83 07:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat or attempt to enforce POV?

I'm not sure if this is a legal threat, but it certainly is a statement of an intent to use police to enforce a POV on Wikipedia: Check out the second user box on User:Felixhonecker stating:

"This user supports the government of Libya in its fight against Al-Qaeda. This user does not hesitate to report userIDS making pro-Qaeda edits to INTERPOL."

Somehow I think that's a bit different from the statement on my user page saying that I report threats of violence made on Wikipedia to appropriate authorities.

I'd appreciate some additional eyes on it. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Borderline at best, and non-neutral for sure. But it's a userpage. Does it indicate an intent to edit disruptively? Where's the line? It's going to be a judgment call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, he's not just threatened to do it, but claims to have already done it [16] – for something as harmless as suggesting that the treatment of flags in the Libya article should reflect the current revolt. Using the Al Qaeda bogeyman to stifle such debates is indeed highly problematic (or it might just be trolling). Support indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We certainly don't need that that kind of editor/behaviour on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Support block until he states unequivocally that he is not and has not actually done this. This is a blatant case of poisoning the well, trying to make editors afraid to edit because someone will report them to Interpol. I somehow doubt they care, though. It may not fit the letter of NLT, but fits the spirit more than any other situation I can think of. --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have extended his block to indefinite, and it will require a very good explanation to convince me to unblock.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, based on his unblock request he needs an explanation on why he's currently blocked. It looks like he thinks it's a 3rr block.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted that beneath his unblock request.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've declined his unblock request which only addressed the reasons for the first block. As for the NLT block, we should be clear that a mere retraction of a threat of further action may not be enough here, because if what he claimed previously is true then the damage is already done and cannot be undone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It will be near-impossible for him to prove he hasn't contacted Interpol, given his claim that he already has. GiantSnowman 16:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually fairly trivial to prove that he hasn't reported anyone to INTERPOL since individuals can't report crimes to INTERPOL, that isn't how they work. [17] In fact even law enforcement can't really report anyone to INTERPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So he not only poisons the well, but he's an ineffectual blowhard too. Somehow that feels worse. --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he meant the musical Interpol anyways. GiantSnowman 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He has posted an explanation, stating that it was a mistake made in the heat of the moment and that he hasn't reported anyone. I lean towards being satisfied although I do take exception to his continued insistence on his right to report Al Qaeda related threats to public safety. I think every editor would report any actual threat made in the name of Al Qaeda to the relevant authorities, but stating this upfront (and being willing to mention it in editing disputes) has a chilling effect that is not conducive to a good editing environment. I would support a request to remove his userbox that makes this statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Blatantly over the line, outrageous abuse of his editing privileges. Until that user box goes, and he recants everything to do with it, he needs to stay on ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock declined. I have declined the block - his defence is that he said it by mistake, thinking he was editing his userbox, and he reverted immediately. O rly? First, it's not what the userbox says. Second, he was launching a personal attack on the editor. Third, he actually edited the comment [18] before deciding presumably that it might get him into trouble and deleting it. He'll have to try harder. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could throw in a commitment from him to tone it down a bit at Talk:Libya. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've closed down his talk page access for trolling anyway. Let him wait a bit until the situation settles down (hopefully), and then he can raise another request when he's gotten over his trolling mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the punishment has turned out harsher than the offense merits. He did remove the threat himself before anyone commented and he has stated that he has not and will not report anyone who is not directly confessing to be planning a crime. I think his admittedly not very adequate response was a result of the large number of people all of a sudden showing up and creating drama on his talkpage. I would reccomend revising the conditions of the block and making clear for the user how he is to proceed in order to be allowed to return to editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free, at least as far as I'm concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have received an email from Felixhonecker regarding all of the above and what he has done asking for another pair of eyes. When looking through all of the diffs i spotted this edit. Does this not show a legal threat from User:Baseball Bugs in the last sentence? After looking into this a bit more I have now spotted User_talk:Maunus#Note which has resulted from the edit here. I think the where Baseball Bugs says "I made no threat, and it's perfectly clear that he didn't take it that way either". Both the email that I have received and the edits here, here and here. From here I am sat it almost looks like some people have jumped on one users bandwagon ignoring another. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and continue to support the original block. Bugs' posting was clearly just a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. If Felix actually took that seriously as a threat, he suffers from a severe loss of a sense of reality; if he only pretended to be taking it seriously, he was trolling, and is still continuing to do so. I firmly believe the latter; in one of his last postings he was claiming he was genuinely afraid "his family" might be incarcerated. Come on, how ridiculous can it get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I support the original block. An apparently what Bugs' posted was not clearly sarcastic. A threat is a threat. If Felix' is just a troll then Bugs' just fueled the fire with a sarcastic comment, but if I were in Felix's position and i was no troll i would to some degree be feeling the same way. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no threat. Future Perfect's analysis of the situation is correct. And I don't believe for even 1 second that the user's response was anything but mockery and play-acting. But on the grain-of-sand possibility that his response was sincere (hence totally mis-reading what I had said), I will post have posted a clarification on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bugs', I think that has tied all of the ends that were in the email I received. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted the conditions under which I am willing to unblock FelixHonecker on his talkpage, and I have unprotected the talkpage to allow him to answer and make a statement there.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC results

How does an RfC end? I'm referring to this and basically the rest of the page. Who "decides" the results of the discussion, and when. It is getting out of hand and not going anyway, so someone needs to "decide" the results. Probably not the right spot to post this....CTJF83 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• They usually run 30 days. So this one has some time to go. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's already way out of control though, and not going anywhere. Can an uninvolved person weigh in. CTJF83 04:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Out of control" in what sense? WP:CLOSE has the lowdown on how to close an RfC. They are supposed to remain open for 30 days after creation. Ideally, either a clear consensus emerges from the RfC or maybe a compromise, so no formal ending is needed. But if that doesn't occur, and especially if there is an up-or-down decision to be made, someone can close using the procedures and templates provided at WP:CLOSE. Closing an RfC is not specifically an admin tasks as no admin rights are required (usually), so any experienced and uninvolved editor can close an RfC. But since admins are experienced closing XfD's it probably makes sense to ask one of them, and I think the proper place to do that is right here (but not until after March 5, or after no new comments have been made for a few days, whichever comes later). Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Out of control as in the length of the several discussions, and the repeating of the same stuff, over and over. I'll wait till the 5th though. CTJF83 07:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh OK. If you can't get anyone to close it, drop me a line. Herostratus (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I do think it should stay open until 30 days have passed. I think we've got two sides shouting at each other, neither making great arguments. With some luck we'll get better arguments (hopefully on both sides) now that it's shown up here. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Ok, Herostratus. CTJF83 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor blanking case filed against him

I filed a case [19] at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring against User:Mjs2010 who had violated 3RR. He proceeded to blank the case to remove all trace of: [20]. I think this highly inappropriate and should be looked into. The case should be dealt with independently on its own merits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It was quickly reverted and then removed again by an admin. I contacted the admin to ask why. Hopefully it was just a mistake.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - saw a revert by an anon with no comment and reverted too fast. Have blocked both user and anon for 24 hr for edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Many edits deleting Portuguese links

Editor User talk:LPrati has made a large number of removals of links to Portuguese templates. His edits may be perfectly valid! But some verification is needed. Can someone cursorily audit these? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if template usage is correct.

Is this correct? It links to this page, which links to a page that says it is not. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked it was Arbcom action that blocked him for Socking. I believe a user had emailed evidence privately to the committee. Its a pitty, for transparency's sake I which more info was available on the issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy POV pushing

A few years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a technocracy POV on wikipedia. The editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs).

Now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who are engaging in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated. The editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and 68.226.118.248 (talk · contribs).

I would be grateful if any interested admin could keep an eye on the situation please. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Not pro Technocracy, or anything, but interested in balanced information presentation. Johnphos tried to have one of the articles deleted previously in an articles for deletion, which failed. I think we could call him 'anti' for real. He is trying to control the article now against a more neutral presentation of the material. He was lobbied over and over to be involved in the debate on the talk pages and failed to do so. Johnphos edits do not favor new information regardless of citations being reputable and neutral.

Johnphos has stressed the implication that this group is fascist or fascistic. That is not correct, that group is around still and making that claim could be libelous? Johnphos acts as owner on these two articles and this fails the sniff test as he did not debate the edits on either talk page, just tagged the article. I suggest interested people look at the talk pages of both articles to form their own opinions and suggest also reading the history of both pages, back maybe 10 edits or farther.

A simple solution here is to make a request for comment and let some new people examine the situation. The issue being about neutrality and balance and being able to use a website that is the official web-page of the group in question. Johnphos says no. That does not make a lot of sense. See Technocracy movement talk page. Thanks. --Fidel Drumbo 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Skip, continue to complain about me personally if you wish, but all that I have said in the articles has been properly referenced and supported by various scholarly books. These are much more reliable than the self-published websites which you prefer. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Some background on the possibility that FidelDrumbo could be a reincarnated editor:

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

Skipsievert was indefinitely blocked by Moreschi in November, 2009, with this rationale. A request for an Arbcom case had been filed, but it was closed as moot due to the indef block. There was a previous sockpuppet case in April, 2009 but it was inconclusive. A defining attribute of Skip was an abundance of personal attacks, in addition to his strong support of technocracy. If other editors believe that FidelDrumbo has a chance of being Skip, the history of Skip's talk page should be undeleted. The discussions at Talk:Technocracy movement do suggest advocacy and POV-pushing. The IP removed criticism of technocracy here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice summary. I agree that Skipsievert's talk page history and user page history should be restored. If that is done, I believe a case can be made that Skipsievert is evading an indef block by coming back as FidelDrumbo. Johnfos (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor (who is now User:Googlesalot) has asked me to transfer a comment here, since semiprotection keeps him from posting at ANI:

I used to be editor 68.226.118.248 and now I'm being accused of POV pushing and also being linked to some other editors as is shown here [21]. I find it very strange and sad that I have to defend myself for edits done in good faith and being labeled as a POV pusher when I had legitimate reasons for the edits. If this is how wikipedia treats editors who take a particular interest than I now know why it's scrutinized so heavily and has a poor reputation amoung schools, teachers, and educators. I especially find it very insulting that you use an edit that was very legitimate as evidence of POV pushing, especially as an administrator. That edit was towards an article about an organization Technocracy Incorporated when the subject of the deleted material was about the movement as a whole and there was no mention of Technocracy Incorporated in the reference or statement. Notice how I left the same exact reference and material alone in the Technocracy Movement article? How is labeling an organization fascists even remotely neutral? Even when the material is not even on the subject of the organization? After considering the edits done by Johnfos and this game that seems to be playing out on wikipedia I think the main POV pusher is Johnfos. I would like you to include this in the notice board please, as I can't seem to edit so I can defend myself. Googlesalot (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

-- EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently FidelDrumbo and the IP 68.226.118.248 both turned up at Wikipedia together and started editing in tandem and in agreement on the technocracy articles. They are behaving in the same, unmistakable ways the banned Skipsievert and his meat puppet AdenR behaved. Their current incarnations interact with each other in the same ways, individually language things in the same styles, and edit with the same POV. They will probably try to mix things up a bit now, like awkwardly staging one or two mock disagreements, because that is what they use to do in the past when challenged. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it may be useful to give a little of my background, since it seems to have been called into question by Googlesalot. I have been on WP for four years now and have never been blocked. I have written 11 Good articles, mainly in areas related to energy policy. I had never heard of "technocracy" until I responded to a request from Skipsievert for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Archive 1#Energy Accounting, in 2009. I was shocked by what I found at Energy accounting and suggested that the article be redirected, see Talk:Energy accounting#Redirect. As time went on I found that there were many of these articles where Skipsievert had added or remove content to support his own narrow POV and promoted his own agenda disregarding reliable secondary sources.

After Skip was blocked I did quite a bit of reading and tried to make some improvements to the technocracy articles by drawing on scholarly sources. Another editor complimented my efforts here. From what I can see, one of the best sources we have is Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941 by William E. Akin, published by the University of California Press, yet several references to this book have recently been removed from technocracy articles. One of my concerns is that these and other scholarly sources are being replace by references to self-published websites such as this, at surepost.com. All of this started when FidelDrumbo started editing in the same way that Skipsievert did. Johnfos (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my question would be why am I being connected to this? I'm not skip seivert. Or involved with any other editor on Wikipedia. I've tried to have reasonable discussions over some edits I thought were bad. I contributed to the discussion and asked if you could do the same. I barely got a response and instead was accused of being "enthusiastic" and POV pushing on the subject by you. I was interested in it's history no more than you have professed on your user page and is why I have looked through archives which is what many scholarly historians do. As for the surepost.com link, I ask again as I have done on the talk page of the Technocracy Movement, What is the criteria to meet in deciding whether or not that is the correct site? I never new Wikipedia was so strict on this subject. I assumed it was an official site with the reasons provided on the talk page. I don't want you to take this personal, but it feels as if you are playing a game, or have an axe to grind with previous editors who have had a POV or stake in Technocracy. I don't have a POV. I wanted the articles information neutral and technocrats side represented in the articles.

I'll admit some of the references I deleted I didn't mean to and I'm sorry. However the material I deleted were legitimate. The edits recently done by epipelagic that fixed the deleted references were good and I thank him/her for fixing my careless mistakes. Googlesalot (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that an unknown editor(epipelagic) who not once contributed to the discussions on the Technocracy articles is now an expert in linking other editors together. Isn't it the admins job to do that? Why did you even come here? I could use your same logic and link Epipelagic and Johnfos together. Maybe you both know each other?Googlesalot (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP is quite strict on the subject of sourcing (see WP:RS), and I can see that you are still unsure about whether the surepost.com site is acceptable, so please take the issue to WP:RSN and discuss it there. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with quite high standards.

I can see from what you have said that you are wanting to edit cooperatively. But you have been implicated here because you have been tandem editing with FidelDrumbo (whom it seems is actually Skipsievert) and pushing WP:Fringe views (even though you may not have realized it). It seems that you have been genuinely unaware of Skip's long and troubled history, and of the dozens of people who spoke against Skip at WP:Arbcom. I expect most of these editors don't want to open old wounds and are probably trying to ignore this thread, but a few (such as Epipelagic) will want to speak here. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect

Resolved

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close and summarize the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect? The RfC was initiated on 17 January 2011 and no one has commented in it for two weeks. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving it a shot. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the illuminating summary about the community's view on "merge and redirect" positions. Your hard work is much appreciated. :) Cunard (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:RazzaMac

RazzaMac (talk · contribs) has done nothing but vandalised Wikipedia, please block indeff. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Block what? The user hasn't edited or vandalized for five months. There's no action here to take, and you took their not-so-awful-at-all userpage to MfD, which was easily kept. Not seeing a problem here; move on and just don't worry about them. Nate • (chatter) 14:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto, although there was one deleted page in January.  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• But they have done nothing other than vandalize Wikipedia. Japanese knotweed (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No edits in five months. If they decide to resume vandalizing, report at WP:AIV and it can be dealt with then. Until then, the account isn't doing more than taking up a few bytes of server space. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user

Biosaber (talk · contribs)

This user, while seeming not to be a vandal account, has been making problematic edits in video game articles. Ranging from repeatedly adding questionable descriptions to removing sourced information. Almost every one of his contributions has been reverted - some of which he has tried to reinstate several times. He has given no explanation for his edits and repeated attempts to communicate with the user have fallen on deaf ears, see his talk page. He [or she] is making it difficult to assume good faith at this point. Rehevkor ✉ 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Advised to start talking when issues raised. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Unotretre making continued legal threats via email

The other day the article Gravitis was deleted as advertising, and a conflict of interest notice was posted. User:Unotretre, who created the article, promptly demanded the reinstatment of the article, then added a threat to sue the users should they not restore the article (bizzarely, at the same time attempting to redact all the uses of the company's name as "patent infringement"). THey were blocked per WP:NLT, however now they've emailed through Wikimail, demanding once more that "You would rather put Gravitis article up before monday, unblock User Unotretre, cancel the conflict of interest reference naming Gravitis, or we open formally legal actions against The Bushranger and SQGibbon because GRAVITIS is a registered name in Italy, I denied consensus to appear in an unfair discussion, and when you google Gravitis it still compares a red cancelation, damaging the worldwide name of Gravitis and ALL Distributors. In defect on monday morning I will present formal denunce because wikipedia is visible in Italy and the patent allowed us to advice you for a patent infringement." While I've redirected Gravitis to Freeboard (skateboard), I'm not sure as to what to do about the rest.

I've notified User:SQGibbon of this discussion, but not User:Unotretre yet, both per WP:BEANS and because, being blocked, I believe the can't edit here anyway, if they should be notified regardless then please let me know. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to notify, blocked editors can always post on their talk page and the comments can be copied over. As the LT is still active, no reason to unblock. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirm email legal threats — I have received four similar emails from Unotretre (and/or someone else at the same company) basically all stating that unless Unotretre is unblocked and the Gravitis article restored I will be sued on Monday. SQGibbon (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, I confirm this as well, the user sent me three emails threatening legal action, and one email to let me know I had email from them. Dreadstar ☥ 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to re-block without ability to send emails on the grounds of abusing the email feature to harass other editors? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dreadstar ☥ 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As a footnote, a trawl through the diffs of the article allowed a non-COI, non-WP:SPAM diff to be relocated to allow the article to be an unreferenced stub. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion sanctions discussion

Resolved

 – Courcelles closed the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... is anyone planning on closing this one way or the other any time soon, or is everyone else just hoping it will archive itself? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll close it.... Courcelles 21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My sympathies. :-) Good luck figuring it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Minute late and a dollar short, as usual. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chuang Kuo-jung

Resolved

 – Article semi protected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a roving IP editor who insists on restoring (what I believe to be completely POV) information in Chuang Kuo-jung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that is derogatory to Ma Ying-jeou (whom Chuang had previously spoken ill against). I almost semi-protected the article, but I want thoughts on whether doing so is appropriate — and whether I am correct, in the first place, of believing that the edit was POV and should be removed. --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have warned this IP of POV editing. and I view that protecting the page will force the IP to sit down. There is not severe enough, IMO, disruption yet to warrant a block. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Block will also be ineffective; the IP is part of a portable block of Chunghwa Telecom. Thanks for reviewing the situation. Can you go ahead and semi-protect it if you believe semi-protection is warranted? --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have admin status and never will become an admin... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I note that the sprotect has been applied, and I consider this as appropriate in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation

This stub can't be moved to the correct title of History of video game consoles (eighth generation), and I think I found earlier, though can't find it again, evidence of a series of AfDs of this article and mention of salting it. An admin might like to take a look. PamD (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, there may actually be some better places to move it. I do find it especially odd for a "history of" article to exist on something that exists only in the future.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think someone was trying to get around the WP:SALT on History of video game consoles (eighth generation), sorry to say. –MuZemike 02:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Close RfC at 1953 Iranian coup d'état

Hope this is the right place to ask this question. There is a RfC on the 1953 coup talk page that seems to have run its course. Is there an univolved admin who can close it, or is that done automatically? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RfCs normally last for 30 days, so it'll be closed after that. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:124.255.145.192 and serious ranting issues

I have never had more issues with any other IP than this person. S(he) comes on to WP to push POV regarding the oil spill at Dalian in July 2010. Even an innocuous edit like this attracts the seething criticism of this IP. Then, in what is possibly a subtle, veiled attack on all people of Chinese descent, he accused me of being a so-called 50 cent poster (read up on what it means; shouldn't have to explain here). That was in December 2010, under a different IP address. It should be abundantly clear from the terms used in the mud-slinging that the two are, or at least were, the same.

Now this person comes to strike again. Citing WP:Recentism and WP:Undue, I had moved the information regarding the oil spill from the intro to the History section, where it more appropriately belongs. It has NOT been deleted from the article. Wow, can he read... In an equally serious "manual edit revert", (s)he even accused me of vandalism. Now go look at my talk as of this IP's last post. The serious personal attacks and accusations should warrant a lengthy block for this editor.

Lastly, if he is not blocked for this, he should be blocked for edit warring, also receiving a lengthy block due to past history from this person. If you read his edit summaries and posts on my talk page, you will see that he has only resorted to treating this site as a forum. I have at least cited policy on his talk as a reason to avoid insertion of the spill. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You've not exactly helped things with edits like this and this. Edit summaries like this violate WP:NPA, this edit indicates an attitude of ownership and a battleground mentality. Quite frankly, [i]your[/i] own behaviour has been far from exemplary. There was no attempt at discussing the edits in question on the talk page. Quite frankly, I think this whole issue could have been less inflamed if the two of you had discussed the edits on the talk page. However, that being said your application of wp:recent does seem correct. More discussion, less confrontation required. Blackmane (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Too often have I seen the 50-cent term being lazily (often seriously) thrown at any editor who is both a Sinophile and of Chinese descent. I will view it as a snide racial/political slur. and if the user will throw out such bad-faith accusations, and will not even take the time to see that I simply moved the info to another section, there is nothing I can do to discuss fruitfully; users such as this will do nothing other than treat this site as simply another web-forum. Yes, the first warning on his talk page does resound of WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLE, but I will take a harder line when something involves one of WP's core policies.

That said, I will admit that this behaviour is inexcusable and is part of one of my sometimes bad habits of being inflamed. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

[{WP:RECENT]] is an essay not a policy so it's not enforceable. I too am of Chinese descent (Australian born though) but that's neither here nor there. If you feel that such an accusation is of bad faith and a personal attack, then it is even more important that you step back from engaging with a battleground mentality. I can only re-iterate that at the core of it this is a content dispute that degenerated into WP:ABF because of a lack of discussion and compromise, precisely because you decided to take a harder line.

On a side note, the material should probably have more than just a one line entry (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind of course) and looks more suitable to being in the heavy industry section, particularly as it would be easy to lead into following the description of the port facility. I don't think there will be any serious admin action that can be taken beyond a few warnings all round and advice to pursue more discussion on the article talk page. 188.220.173.91 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC) that was me forgot to log in. Blackmane (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

More offensive to my eyes than the 50 cent party accusation is the comment that "you ABC (American Born Chinese) think you are the keepers of all Chinese knowledge", which is a personal attack on a level beyond HXL's "you idiot". Accusing a user also of being a paid propagandist for a government is accusing them of a grave offense, belonging on the conflict of interest noticeboard if at all. I know that we all love the boomerang on this board, but what you call HXL's "battleground mentality" did not come out of nowhere. An anonymous editor comes to an article, inserts disproportionate and partisan material into the lead section of that widely read article with the provocative edit summary "attempt to whitewash truth", and then edit-wars against doubting editors while name-calling and trolling on their talk pages. Generally, editors who want to add material based on such extraordinary claims should justify their edits on the talk page. That the IP's immediate course of action subsequent to edit warring was to cast personal remarks and make political rants on HXL's talk page is good reason for anyone to believe that the IP was more serious about making a political point than about improving the article. The best way to handle trolls like this is to (if not to block, then to) revert and ignore them, and not to reward their contemptible behavior by seriously considering their ideas for the article. Quigley (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

173.18.227.63

This IP Special:Contributions/173.18.227.63 has been spamming a website to a few pages, as well as making other obnoxious edits: my user page Saizai's user page* Multiple citizenship talk page Wtshymanski's user page Werdna's user page Lithium air battery article Lithium air battery 2

—Felix the Cassowary 12:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you notified the IP of this discussion, but I see no other attempt at engagement with the IP prior to that. How is one to know the community's expectations and the consequences of not meeting them?  Frank  |  talk  14:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's done. We'll see what happens next. Jeh (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank, how am I supposed to know the community's expectations for reporting obvious and offensive vandalism are? A possibly inappropriate report seemed like it was more likely to result in good than doing nothing; but I did think a report was the best course of action. What should I have done? And I mean starting from ignorance about the procedure: I just noticed rude comments on my User page, but didn't know what else to do.

In any case, common sense suggests that is grossly inappropriate to write "fuck" into someone else's expression of opinion. Do we assume other users have no common sense? I see no reason such a person shouldn't be put on a "short leash" by making sure other people know to keep an eye out for them.

Thanks, Jeh, for doing what apparently is meant to be done.

—Felix the Cassowary 23:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:VAN for details of how to respond to vandalism. Note also that this is an IP address, so potentially it could be different people over time, though probably not in this case. If blocking were appropriate, WP:AIV would be the place to go.  Frank  |  talk  08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 27#Gay Nigger Association of America

Resolved

 – Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin speedy close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 27#Gay Nigger Association of America? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) and WP:DEEPER for more information. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin also update the listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination):

<noinclude>
{{Delrevafd|date=2006 November 28|result=Deletion endorsed}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 6|result=Deletion endorsed, overwhelming consensus}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 18|result=Speedy closed. The basics of this have already been covered and endorsed by DRV, the rest is just trolling}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2010 July 27|result=Clearly not enough. Create a draft first and run it by an uninvolved experienced contributor before bringing it back to DRV}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 2|result=This isn't coming back. When there are decent sources we can look at this again}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 6|result=No consensus to permit recreation}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 22|result=Rapily repeated nominations tend to be disruptive. Nothing has significantly changed since the last nomination}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2011 February 18|result=endorse status quo}}
{{Delrevafd|date=2011 February 27|result=speedy close as status quo endorse}}
</noinclude>

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we SALT that article a year or two ago? Why was it unSALTed? If it hasn't been SALTed, why? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:RL0919/Archive 2010#Creating GNAA redirect for the discussion that led to the creation of the redirect, which was closed as keep at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 10#Gay Nigger Association of America. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked the nominating user (see other contribs for why) and their sock. Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Speedy closed. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Shelly Kinney and Magog the Ogre. Would you or another admin update the listings at the AfD to include the result parameter? The code is pasted above. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Are Talk:Marapets (request for recreating Marapets) and Wolfstar100 (talk · contribs) related to Springlynforpalestine (talk · contribs)? Cunard (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Folks, it's likely a coordinated attack. –MuZemike 09:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of my administrator actions: block of WikiManOne

Resolved portion

Note: WikiManOne is being discussed above for another issue, independent of this.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I recently put down a block on WikiManOne (talk · contribs) after reading the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours). This was a difficult block to make, because I have expressed a very strong opinion on just this very subject, and it is diametrically opposed to {{user|WikiManOne's. Worse, after I made the block, I was already going to bring it to ANI, but I now actually notice that WikiManOne was the very same editor to whom I expressed this opinion! The result is that I've made a block that was out of the scope of what was appropriate for me. I don't want to completely undo it and as such give the editor a free pass if the block was justified (which I still believe it was, based simply on the structure of the edits, regardless of content). Can I have the community to take a review of it please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I'd say you're in the green. This is a textbook violation of 3RR - given that you're a great administrator, I won't hesitate to say that I trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses and not previous experience. m.o.p 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) It looks fine to me, good for you for bringing it up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You are an admin, and thus your action is wrong. However, I am also an admin which makes my comment wrong. Any admin either agreeing with me or disagreeing me is also wrong (although it is wrong of me to say that). Are you sure you are an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Resp to Magog, below. I am supporting your action; although you may be somewhat involved (and thus are "wrong") you did the right thing - per my agentBaseball Bugs, every admin action or comment is "wrong" (including my own attempt at humour, apparently) so... don't fret. It's fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me LHvU. I don't get it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is not unlike Jayron's recent self-directed comment that "everything he says is wrong". I expect LHvU is saying that any admin's actions are under review and in some sence "everything they do is wrong", at least in the eyes of some editors. Hope that helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly, I would hate to see either 1) the editor's block log unnecssarily plugged up with another block or 2) the editor not be blocked for behavior which the community agrees on. I would be glad to unblock otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC) - Two days is cheap enough for this report the user was only blocked a couple of days ago and has raced back in seemingly without listening to any advice - Magog's realized he was a bit involved and so brought it here, for opinions, and I support his actions completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Some, though not all, of WikiMan's verbal attacks on other editors are unfair and unjustified. He needs to cool his jets a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks and edit warring. Not a good combination. No matter how well-meaning he may be, he's building up to a permanent place in the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Good block I was considering it myself, and I tend to lean a bit more on WM1's side of the argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've taken ownership of the block, so he can't complain about Magog not being impartial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The mistake was certainly understandable - when a user's name doesn't match their signature, it's possible to accidentally not realize the two are one in the same. Sure, it would have been better if someone else had done it, but it's not the end of the world. --B (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm, good point B. There may be a bit of climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This is getting to be a bit ridiculous; the talk page is being used to soapbox, not to request unblock. I request another admin give him a final warning before locking his page for the remainder of the time. I have nothing against WikiManOne (or at least I didn't until a few minutes ago), but right now the discussion is counterproductive and taking away from other areas where we could be working. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) IMHO it would not be appropriate as long as people are engaging him in conversation. First step would be to request the unblocked editors to stop engaging in the back and forth. Give him the chance to settle down for his block without resorting to more button use.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Good call. TBH the request probably shouldn't have come from me either, seeing as the editor now thinks I'm Satan incarnate, or right-wing religious man incarnate, or something along those likes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (ec) I'm not a huge fan of removing talk page access for this. It's not disruption if everyone just ignores him. Let him rant, he'll tire himself out. And perhaps sometime in the next two days a friend of his will come along and talk some sense into him. I'd only suggest revoking his talk page if he starts posting serial unblock requests. Lest I come off as too much of a softy, though: I see his name associated with turmoil and conflict all the time; is he worth it? I'm too lazy to look into his contributions in more detail to see, but my first impression is that this is someone here for the thrill of the battle, and it might be best to show him the door if he doesn't change his attitude fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've had some interaction with him and I'm not involved in the content area. From what I've seen, I believe he's a good faith editor. But one who's editing controversial articles that he's passionate about. I don't believe that he's here just to battle, but rather his intense belief, including the belief that he's right in his edits have led to what we see. I wouldn't label him a irredeemable troublemaker. That said he does need to learn from this.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC) OK Cube, I will defer to the judgment of someone who has actually looked into this for more than the 90 seconds I gave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This edit by WikiManOne to his own talk page should be noted, though he has removed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, it was removed for him, he restored it, and was reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Topic Block I just became aware of this, so I am arriving late to this party...hell, damned thing is over...but WMO has a mentor (my previous in fact) User:Kubigula, who has been trying to work with WMO. WMO isn't responding to anything that Kubigula is saying, obviously. I have put this by Kubigula, but it being 7am here (as of this writing) he isn't up or responded, but I feel a topic block (NOT ban) is needed to get WMO back on the right track. If we get him out of the constant battleground that is the abortion articles, we might have a chance of keeping this user, a good one as said by Cube above, from an indef block. I would recommend a 6 month block from any abortion related article, including creating them or even posting to their talk pages. He needs to be taken completely out of that arena and moved on to something else. First screw up, a one week block. I was going to go with a final stern warning here, but he has had those to no avail. Second screw up, one month block. Strike three, he's out. Indef block. I know it is harsh, but if he sees the writing is on the wall, maybe he will chill out and move on to something different. He can't keep battling on at the abortion articles or he will wind up in indef-land anyway. What say you? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I think what you're asking for is a six month topic ban. Or, if that's not the case, can you clarify what you mean by "topic block"? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 2 or 3 months, anything abortion related might be helpful to the user as he is only struggling with the intensity in that area, talk page involvement allowed. Or a few weeks, 5 or 6, one revert condition and have someone clearly explain what a revert is might be helpful to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not too sure what a topic block is, either. I also think that these are drastic measures. m.o.p 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Topic ban just seems permanent, so I went with "topic block". If you wish to use "ban", that's cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply to User:Master of Puppets - Some might say to allow the user to return to the same editing style without some assistance is certain to result in an indefinite restriction, so I don't see a minor restriction now as drastic, I see it as a benefit and helping the contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have to say, I have been very taken aback by the user's whole response. He's exhibited some textbook-case MPOV problems (asserting the necessity to more than 3 reversions in a day, accusations of a cabal, assumptions of bad faith, referring to his version as the consensus version when he was the only consenter, etc.). I honestly can't understand how someone can go from being so reasonable (as he was on my talk page the other day), to so out in left-field (no pun intended... he claims to be opposite right-wing). He literally is claiming that I blocked him because I oppose his point of view (I blocked him only because I patrol WP:AN3), and that other editors with even the tiniest history of disagreeing with him are in an alliance to support me. I figure this can only be attributed to either 1) a lavishly paranoid personality, 2) youthful naivety, 3) naivety due to getting all his information from lavishly paranoid bloggers and talk show hosts or 4) a case of "takes one to know one", meaning this is what he would do in that situation (ever notice how sockpuppeteers are the most likely to throw around multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry?). IMHO it is much more likely than anything that this is a case of #2 or #3, which means that he is reformable, if open. I think a several week topic ban would be best for him; whether enforced by the community, or self-enforced on his own part. If it comes from the community (and I am not necessarily supporting that option), then the dictum and enforcement should only come from someone who is completely on his side. Lastly, I think we should torture him by mechanically prying his eyes open and making him watch some right-wing propaganda (just kidding). Or alternatively, maybe just politely suggest that he join a debate club so he can learn to argue for the other side and assume good faith. I don't want to pile-on, but I want WMO to understand exactly what he's up against, and the reasons the community considers his actions disruptive. When you read this WMO, please understand: there is no cabal. Even people on your side have taken exception to your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly - I believe WMO's heart is in the right place and a topic ban from abortion related articles would probably be the best thing for him. However, it is a drastic measure and I don't think it's fair to go there unless we imposed similar measures on the other POV and edit warriors who frequent those pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Kubigula raises a very good point there. There are plenty of people who are pushing their own POV and should be under the same conditions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) There are plenty of other editors whose conduct has not been as abrasive or disruptive. I would rather topic ban an editor and channel him into an area of the encyclopedia where he can actually contribute real content, vs. POV-warring, as it appears WMO has been doing for the past few weeks. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative sanction wording

Proposed wording:

Area of conflict

For the purpose of these sanctions, the area of conflict is the set of articles related to abortion, broadly construed.

1RR

All editors are limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any article within the area of conflict, with the exception of reverts of obvious vandalism and anonymous IP editors.

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked for a suitable period of time by any uninvolved administrator, up to one year in the event of repeated violations; in lieu of or in addition to blocking, the administrator may also impose a discretionary sanction, as described below.

General sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process; this includes, but is not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, and violations of the biography of living people policy.

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the section of Wikipedia:General sanctions documenting these sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN), or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. In particular, they may not reverse or overturn (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of these sanctions, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce these sanctions, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI).

Involved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under these sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Logging

All blocks, sanctions and warnings made under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs.

First choice. As proposer. T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Most of the wording here is taken from WP:DSN; the involvement part is taken from WP:ARBCC. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its not consistent with Existing Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Its length also would take up substantial amount of the Wikipedia:General sanctions page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then move it to a subpage. You already have a subpage for the logs anyway. I also don't care that much about maintaining consistency with a failed article probation scheme. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No failure there. The point is to limit escalation of disputes, That doesn't mean such disputes wont esculate. Your model ties the hands becuase instruction creep that ties the hands of Admins who are watching or have commented in the dispute. We'd be in the same place if every time there was a violation an Admin had to run here to get a perfectly uninvolved admin to impose something... We'd be back where we started with tons of ANI threads and Drama. Every admin knows what involved is. The whole purpose of CS is to take care of problems with out excessive bureaucracy to get stuff done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. You have a probation scheme that did not define "involved", and you have massive fights over whether certain administrators are "involved" which became one of the three arbcom case requests that led to WP:ARBCC. Your proposed solution to that is...leave "involved" undefined. Right. Because the meaning of "involved" is so obvious that no reasonable people will fight over it... T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikilinked the WP:INVOLVED from the Admin policy where it was infered for defintion of WP:INVOLVED Admins. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets just go with Tim,s version as its a working probation, support for that. Also support for WP:INVOLVED as a good guide towards that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the problems he pointed out above. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since I am not an admin I can't vote and I almost never comment in the ANI section but I want to get this straight. One editors violates 3rr a couple times and a couple others come close, and the same editors keep bringing each other to this board and that requires a community-wide 1rr policy. I think this is going way overboard. How about just putting anyone that gets a 3rr violation in that section into 1rr or something like that? Yes the abortion articles get heated, but so does religion, politics, etc. Do we make every area 1rr? Yes I am someone that WMO has had heated discussions with but I stay within the rules and so do many of the other people that have been editing in that region. I personally think putting indivdual editors (not just WMO) into 1rr and maybe even disengage warnings would be better then a community-wide 1rr on abortion related topics.Marauder40 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No people who cant agree to our NPOV policy typically have restrictions imposed on them. Areas where there are flamewars typically have restrictions imposed in the area. We do this over and over Wikipedia has not imploded. The princpal is to stop edit warring and encouage discussion since edit warring start when people change back and forth with out talk discussion we merely make them hurry up and talk. We haved this place have the issue long before any of ya'll showed up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I just honestly don't think it has come that far yet. MOST of the editors on the page are staying within rules. Most of the editors are discussing things. I just think a small number of editors on both "sides" need to be reigned in. I honestly think imposing a community-wide topic 1rr is taking the "easy" way out. Especially at this point. I have seen religion articles get much more heated then this discussion has gotten and they didn't go down that path. Usually a couple temporary restrictions of various types on editors bring things in line. But I don't hold a mop so I will not make any more comments on this on ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • YOu seem to think this is recent problem, this type of flare heats up a couple times a year. We reign a few editors more fill the void it happens over and over and this gives us the tool to prevent further disruption The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support The explosion of ANI incidents related to abortion was not terribly surprising given the real life passions. When future high profile abortion incidents occur we can expect the same. I like T. Caens version better as the wording on "involved administrators" is helpful for mitigating distracting (and usually baseless) arguments about administrator abuse rather than on how to fairly deal with the topic at hand in article space. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The original needs a bit more work, but this alternative is not okay.
• On the point about involvement, the fact that the other Community probations are working does speak volumes. As was repeatedly noted in the CC case, the drafter of the CC probation failed to account for too many things and that's what happens when mad attempts are made to put off an ArbCom case without thinking things through thoroughly (it will only delay and prolong the inevitable as opposed to settling it in the longer term). If things were thought thoroughly, then a 100% identical wording from the Obama probation would not have been imported in the CC proposal (that was the first sign of an understanding which was too simplistic - instead, it would have become clear why that probation would not work in the CC topic area). It had no chance of working in the long term with the users involved. I don't see any reason to believe this issue is going to crop up here (as no evidence has been presented to that effect to date); unnecessary (or even unjustified) red tape is not our priority and standard policy on involvement ought to work just fine.
• In particular, I oppose having to write special rules for administrators indiscriminately every single time as a handful of them may refuse to take appropriate steps if their involvement is called into question (that is, the individual user remedies in the CC case resolution direct administrators about what they can do if they find themselves in such a situation).
• Should it ever come to the point where a Community general sanctions scheme is not working and AE-type discussions are regularly needed, then that is when ArbCom and its more drastic measures are needed (not sooner or later than that point); no amount of special rule writing is going to change the inevitable. It's the participants who are in a position to deescalate. Also, I have yet to see anyone being "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" under any DSN scheme...despite the fact it is written in DSN each and every time. And finally, the Community specifically did not want CSN (the relevant AE-type board) which was why it shut it down. Should ArbCom want to impose DSN specifically, they will not have opposition because whenever something goes wrong, it will be at AE which is under their management (and the sanctions are thereby their responsibility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm open to using the WP:INVOLVED definition if that's the preference. CSN doesn't look like AE at all to me (it was "votes for banning", IIRC, that led it to be shut down; Unlike normal bans, I don't think these sanctions are intended to require consensus before imposition). What else do you find problematic? T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose this because I think it's solving the wrong problem. There has been stunningly little revert warring on these articles relative to the current angst about them and over the last few days, the discussion has been downright tame. I think a better proposal is to deal with the actual problems. By my thinking, there are two of them. (1) The first is attempting to carry pro-life vs anti-abortion naming fight across multiple articles. (2) The second is rudeness to the opposing side on the abortion-related abortion-related talk pages themselves. Those two problems are solvable without recreating the system used for Israel articles or having the insulting arbitrary sanctions. Regarding other problems with the current proposal: (1) it doesn't have BLP removals as an exception to 1RR and (2) I, of course, also oppose the logging aspect, but I assume that will be taken out anyway. --B (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be fair to this proposal (and the other one), logging exists so that users are aware of the sanctions that are imposed and if there is an issue with the sanction (usually because it is unjustified or too harsh), someone else can bring attention to it. The other purpose is for administrators to know what sanctions have already been tried and to what extent they have had the desired preventative effect. More oversight is better than less if and when such schemes are in place. As to whether

actual problems" are being dealt with (or whether they ever will be dealt with), perhaps a proposal is needed. Whether topic bans are more insulting than blocks is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see evidence that this is needed. The articles could use improvement yes. They should more be based on review articles yes. So lets get to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – No evidence provided to justify such a broad ArbCom class action. How about a dozen users, articles and diffs for us to look at. Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with the problem. If the hidden discussion above couldn't reach a conclusion to ban one editor, how are we now supposed to approve broad discretionary sanctions? —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Again, I have to ask why there is a need for an indefinite list of articles. Baby, contraception - are these abortion related, broadly construed? If you're going to start something like this, you should tag every article you're going to affect from day one. You shouldn't drag anyone to ANI for making two reverts on an article when you couldn't even be bothered to tag it or specify it by name. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

With the baby dangling perilously, the bathwater remains firmly in place

All the above aside, WM1 has continued to edit-war on abortion-related articles and has abused rollback multiple times on abortion-related articles. At a minimum WM1 should be restricted from using rollback on abortion-related articles. - Haymaker (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker, it is quite clear that you are forum shopping to get me blocked. If you think I am edit warring, feel free to report it on the edit warring noticeboard which would be the correct place to bring something like this up. So far, you've brought I think it is five separate noticeboard incidents against me, out of which only one has resulted in any action (and the actions were done by administrators who were involved on your side). That's a 20%, an "F" at any school. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that we have no consensus for any further action on anything in this thread. I suggest we table this for now and revisit if new disruption arises at the abortion articles.--Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has continued to act disruptively across a number of abortion-related articles. His misuse of rollback is particularly egregious. - Haymaker (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And you have continually used the noticeboard to bring frivolous complaints against editors you disagree with. Perhaps some sort of topic block for Haymaker posting complaints on politics related articles on the noticeboard would be appropriate? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs Haymaker? Got any evidence of rollback being abused since this whole saga took place? N419BH 05:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he's referring to two edits that I made accidentally and explained with null edits. If you look through my talk page archives, you will see that there has already been a conversation about this on my talk page. This is just a part of Haymaker's pattern of trying to get his opponents in content battles blocked through misuse of the noticeboards.. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hint: refrain from making accusations yourself when responding to accusations against you. Throwing mud back just makes you look bad too. If Haymaker can provide evidence to back his accusation of bad-faith abuse of rollback post-block, then we might have something further to discuss here. If not I'd suggest you two avoid each other voluntarily. N419BH 08:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide the evidence. Here, Wikiman reverts without reason a correct and policy-based removal of a tag he added without giving a reason. Here, he makes an unexplained revert of a simple grammatical edit. Here, he reverts a true and relevant fact (that he probably didn't like) from the article without reason. Here, he reverts my own edit to change it back to his own POV wording. Here, he reverts a constructive edit without reason. Here, he removes an edit (again that he probably didn't like) without reason. Here, he reverts a constructive edit without reason. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I said "post-block", those are all from before he was blocked(my apologies, they are from after his block). You are correct in that they are all incorrect uses of rollback. WikiManOne, in case it was not abundantly clear from your block and this thread above, do not use rollback for anything other than obvious vandalism. Unless abuse continues however there is no need to remove permissions or add restrictions. N419BH 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback should result in removal of the privilege, period. It is meant to be only used as a tool to revert vandals, not to indulge in reverts you don't agree with. Could an admin please see to this asap? Thanks. Jusdafax 05:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Removal of tools is, just like blocking, only done to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. This issue was brought up on WM1's talk page and was addressed prior to it being initiated here. Now that WM1 has been reminded of the policy, any further abuse of rollback will lead to removal. It would probably be in WM1's best interest to avoid using rollback at all on abortion articles, but that's up to WM1. If I see him abuse rollback again I'll be the first one to bring the incident here and recommend removal of the flag. N419BH 16:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This was pretty questionable. - Haymaker (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

He apologized for it, said he misread the edits, and reverted himself. That is not cause to remove rollback. --B (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Visnusen

Wikipedian Visnusen (talk · contribs) has been editing since February 9, and his or hers edits leave something to be desired. Visnusen created a couple of articles, which have either been deleted or are about to be deleted (see talk page). Most edits are probably well-meant, but in the end are just counter-productive (see bolding 'the' on Redcurrant, double listing Eisenhower's birth on 1890, changing the photo captions incorrectly at Kings of Leon and on its bass guitarist article as well. Another thing is about 'Michael Mercer', which I am beginning to believe is Visnusen himself, from his own user page: "Michael Mercer(b. August 21, 2002) is an actor, author, voice actor, artist, mathematician, historian, video game creator, and lead guitarist, best known for his role as Devon Jackson in the movie Connor & Devon. He is the first person to create a video game by himself. He even became friends with a ghost he met in his backyard. He has a band called Atlantis." He edited the info here into several articles, see 2002, Atlantis disambig, and Michael Mercer.

This stuff is all pretty innocent (still annoying in my personal opinion), but the thing is, he or she won't take heed to any messages. No response whatsoever to advice, notifications or warnings. I'm kind of wondering what to do next, any advice? --Soetermans. T / C 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, take them off your watchlist; you have done all that is necessary and now just let the editor provide the reason for the withdrawal of their editing privileges. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And unnecessary moving of an article. No response, nothing.--Soetermans. T / C 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Could this be canvassing

• User:Resolute
• I recently proposed that Montreal Expos be merged into Washington Nationals. User:Resolute voiced his opposition by saying that the article was of cultural significance to Canadian history,while leaving an obvious disruptive edit summery. He also placed this notice on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board, which borderlines neutrality and seems to violate the audience section of WP:CANVASS, since it may be assumed that other Canadians would most likely oppose the merger of the article, given that Montreal Expos were a Canadian team. I can see no other reason to post that notice at that particular talk page, other than to canvass for support.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk about a bad faith report. The merge proposal impacts an article that falls within the Canada project's scope, and I left a single note that did not favour either argument in that debate, though it did express my frustration at yet another such debate. But then, this report is coming from an editor who has chosen to ignore no less than EIGHT previous merge discussions that all failed, and at this point, WP:AGF is the only thing preventing me from believing that this is nothing more than an attempt at silencing the consistent opposition to his proposal that has existed for about seven years now. Resolute 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolute was not canvassing. His message at the Canadian noticeboard was 'neutral' in its wording. He neither sought 'support' for or 'opposition' to the aforementioend 'merge proposal'. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The message was mostly neutral, with the exception of the word "yet" and the italics used on "another" in the phrase "yet another", which indicated some kind of attitude held about the merger suggestion. I interpreted it as exasperation. Replace "yet another" with a simple "a", and the message would have been truly neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to also say that despite the slip of indicating an opinion about the merger, I do not think the message rises to the level of "canvassing". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon continious RMs of the same topic (though by different editors), would get a bloke exasperated. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Granted, and that is why I self-noted that exasperation in my defence here. After about nine merge discussions and a VFD over the last 6-7 years, this repetitive debate does become tiring. And as I asked Jojhutton in the debate, without a response: At what point does the argument that consensus can change cross into a WP:POINT disruption? I believe Jojhutton meant well, but man, we've had this argument every nine months for seven years, and the result is always the same. Resolute 07:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, that different editors saw this as an unjustified exception to an otherwise consistent formula for dealing with baseball franchises, which can and do move, albeit not that frequently these days, is a pretty good indication that something might be wrong with the consensus. If, for instance, those connected to WikiProject Canada or people who primarily edit articles about Canadian subjects, see it as an article about Canada, and vote en bloc in opposition to the move requests, overriding those who see it as an article about a baseball team (which must be considered its primary subject, after all), then the conesnsus has been generated out of a misplaced conception of what the article's primary purpose is. Looking at it that way, the continued move requests aren't pointy, they are a natural result of the situation. Exasperating, yes, I can see that, but, at the same time, the continuation of an unwarranted exception to a consistent practice must be exasperating to baseball folks as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that Resolute did not put a similar notice on the WikiProject Baseball talk page, and that failure is more likely to be seen as indicative of canvassing. I have placed the text of Resolute's WikiProject Canada notice on the Baseball Project talk page verbatim, with the exception that I've removed "Yet another" and replaced it with "A". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I just assumed that the baseball project had been notified, as that is also how these debates consistently go. My apologies if it had not been notified as such. As to your other comments, you are basically arguing that the baseball project owns the article, and that the views of another project, which have a significant stake in the article, do not mean nearly as much. Frankly, I find your arrogance in stating that I am "wrong" for disagreeing with you insulting. Also, as has been noted several times in that debate, there is no consistent formula, so your entire premise is invalid. Resolute 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolute -- may I suggest a cup of tea? As a sysop, per wp:admin we look for you to model the best in civil behavior. I gather that you are upset, but perhaps toning down the personal nature of the rhetoric would be a positive here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@Resolute: If there is "arrogance" in believing that one's own evaluation of a situation is correct, and those that disagree are not correct, then every disagreement in the history of the world has been full of arrogant people on every side of every issue. Please don't work so hard to be insulted when no insult has been intended, or implied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at the same time, when a proposal has been shot down at least nine times on the talk pages and once at VFD, it becomes time for you to consider that the "right consensus" has been reached and accept what is. Resolute 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The conventional approach with MLB articles has been to have one main article to cover a given franchise, regardless of how many cities they've played in. An exception was made for the Expos a few years ago, and subsequent efforts to have it conform to the standard MLB articles typically go nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much because it is also a Canada article, which consistently favours splits. Indeed, Jojhutton's filing note indicates why he's not happy that I notified the Canada project: his proposal stands a greater chance of failing for the 10th time or so if one of the key projects that supports the article knows about the discussion. Resolute 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• My recollection on the point that BB makes matches his.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Taking the liberty of adding timestamp to the above. As BYK suggests, that kind of discussion needs to occur on the baseball project page, so that a somewhat broader audience can consider it. If it wasn't clear already, I don't agree with keeping Montreal and Washington's main articles separate. But consensus has said otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:GoodDay suggested that perhaps the name of the Montreal Expos article could be moved to History of the Montreal Expos, as apparently there are already the History of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the History of the New York Giants (NL). This would satisfy the Canada Projects rejection of the merge by retaining the article, and similarly satisfy the Baseball Projects consistency across its project. No reason to have two articles about the same team. This should also finally put to rest the so called "endless" attempts to merge the article. Otherwise this will likely continue to be brought up again and again.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be the obvious way to go with it. The idea of having a single main "franchise summary" article while having detailed "history" articles for their respective cities came up more recently, I think, than the last time the Expos vs. Nats issue was discussed. I see that the project page now has a similar request about Pilots vs. Brewers. That could be dealt with the same way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• This sounds like a compromise everyone could live with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm just waiting for the current Merge debate to close, which is going down as of now. Then we can offer a RM at Montreal Expos as a compromise among the projects.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any case for canvassing. This ANI-report should be closed, with no adminstrative action required. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, nothing for admins to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a longterm vandal?

• See here - I vaguely remember that there was a longterm vandal who was into German-origin names, and caused a big mess that took a long time to clean up. Is this the same person? NawlinWiki (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That would have been Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs), right? Yes, it sort of rings a bell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Spliced (TV series)

Okay, so I've discussed my edits to Girloveswaffles (talk · contribs) regarding their fancruft addition to Spliced (TV series). But no matter what I say, I can't get through to them that they're adding excessively detailed info specific only to fans. The user has gone up to a level 4 warning and yet continues to blindly revert me — instead of truly "discussing", they're now resorting to name-calling ("Quit being a Wiki-Troll." — see Talk:Spliced (TV series)). Can someone put an end to this already? I've asked at least two admins to help me resolve the dispute, and they've turned a blind eye to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war warnings issued all around. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I had already issued a 31 hour block on the Girloveswaffles account, for reverting after receiving a final warning but also noting that calling another editor - one who is posting to their talkpage in an effort to resolve the issue - a vandal is pretty much a personal attack. I was acting on a AIV report. Perhaps TPH is part of a revert war, but Girletc is not communicating other than pa's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is User:Themane2 compromised?

I am getting suspicious of User:Themane2's recent edits. This user added the file File:Freedom for Libya Flag.png, which I suspect is vandalism but I do not have enough proof to speedily delete it and tried to add it to the infobox at 2011 Libyan uprising. This user also created Talk:Altonia with some patent nonsense, which I deleted and then replaced it with a suitable redirect to Talk:Altônia. This user also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altonia and added some weird changes to Sudbrook Magnet Middle School. I am getting freaked out. I would normally notify this user, but I think that security concerns override that if incase the account is compromised. If it is truly compromised, I do not want the hacker to get wind of the investigation. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nb: "Altonia" AfD closed as speedy-keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

One other thing making me suspicious is that he describes the strength of the Republican Party as one person in 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, when there are other Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't notified them of this discussion, as is required. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I've done the honours, over 12 hours later... GiantSnowman 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid that if the account was hacked that the hacker could freak out and do something drastic if he or she was notified. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about the possibility that the account wasn't/isn't compromised? You've not allowed Themane2 the forum to defend themselves. GiantSnowman 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I don't blieve this... I was just trying to contribute.

1. Freedom for Libya. Sorry about the flag. I just wanted to represent the people who did not have the star with teh cresent flag, which is a rare one.I realize that it was wrong to use that flag, but still, it isn't "vandalism". 2. Altonia. Sorry about this, but I didn't realize what this was... I though it was fake. I wanted to make a talk page so we could further dicuss the issue. 3. SMMS. This was the middle school I went to. I just wanted to help out the article, making it better. I mean technically, the Leader of teh Government IS the principal, and the heads of states are the studnets, RIGHT? 4. That is all. Themane2 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion at Talk:Main Page on 2/28?

I can't figure out who made the deletion from the history. Is there something screwy going on here? Or am I just missing something? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a log at [22]. I'm not sure which change you mean, but it it isn't there, can you give some more info? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the history for Talk:Main Page but it's not at [23]. That's what's confusing to me. Is [24] just not updated yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorx0079 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who was the editor that made the edit that was deleted? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor is AndreaaaaBabyy. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways for edits to be hidden from public view. The first is by an admin, which shows up in the deletion log. The second is by WP:OVERSIGHT ("suppression" of edits) which does not leave a public log entry. The most recent hidden revisions on that page were hidden by someone with oversight rights. Admins (like me) can tell something was oversighted because even we can't see the suppressed content. Oversight is the only way to achieve that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that helps. Thanks. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it is somewhat opaque. There is a private log that other people with oversight rights can use, so they could in principle tell who did it if there was a need to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You (and I mean the abstract "you") might want to suppress the edit summaries that name a living individual, if one of the edits was bad enough to be oversighted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For background information, the account (which was just blocked by me and the one edit oversighted by another oversighter) is one of many as part of some sort of coordinated attack against one of the users as well as Talk:Main Page. Other accounts include Otakumo (talk · contribs) and other IPs. –MuZemike 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is User:Themane2 compromised?

I am getting suspicious of User:Themane2's recent edits. This user added the file File:Freedom for Libya Flag.png, which I suspect is vandalism but I do not have enough proof to speedily delete it and tried to add it to the infobox at 2011 Libyan uprising. This user also created Talk:Altonia with some patent nonsense, which I deleted and then replaced it with a suitable redirect to Talk:Altônia. This user also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altonia and added some weird changes to Sudbrook Magnet Middle School. I am getting freaked out. I would normally notify this user, but I think that security concerns override that if incase the account is compromised. If it is truly compromised, I do not want the hacker to get wind of the investigation. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nb: "Altonia" AfD closed as speedy-keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

One other thing making me suspicious is that he describes the strength of the Republican Party as one person in 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, when there are other Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't notified them of this discussion, as is required. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I've done the honours, over 12 hours later... GiantSnowman 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid that if the account was hacked that the hacker could freak out and do something drastic if he or she was notified. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about the possibility that the account wasn't/isn't compromised? You've not allowed Themane2 the forum to defend themselves. GiantSnowman 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I don't blieve this... I was just trying to contribute.

1. Freedom for Libya. Sorry about the flag. I just wanted to represent the people who did not have the star with teh cresent flag, which is a rare one.I realize that it was wrong to use that flag, but still, it isn't "vandalism". 2. Altonia. Sorry about this, but I didn't realize what this was... I though it was fake. I wanted to make a talk page so we could further dicuss the issue. 3. SMMS. This was the middle school I went to. I just wanted to help out the article, making it better. I mean technically, the Leader of teh Government IS the principal, and the heads of states are the studnets, RIGHT? 4. That is all. Themane2 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion at Talk:Main Page on 2/28?

I can't figure out who made the deletion from the history. Is there something screwy going on here? Or am I just missing something? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a log at [25]. I'm not sure which change you mean, but it it isn't there, can you give some more info? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the history for Talk:Main Page but it's not at [26]. That's what's confusing to me. Is [27] just not updated yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorx0079 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who was the editor that made the edit that was deleted? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor is AndreaaaaBabyy. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways for edits to be hidden from public view. The first is by an admin, which shows up in the deletion log. The second is by WP:OVERSIGHT ("suppression" of edits) which does not leave a public log entry. The most recent hidden revisions on that page were hidden by someone with oversight rights. Admins (like me) can tell something was oversighted because even we can't see the suppressed content. Oversight is the only way to achieve that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that helps. Thanks. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it is somewhat opaque. There is a private log that other people with oversight rights can use, so they could in principle tell who did it if there was a need to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You (and I mean the abstract "you") might want to suppress the edit summaries that name a living individual, if one of the edits was bad enough to be oversighted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For background information, the account (which was just blocked by me and the one edit oversighted by another oversighter) is one of many as part of some sort of coordinated attack against one of the users as well as Talk:Main Page. Other accounts include Otakumo (talk · contribs) and other IPs. –MuZemike 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging of AfDs

Resolved

 – AfDs have been sorted out, and The Egyptian Liberal has accepted that they made a mistake and indicted they will not repeat the mistake. I have unblocked The Egyptian Liberal. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–2011 anti-government protests has been merged into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests mid-discussion, which is presumably not allowed. This has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests and admin assistance would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution. I've blocked TEL to prevent further disruption until we get everything straightened out. Can someone with more time on their hands than I have at the moment please clean up this mess? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured someone would have gotten to this earlier: now that I've noticed, it's too late to work coherently. :-( Anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As a mere editor let me say it's not impossible to fix, just difficult. And it does matter since one of the three has a good reason to survive; while other two easily can be merged. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also a non-admin, just wanted to say a general word in User:The Egyptian Liberal's favor. He does a lot of diligent work at these articles and brings to that work a greater degree of awareness about the region than the average editor. I was aware of a move proposal but have been busy and hadn't followed it closely. If he jumped the gun on merging or conflating or got carried away with some overstatement, it's my guess that he was being bold and is still learning the ropes of the procedure for gaining consensus for such moves, and I would hope it could be explained to him and his block removed so he can get back to work on the articles within project guidelines. From a glance at his user page and edit history he doesn't seem to have been given fair warning, nor full explanation for the block. I've known him to listen to reason and defer to editorial responsibility and hope you'd give him the chance to do so in this matter. Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This action has been very disruptive. Moving material form one AfD to another has two unhelpful effects: (1) it prevents proper assessment of consensus on the AfD from which the material has been moved, and (2) it misleads anyone reading the discussion to which the material has been moved, as comments written about one article appear to be about another one. Whatever may have been the intention, what has been done is (1) removing other editors' comments from two AfDs, and (2) putting comments in another AfD and wrongly attributing them to other editors, who never made those comments about the article which is the subject of that AfD, and who may or may not hold those opinions of that article. Both of these actions are totally unacceptable. In addition, the editor in question removed all content from two articles which were subject to current AfDs, replacing them with redirects. This is clearly contrary to the instruction in an AfD notice which says "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." I have restored those two articles (Jasmine Revolution and 2010–2011 anti-government protests) and their AfDs. I have also relisted the AfDs, as it is possible that editors who would have contributed were prevented from doing so because the articles and their AfDs were invisible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests was a little more difficult, as there had been edits after the merging, but I have reconstructed the discussions, including those post-merge edits which are not clearly dependent on the merged material. While it is possible that the final version is not quite how it would have been without the disruption, it seems to me that consensus was clear enough, and that the disruption made no difference to the result of the discussion, so I see no need to overturn the result or relist it. I have also written to the user's talk page, inviting an explanation of this strange editing. The whole process, including all the reading and history checking needed, has taken me about an hour and twenty minutes, in addition to time others had already spent on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:77.98.96.158 unrelenting spamming of disamg page MBD

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected, IP blocked (for now).--The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Annon user 77.98.96.158 has been posting an ad for a particular company for years on the disamg page MBD. The spam is removed frequently. 77.98.96.158 has been stepping up vandalism efforts recently and has exceeded warnings and now should be blocked. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There will be no further spamming, I've semi'd the page indefinitely. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But if it was only that user causing the problem, should they not just be blocked 77.98.96.158, rather than messing it up for others. Japanese knotweed (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is indef blocking of IPs is something that can only be done in extreme cases, due to the variability of IPs. Note that the same spam was previously being added by 82.37.204.170, 80.177.61.146, and others. I've blocked the IP for a month, given that nobody else seems to be using it, but it's just a matter of time before the IP addy switches and he tries again, hence the protection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Bush. And it is not "messed up" for others who are willing to take 2 minutes to obtain a user name.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

77.98.96.158 is blocked for a month which is fine; longer (say 3 months) would also be fine. Please unprotect the page and just re-block that IP if it returns to the page. There's no grounds for long-term semi if the spam is coming from just one address. Semi can't do any good against a really persistent spammer anyway, since they can perfectly well figure out how to create accounts. If it becomes necessary, use an edit filter or blacklist, but this issue is nowhere near that level right now. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Filter 58

Resolved

 – User:7 apparently fixed the bug and notified the filter owner. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter 58 seems to have gone crazy stopping apparently valid editors and causing Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 to fill up. I don't know how to see the history of this filter so I don't know if a recent change has caused this. Can someone who is an expert on the filters check this out? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been modified today, four times. See [28] for the history. Private filter, so not saying anything more than showing you where to look here. (Nor am I all that great at regex!) Courcelles 06:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I get this "The filter you requested is hidden, and you cannot view its history." Perhaps it is possible to see why apparently good edits are being snagged by the filter just by looking at the current regex (which I can see). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who can, disable it ASAP, please. Materialscientist (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, User:7 disabled it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it says autodisabled since it hit more than 5%. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what this filter entails, and if it's starting to block legitimate contribs an EFM needs to revert whatever changes were made to it that are creating these false-positives - and soon. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little vexed, and I'm not too terribly familiar with the filter system to please bear with me, but... if I can see what the filter filters, then why can I not see its change history? --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I found I am unable to look at the change history of a related filter, #294. A couple of other ones checked at random could be viewed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's restricted to the "edit filter manager" user group, I think. That's a right admins can (technically speaking) give themselves if you are depserate to see it (see Wikipedia:Edit_filter), but no real guidance on whether you should do or not :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Golbez is saying it's odd that filter 58's logs are visible when the filter itself is not. I haven't examined the logs enough to try to figure out what the filter is doing, but if a filter is private I'd expect that its logs should also be private. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no functionality to hide edit filter logs other than when an oversighter hides it (and that functionality has only been available for a few months). I'm guessing that the developers consider the logs to be edits, and there are cases where someone who isn't an edit filter manager would need to know what the content of a trapped edit was (AIV, for example, and although theoretically all admins could add themselves to the edit filter manager group if it became necessary, it might get confusing for others. That said, I had thought admins now had the ability to view private filters and their change histories even without the EFM userright.) —Soap— 13:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can make out; there is an option to make the filter private. If set Admins can still see the filter content, but not the history (I am guessing that is a bug of some sort) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was in the group, but was not, next time I will know what to do to find out what happened and who did it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kitb132's edits to St Helens RLFC

Over the past few weeks, the afore mentioned user (talk) has become increasingly difficult in removing Ricky Tomlinson from the notable fans section. Despite a consensus being reached through the discussion page that the source questioned is reliable, states that the content is valid and that the content should stay, Kitb132 continues to remove Tomlinson from the list. Clearly, this is disruptive, verging on the boundaries of edit warring, so I would appreciate it if blocking steps could be taken on the user. Also, I don't know for sure whether I'm in the right place or not to discuss this, but can semi-protection steps also be taken on the page itself?

The persistent childishness of what the user is doing is getting beyond a joke, so I would be very appreciative if someone could help me out here.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the 3RR noticeboard is the better place to park this issue (note: 3rr can apply where there is edit warring that is not technically within the 24 hour limit).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They need a warning first; I've given them one. If they continue, blocking would certainly seem appropriate. Semi-protection would not be the right approach if this is a single user who can be prevented from continuing the behavior but can be considered if (vaguely put) addressing the user does not resolve the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The contributor has again reverted and is now blocked for 72 hours (a time chosen given that he is a WP:SPA who does not log in daily). I leave it to the editors of the article to restore the content per consensus. If the edit-warring continues, further intervention will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help,

Ymron (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an error

Hello, my name is User:Presidentman. When I put the Wikibreak Enforcer in my script page, I made an error, putting a 5 in instead of a 3. - 74.171.71.173 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've altered the 5 to 3 for you. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that User:Presidentman and User Talk:Presidentman both say May, not March. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant to change those, but I forgot. - 74.171.71.173 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kim-Zhang-Hong

Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This user has been an ongoing problem for several years now, and has shown no sign of "getting it". Per WP:COMPETENCE, I would like to request a topic ban from all religion-related articles at this time, in the hopes that the user can use his time here to reform. The problem with this user's editing has involved repeated incidents of plagiarism, original research, misuse or misunderstanding of how to use sources, tendentious editing, WP:POINT, and POV pushing. This issue was previously raised in 2009 but the problematic editing behavior appears to have continued. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Kim-Zhang-Hong requested adoption in June 2010, and User:Curtis23 responded with an offer,[29] but there is no evidence adoption ever took place. Curtis23 has not been active since Nov. 2010. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are easy to provide. What is more important, is that the user has been previously warned about making these edits, acknowledges the problem, but continues to make the same problematic edits months later. This is willful POV pushing, and the user has been at it for years, in many different religion-related articles. For example, the user was POV pushing on Missionary in September 2010, adding OR and using unreliable sources,[30] and engaging in plagiarism.[31] User was warned on their talk page about plagiarism by User:Oda Mari.[32] Response on talk page indicates that user doesn't understand the problem.[33] User:Amatulic steps in to help explain it again.[34] Response by Kim-Zhang-Hong indicates he still doesn't understand.[35][36][37] User returns to the Missionary article and continues adding copyvio.[38] User:Amatulic replies, asking Kim-Zhang-Hong to stop.[39] This was September 2011, however, as one can see from his talk page, Kim-Zhang-Hong has been previously warned about NPOV, OR, and the misuse of sources since 2009. I myself had a protracted discussion with Kim-Zhang-Hong in August 2010, a month before the problem listed above. But, it is still occurring. In February 2011, he was warned again about plagiarism on South Korea[40] by User:Rjanag.[41] Both of Kim's responses indicate that he does not understand the problem.[42] Rjanag has made it clear: If you continue violating copyrights in this way, your account will be blocked until you demonstrate that you understand our policies.[43] I, however, believe we are already at that point, judging by his latest edits to Buddhism.[44][45] He was previously asked in August 2010, many times not to use sources in this way. All attempts at discussing with this user have failed and I respectfully request that he be topic banned from all religion-related articles until he stops POV pushing, plagiarizing, and adding original research, and starts using sources correctly. We also need users to look through his contributions one by one, as I am quite confident we will have to revert quite a number of his edits. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel and short-term block needed re user:81.174.165.169

Repeated sophomoric vandalism spree inserting derisive sexual commentary re named private persons. Presumably a high school kid ridiculing his classmates, or some such, but he's not stopping and his contributions are utterly worthless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked while I was posting this, but RevDel would still be a good idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RevsDel'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

COI, rambling, outing and legal threat in Talk:Torsion field

Resolved

 – User:Torsionfield banhammered per pseudoscience Arbcom enforcement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Appears to be someone with a conflict of interest. He has made several (desperate) attempts to have Torsion field deleted or whitewashed to remove any mention of fraud. (For example, he as argued for the removal of any source associated with the Russian Academy of Sciences, and claims that the "commission to investigate pseudoscience" is not a "legal" part of said academy, despite being clearly listed in their official website.) Attempts to negotiate or reason with him have been met with ramblings, accusations and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Now he has resorted to attempting to out editors[46] and issuing legal threats [47]. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

illustration of disruptive conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Enric Naval you didnt negotiate anything you only lied all the time, using ignorance as discussion, it seems that you have a conflict of interest. Maybe you are the one who respects no rules, as it can be seen from discussion page. The article Torsion Field is an Atack Page. Nobody is part of the academy as Gryzlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov) mentioned here: http://www.gazeta.ru/interview/nm/s3337459.shtml you are an accomplice helping user:cubbi the creator of the page who is in fact Eduard Kruglyakov or part of his team. there are no reliable references, they have noon-neutral point of view, in the discussion page there cant be a reasonable dialogue but only a monologue with you and user:cubbi...sorry but its clearly that you are supporting Eduard Kruglyakov and his work. You have non-neutral point of view and use bad intentions in conversation. The page must be deleted.Torsionfield (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Torsionfield. Do you have diffs proving your claims? —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reference nr. 2 (from torsion field article) supporting torsion field pseudoscientific concept: [48] has non-neutral point of view it present fraud but also the opposite, and a conflict: torsion field exposed as fraud but Minister of Science didnt agree and financed torsion field research for unlimited time. Is an extraordinary evidence? User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy? Torsionfield (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I wasn't referring to the content, I was referring to your accusations that Enric Naval and Cubbi are conspiring to control article content. As a general rule, AN/I refuses to handle pure content disputes. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC) where content dispute should be placed? About Enric Naval and Cubbi i dont know how to copy paste all the torsion field article discussion page but please go there and just search theyr name, you are going to have a surprise: they are ignoring smartley every argument or discussion, it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them, they play an experienced game...this cant be done by someone who uses wikipedia for a few days, its clearly that theyr conspiracy its well mastered. All the evidences are on the discussion page, only negative attitude (collected): Having a patent doesn't mean that your device works This doesn't look like a reliable source by wikipedia standards Your comment implies that sources "critical in nature" are automatically not reliable This article is about Shipov's claims, it's not about mainstream theories that happen to have similar names Only stuff from unreliable sources and fringe promoters, who seem to have a conflict of interest in making Shipov's torsion fields look like mainstream. Her being a CEO of a "torsion field" companies only adds additional proof. I hope I explained myself clearly. so he has an answer for everything but of course not for a dialouge..or any support for his opinions He is very clear from my point of view ... Torsionfield (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Enric Naval i really belive that you were waiting for something like that to come here and notice other administrators, you are lucky because i didnt know Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents even exist. Now i will not use discussion page anymore as they are consumed by you and your colleagues games. I have nothing against wikipedia as i now understand wikipedia is not represented by you! You are just one simple user and i am asking real Wikipedia administrators to understand my concern and powerless in torsion field article discussion page as i didnt understand how things work on wikipedia website. It seems that a discussion is better not to open with users like Enric Naval and user:cubbi as they only treat it like monologue with hopes that nobody goes further. But this is the moment to say STOP. So thank you Enric Naval for bringing me on this page: Torsion field article is presented as the ultimate truth as pseudoscientific concept in references who represents just 1 person (his colleagues) and his work, the references cant be reliable since they all come from 1 source, second: reference nr. 2 presents the article as fraud but in the same time after being exposed: Minister of Science didnt agree and financed with unlimited funds (also Minister of defence), so as they didnt agree with Eduard Kruglyakov there is no reason to assume that torsion field is fraud. Enric Naval ignored this but he was surprised why other people dont do the same thing, as for this he should be discredited and his username erased for bad intentions and cooperation with Eduard Kruglyakov`s team. Torsion field article and its pseudoscientific references are copyright violations of business, Institutions, Ministryes, the article use harassment tactics and instigation to hatred. From this point of view the article must be deleted as it presensts also nonsense as the truth. WP:OFFICE seems to be a good reason and any other rule from Wikipedia as nothing is respected by editor user:cubbi. thank you and sorry if i disturbed anyone with my presence. 213.233.93.182 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC) He has withdrawn the legal threat[49]. For the record, I am not related to Kruglyakov nor associated with him in any manner. I can't even speak or read Russian, and I hadn't heard about him or about the RAS until I started editing this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) of course i withdrawn it because i realised wikipedia have nothing to do with you Eric Naval! ..now i know how to handle you and your team of pseudoscience. Dont try to explain us that you are not related...dont lie again! The discussion page speaks for itself. Stop supressing communication and dialgoue in your attempts for "a better life" from your "beliefs" and personal point of view, opinions. Ex.: "You imply that we should discard all sources written by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, because of them being just puppets of Kruglyakov. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I find it unreasonable, and I doubt that you find any support for doing this. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC) excuse me Enric Naval what do you mean by unreasonable? you mean torsion field article is the truth itself? so there is no reason to even discuss the torsion field article because its so clear from your opinion with best reliable personal pages as references. or what explain editors...enlight us. you are very clear now also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsionfield (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Your suggestion to exclude anything written by Russian Academy of Sciences academics is unreasonable. Accusations that all negative info is controlled by Kruglyakov sound like a Conspiracy theory. If there were reliable sources for a negative campaign against Torsion Field, then I would take your accusations more seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) You are talking to me? sorry do i seem your puppet? your agressive attitude and lack of common sense is miserable! My suggestion is that your username to be deleted because you lie too much and now you have also support on this page..as i received a private message from Wikipedia to leave you alone and go away from wikipedia.org ...sorry but this is not a dialogue...you impose your bible...good bye..may your attitude define wikipedia! Torsionfield (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsionfield (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC) And i frogot dont repeat like a broken record Russian Academy Of Science ....they didnt write anything in legal manner ..so stop playing games! Russian Academy Of Science financed torsion field even today...and where is neutrality respected by your "academics"? in your reliable links from torsion field article!! Answer ..!!!!Torsionfield (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP has created User talk:Zackexley - there doesn't seem to be such a user. I'll delete it if no sensible explanation if forthcoming. And maybe the IP needs blocking as it seems to be Torsionfield. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is such a user, but he isn't exactly active. :) He's the chief community officer for WMF. (For those who are OTRS enabled, Ticket:2011022510014002 and Ticket:2010092210005623 relate.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That explains the creation of his talk page and the post then. I'm not sure it's appropriate to leave it though, any comments? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But as for Talk:Torsion field? It appears, from first glance, to be full of accusations, conspiracymongering, and the like by Torsionfield and his IP. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at this and I can't make heads or tails of what is good and what is gross POV pushing, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and even personal attacks. The whole talk page should probably be deleted and started from scratch, or at least the more egregious attacks and libels should be purged. Night Ranger (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Time for an indef

[50]. Clear vow to continue disruption. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably should get a talk-page block too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

....the hell did that guy say? Seriously. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

HeckifIknow! I can't even tell if he's vowing to return, or vowing to not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried reading all his commentary. The first parts look high-academic, but the later parts...it looks like a completely different person, one with very little skill in the English language, wrote them. It's moot at this point, but could this be a group account? Or (extremely unlikely, but still possible) a compromised account? I can't come up with a more logical explanation for the way the comments read. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To say the least, the block length on the IP should match the length on the main account (which is 1 month); we don't want block evasion going on. –MuZemike 10:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential misuse of undo button and AfD report

I like to file this user: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for following misuse:

1. User filed 17 AfD a day, based on his contributions, with reason "This is not reputable. There source does not give the information listed and gives the reader barely any information." A misuse, which i see it is nonsense enough, because the source can be all reclaim from here.
2. Second misuse including an "undo" button, which user always do it based "I just don't like it", as i believe. [51][52][53][54] Furthermore, the undo either include a no sense/ no meaningful reason or empty reason, which scrapped other editor good work to standardize the format across Wikipedia, and put in terms edit-warring. Monthly discussion did not solve anything and user do again and again while reason given is obvious enough.

I hope this can be solve because incident already filed few times. --Aleenf1 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all I apologized to Aleenf1 and tried to settle this with him but he did not accept it [55]. Even an administrator told Aleenf1 to accpet the apology and he refused to accpet it. Second, the 17 afds please go ahead and check the articles out. The sources provided either do not work, for example for the Azerbaijani national championships, the following link is given [56], it does not work or do not provide the information given (for other articles). This would be against wikipedia's rule, "any unsourced information will be challenged and removed". If the entire article is removed the article should be deleted, hence the 17 afds. Thirdly, I am not misusing the button, rather I am making constructive edits to wikipedia. For example, Aleenf1 has accused me of putting the word "ceremonies" in the center and that is wrong, but the majority (if not all) calendars for multi sporting events have the word ceremonies in the center, [57], [58],[59] and etc.. Moreover, for the edits Aleenf1 has provided, I never used "i just don't like it", again showing Aleenf1's ability to lie to get his/her way. Aleenf1 is repeatdly reported me for no reason, has lied and is abusing his editing rights. As this has happened more than three times! action needs to be taken against this editor, because nothing is stopping him/her from continuing. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just chipping in here, I would like to point out that WP:LINKROT states "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.", emphasis in the original. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You not a justice here, you not have a right "call" for action against me. Again, the link you provided did not have "Ceremonies" centralised, either is you try to "lie/en-route" people for all the false you do, or what i am said, your action is simply "I just don't like it", thats all. I already said, if you have HTML problem, please raise or simply you "just don't get it", may i claim that? --Aleenf1 04:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Aleenf1 does not understand what I am saying or cannot see the word "ceremonies" centralized. I have every right to call for action against you, becasue you constantly report me for no reason and at the end of the day no action is taken against me, because you are wrong. This clearly shows you are misusing your privileges and some sort of action is needed here. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

~~

Stop your "lie". You are not wrong, the other editor wrong because not listen to you. Thats all. --Aleenf1 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all it would be stop your lieing, not stop your lie, which again you are wrongly accusing me of doing. The second part of the sentence makes no sense, so clarify your wording before you post please. Intoronto1125 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Girls, girls...Am I gonna have to bring out the spray bottle? HalfShadow 22:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Girls? Who are you calling a girl? Intoronto1125 (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011)? This discussion was listed at WP:CENT and was archived a few weeks ago by the RfC bot. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat off topic. I think we need to get rid of that ugly-ass pink background shown when an admin edits a protected article. I know why it's there but it hurts my eyes :(. A better choice might be a light gray. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Red for danger. Having that colour on fully protected pages is a reminder that the article is fully protected. Jarring as it may be, it should stay. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Extreme WP:CIVIL in Libya Entry

User:Sayerslle has engaged in a pattern of extreme WP:CIVIL in the discussion page for Libya. I itemize these examples: to Dn9ahx “load of rubbish” to A.h. king “sorry this is tedious for you, keeping you from peter pan and his adventures” to Berber1 “all talk, hYpocrite” Beyond his occasional outbursts of this nature, his general participation is non-constructive. When he is not making WP:CIVIL attacks he is posting emotional pleas - with no actual requests for edits - for us to consider the Libyan people being "murdered/butchered/attacked/assaulted" by "Qadaffi/Gadaffi." His pattern of interaction on Wikipedia seems generally polite and lauditory so I think an intervention only of his ability to participate in Libya would be advised. I would be loathe to see him be subject to a more general block. Berber1 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While User:Berber1's comments here about User:Sayerslle are generally accurate (I believe the "Peter Pan" comment was intended for me, as it's one of my academic interests), Berber1's own remarks contain numerous instances of incivility as well. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You should feel at liberty to file a noticeboard alert about me. This one, however, is about User:Sayerslle. Thank you for your kind assistance in keeping this on-topic. Berber1 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works, I'm afraid; when someone complains about another user at ANI, admins habitually review the edits of both the complainer and the complained-about, in order to help solve the problem fairly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly fine. I simply note that I am not making an accusation user has been WP:CIVIL-un to me alone. Quite the opposite, really. I'm noting a pattern of incivility toward users other than myself and hope this is reflected upon juristically. Berber1 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, after looking at Talk:Libya, that you are being just as uncivil as User:Sayerslle- in fact, it looks to me like you're being considerably ruder. If I were to block User:Sayerslle for incivility, I'd need to block you as well. There is a conflict going on in Libya right now, and you're all spending a lot of time arguing about how the article should look during the conflict. Maybe everyone should remember that, a year from now, which flag should be used in the article will probably be a lot more clear, one way or another. Maybe you should all just choose a compromise that won't make anyone happy for now, and wait for the national conflict to be sorted out more clearly. The side who wins on Wikipedia doesn't actually determine which side wins in Libya. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe everyone should remember that, a year from now, which flag should be used in the article will probably be a lot more clear, one way or another." We agree and, regrettably, when we explain this to User:Sayerslle is generally the point at which he erupts into a volcano of emotion. Naturally if you feel it is necessary to block me from Libya I would disagree (I think being aggressive or blunt in tone or style in the face of tediously refiled edit requests is different from a WP:CIVIL violation) but accept it. There overwhelming consensus of talk on Libya supports my position of not changing the flag until a calmer, measured, rational analysis can occur so I have no issue with being blocked provided User:Sayerslle is as well. My primary motivation is to see the Talk page return to a state of tempered civility and if that will accomplish it I accept and encourage that action. Berber1 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, you're right that the legal flag ought to stay up unless the law changes what the flag is... so relax. When you're right, you don't have to be mean. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Berber1 seems like an obvious sock of Felixhonecker (talk · contribs). Given this, I've blocked Berber indefinitely. There is a Checkuser request pending which should either validate this block or be grounds for unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The side who wins on Wikipedia doesn't actually determine which side wins in Libya. - another classic line, FisherQueen. As I've recommended before, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the UN is a red link . Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was arguing two flags should be shown - I still think so! whatever, - the only edit I regret, the 'peter pan' jibe - sprang from anger at being called 'tedious' - when one believes one might be arguing persuasively, even eloquently ! for a point of view, to be straight told to stop being 'tedious' is a jolt, my 'amour propre' demanded revenge - but it doesn't show me in a great light that edit - mean-spirited - and I regret it too because I love literature, and its kind of an anti-literature remark. As for the rest its just arguing and I hate the urge to silence and censor that some people rush towards when there's the slightest incivility. Sayerslle (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Until or if Qadafi's government is overthrown, it remains the government, and the flag remains as is. Meanwhile, if Berber is a sock of Honecker, I reckon that's a good sign, as it would mean he is no longer cowering in fear of the FBI, the CIA, or door-to-door salesmen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here,[60] and on his talk page,[61] Felix appears to be promising to create a lot more socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This - "will likely be getting a lot of users from this geolocation in the coming days and weeks as it is to the Libyan community in the U.S. as Miami is to the Cuban community" - means many users will be editing the Libya entry from the same geographic area due to the large number of Libyans living in that area almost to the exclusion of any other area in the United States. That should be absolutely apparent in my wording and phrasing. Please make the choice not lobby distrust of me on various Noticeboards without first informing me as required. I deserve, and am entitled to, the opportunity to provide clarification of accusations when they are levied against me. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to track the various places across WP you are sewing assorted accusations against me. While you are entitled to do that, I simply request you notify me of where they are being placed so I have the opportunity to defend myself. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he is just trying to spread as widely and quickly as did "Ice Nine", invented by his namesake in Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And now user:Sayerslle [62] has accused me of lying when I have simply tried to follow policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR stops my initial instinct, but I think that comment needs to have something done about it, especially since it was later repeated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I object to blocking, or in any other way, penalizing user:Sayerslle. People need to stop looking for ways to rally opinion against editors so as to inflame the impact of minor transgressions just to get them blocked. I've had my run-ins with user:Sayerslle, however, if he gets blocked I'm quitting. (not really, that's hyperbole, but it's the thought that counts in any case) Felixhonecker (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Threats of violence

contribs) 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 – WMF representative has taken responsibility for further action (or inaction) on the issue The Resident Anthropologist (Talk

Hello, there are threats of violence here, where the author claims that he "hates his family's guts", and here, where he states "i hate people so much i just want to kill them". Should I email emergency@wikimedia.org? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just the person venting. There isn't a direct threat of violence, just he/she "want[s] to kill them", but doesn't say who "them" is. Unless something more direct comes from the user, I wouldn't. But I could be in the minority there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This one might be hard to find. GeoLocate comes back as "United States", but no city or state. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is merely making fun of Tom Bosley, by pretending to be his (angry) spirit. The 'late' Bosley having potrayed an understanding, caring family-man (Mr Cunninghham). GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looks like run-of-the-mill vandalism to me. I've blocked the IP for 31 hours to make sure it doesn't come back and start doing that again. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The rather fetching rose-coloured box at the top of the page talks about "serious threats" - but who are we mere mortals to decide if it's serious or not? Let the big boys decide. Yes it's probably just some bored teenager mucking about, but if it's not...e-mail them to be sure. No harm will come of it. GiantSnowman 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/71.190.32.77 HalfShadow 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've sent the email (with apologies if this was unnecessary). Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It was received and looking into it. Thank you for letting us know we're always happy to get something even if you aren't sure. Jalexander--WMF 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bored? In Coram, New York? Well, I guess that's possible. I don't think they've had much exciting going on there since Tallmadge's Culper Ring captured and burned 300 tons of British hay there during the Revolutionary War.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Large number of continuing BLP violations at Raymond Allen Davis incident

Hi,

I hope I'm in the right place. Many attempts have been made to resolve it by two editors, including multiple postings to WP:BLP ([63], [64]), but no luck and no improvement to the article. A more knowledgeable editor than myself said that if the BLP tag is removed, I should report it here, so here I am.

Background: The article covers the current diplomatic incident in Pakistan where an American working for the U.S. gov't is accused of killing two Pakistanis. My impression is that the editors are motivated to reveal suspected conspiracies and tell their 'true' version of the story through WP. According to them, sources such as the NY Times are part of the conspiracy, so they rely on very many non-RS sources.

Issues:

• A) This article qualifies as BLP based on my limited understanding of the policy, and per the discussions on WP:BLP ([65], [66])
• B) I added the BLP template; it's been removed.
• C) Many sources clearly fail WP:RS, including blogs, conspiracy websites, etc. So many, that I can't list them; just skim through the Reference list.
• D) A very large number of sources are questionable regarding WP:RS. Most sources are Pakistani media, and nobody knows which Pakistani media sources are the equivalent of the New York Times, or News of the World, or The Onion. Which are state-owned or organization-owned mouthpieces? Which are college newspapers, community newspapers, or Vogue dipping into a little politics for an article? Again, skim the References list.
• E) Some claims go way over the line -- I'm trying to be open minded, but for example, there's a claim that Davis was helping the CIA supply nuclear materials to Al-Qaeda (you read that correctly); it's sourced to a website that, if you click through the chain of sources to find it, also claims the Haiti earthquake was caused by a US military 'earthquake machine'. Section is here.
• F) Last I saw, there was some OR also, of an editor interpreting a U.S. State Dept briefing (also not an RS).

Attempted solutions

• WP:BLP ([67], [68])
• Added BLP template. It was removed.
• Remove a little of the most egregious content ([69], [70], [71]). It was restored, including by this apparently unhappy editor ([72], [73], [74]).
• Discuss with other editors (see article talk page, my talk page, and David Able's talk page. Discussions devolved into ridicule and name calling, and the editors involved were not willing to or unable to grasp the basics of BLP, RS, and OR. I followed the conversation in circles a few times, endured some ridicule, suggested some ways forward (find substitute sources that are RS, find a way to identify RS Pakistani sources, at least remove the most egregious material), but made no headway.

I fear that, due to issue D above (the Pakistani sources of undetermined RS status), strictly following BLP would result in the elimination of much of the article. Suggested solution, if nobody can identify which Pakistani sources are RS:

• 1) Remove the worst material (issues C and E, above)
• 2) Give them time to find RS sources to backup the claims covered by the undetermined Pakistani sources (issue D)
• 3) After a certain period, remove anything that fails BLP.

I regret that I've spent about as much time as I can spare on this article. I'll check back to answer any questions and try to be helpful.

Thanks, guanxi (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment

User:Lisnabreeny frequently launches unprovoked personal attacks, is egregiously uncivil and, in his role as my angry victim, tries to raise a fuss. If there's an audience, I can expect to be vilified with no compunctions about lying blatantly for shock value and misinformation. Inference with my ability to participate at Appeal to nature is ongoing, and now, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, he's become quite belligerent. I've suggested that the article talk page would be more appropriate than the project talk page at this time...

Ridiculed for agreeing with him (and he's started using "they" instead of "he" to refer to me now):

22:51, 26 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→The logical priority of meaning to validity: machine elf's prime source is the "rule of thumb")

The edit summary follows from my post to a different user: “The "Machine Elf's abuse" language ends now. WP:NPA”

18:05, 26 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→The logical priority of meaning to validity: Machine Elfs Abuse)

Unconcerned with self-contradiction:

04:25, 26 February 2011 Machine Elf 1735

(→The logical priority of meaning to validity: enough already)

Still singing my praises:

22:10, 25 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→The logical priority of meaning to validity)

Saving the world, one drama at a time:

18:33, 20 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→And/or validity?: stroll on)

I'm the bully...

19:37, 18 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→Refactor)

Wouldn't let him rearrange the talk page history:

21:17, 17 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→And/or validity?: seeking arbitration)

Soon learned I was in some kind of ideological dispute:

02:58, 13 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→Advice on a dispute)

Advice unwelcome:

16:20, 12 February 2011 Lisnabreeny

(→Post Review Discussion: rply Machine Elfs Advice)

Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if user complaining have been doing some winding up here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NB. I realised very recently i did not know Machine Elfs gender so I corrected my use of personal pronouns, of course this was not meant or expected to offend.

I am relieved that the situation will be reviewed. I have been dismissed, had my input ignored and misrepresented, been accused of dishonesty and threatened too often by this abusive bully. He can not work with the other very patient and mature editor of the "appeal to nature" article either. All my dealings with this editor have been in discussion of the appeal to nature article and my talk page, and recently the WikiProject Philosophy talk. An efficient reading of these pages (far too much of which is spent in conflict with machine Elf) can hopefuly establish where the problem lies. Let me know if i should provide specific links. Thankyou. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My account is this: the appeal to nature article was in a terrible unphilosophical state, effectively 'baiting' nature lovers of any kind. I had seen several discussions spoiled by reference to it and came to wikipedia to get it reviewed, being already registered for making minor technical corrections to a few articles previously. I put tags on "appeal to nature" and a note in the discussion page, i worked with another editor improving the introduction to Nature (philosophy) and tried to NPOV some statements in Naturalistic Fallacy, for about week. No discussion appeared in "appeal to nature:talk" so i put a tag on it for deletion. There were no replies to deletions tag, so after a week it was redirected to a section in Naturalistic Fallacy by a helpful editor. Then an unregistered editor, reverted to the old 'fallacy' article again, and reverted the few changes I made to Naturalistic fallacy and shortly disappeared. So i put the article up for deletion again with a proper discussion, and set about composing my case in the discussion. I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedian so i was feeling my way around, and facing a void of uncomprehension in other any other editors as to what was wrong with the a.t.n article at that time. I was occasionaly incredulous its errors were not apparent. I was pleading for editors with experience in philosophy. iirc my first contact with Machine Elf was when he restored the unregistered editors wording in the naturalistic fallacy article, removing "or may not" from "may or may not" (be invalid) from a scentence, i was too busy with the review at this time and regarded this as petty so i ignored it. (I had already referenced my wording in the article's talk page and the reasoning is tight).

Machine Elf voted 'keep' in the deletion review, and supported the claim that appeals to nature are fallacious, he introduced an encyclopedic reference to the article, which was missapplied but he claimed with it in the deletion review that my claim the article was poorly referenced was innaccurate. Here is what M.E. did to the article during the review. [75]

I got one of my first instructions/chastisments from M.E. in the deletion review that i "must" use strikeouts and not change anything i had written. [76] (its under a couple of other comments here) I had not made any significant changes, he made it sound as though i had. I did have a problem editing early on without using preview enough so i was taking multiple edits and didnt realise the bloat i was causing in history. This would have been helpful to point out. Even at this early stage M.E. seemed to be overly authoritive and quite patronising, especially considering he was editing that "appeal to nature" was some kind of fallacy at that stage, on the strength of obviously POV and private sources.

Just after the deletion review closed, with speedy keep because i agreed to let user:Walkinxyz try to improve it, i attempted equality with Machine Elf writing >"The thing is there are two sides here, of the light understanding of nature and its appeal in philosophy. And this article has been one sided, and quite confused by that. Machine Elf, i think we both have everything to learn with this concept, but lets not pretend the outcome is failed or given without need for investigation, like many popular sources do. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC) " Here was his reply >. [77] (I do not know what M.E. means with 'comments about other editors' there.) I found the reply literally wounding. I struck out my response shortly after, just to let it go, with an edit note saying i was "taking it on board", considering that Machine Elf was maybe sore from being told by Walkinxyz, that the concept is not in fact fallacy, which is what he had been arguing and working to substantiate.

I had been doing alot of reading and writting for the deletion review and discussion as was often tired with it all. I put up each of the examples of fallacious appeals to nature stated in the article for discussion, because i wanted to start removing them and wanted to discuss objections first, M.E.s involvement was purely dismissive and obstructive, putting my section into extended content, striking out and dissmissing parts. It can be seen to be explained at the start of the section still: [78]

Around this time I performed a minor refactor to the discussion page here: [79] In a single refactoring edit i moved a single chunk of text to fit timeline, consolidated 3 short sections into one, rephrased one section heading which i had just clumsily named, and added a couple of timeline notes. This may have been overly complex and not properly performed. What M.E. proceeded to make of it was terrible. It is played out in my talk page and ends up with him accusing me of telling lies. He seemingly cant read diffs well, i can, i do it at work with complex code. I know that i did not make the errors he claims (deletion and duplication) He made a mess which took work to tidy up, and insisted in having his way.

I took a short wikibreak to let things calm, (somewhere before or during the refactoring mess i think). When i returned things were calmer, but i was not impressed at how M.E. had responded to the concessions i left with, i felt he never made any consessions, and while discussing some references, i surprised him and myself with what might be described as an outburst, but i stand by all of it: [80]

This is around the time he starts accusing me of lying, there and in my talk page.

During any discussion with or about M.E. following this time, i am offended and amazed that he thinks he can call me liar and continue to instruct and obstruct.

So here is another couple of hours of my life spent bothered with this editor who is a law unto himself. It will be a relief to finish with, an experience i do not wish to repeat. Regard his edit summaries too, constantly laying down the law, not just to inexperienced editors like me.

I apologise for the racket caused by this conflict, had i the experience to know how to resolve it sooner i would have. Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also to my defense, i think it relevant to point out in case it is missied, that Machine Elf has also enflamed user:Walkinxyz who complains here Alleged_consensus in WikiProject Philosophy: ".....If you can't get your way, you kick sand in the face of whoever is arguing with you.....". Machine Elf has riddled Walkinxyzs comment with single line responses, making it difficult to follow, despite having complained before for posting a single comment inside his comment. Lisnabreeny (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's defense? Alleged consensus (renamed)

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(I mentioned in my own defense, evidence of conflict with another editor) Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, together in WikiProject Philosophy threads Alleged consensus (renamed), (originally Machine Elf's abuse), and The logical priority of meaning to validity, you've argued ad hominem ad nauseum, (WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT), just to avoid citing a source which, at long last, you've rendered moot with your Appeal to nature edits yesterday. Just keep it down to a dull–roar without the reverse "wikibully" nonsense.

You might be surprised to hear that I just–so–happen to be a nature–worshiping pagan who doesn't just think nature's good, it's grrreat! So with a little good faith for (IMO) WP:NPOV edits, I think you'll find I'm hardly an enemy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Machine Elf, I am supportive of Walkinxyz's original version and do not know what he will make of my attempt to resolve, what i see as a terrible argument over a quite transient wording issue. In which you were enflamed by my ongoing criticism and protests to you elsewhere, but which owed to your harassment of me over the refactoring, and frankly constantly authoritarian and overtly dispresectful manner (culminating in instructions to stop lying(!)). I can make apologies, read that i have done, but i want an apology from you for accusing me of dishonesty and an assurance that you will not again trample over such edits as the refactor, and the list of points i brought to the talk page in the article, which you put into extended content and instructed me to drop. I am sure we have both stepped well outside our civil zones in our conflict. unfortunately I have no confidence at this stage that you will take the issue of respect for other editors seriously, unless you are instructed to by someone you do or must respect. Regards. Lisnabreeny (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enforced Wikibreak

Resolved

I accidentally set my enforced wikibreak too long (like above) and can you remove it? The page is here. Thanks. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian IPs vandalizing

Hello, admins. I need help on these following IPs, all of which are trying to put "anime" hoaxes and other misinformation and "connections" to the Philippine cartoon, Super Inggo at ang Super Tropa. I've also noted that users of these addresses (possibly a single person) have also put unsourced information and categories on other unrelated anime articles and several others. Here are the addresses I found so far (he may have used more):

• 92.100.237.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.178.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.161.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.182.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.177.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.238.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.176.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.169.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.175.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.179.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.178.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.230.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.176.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.122.87.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.122.89.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.122.84.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

To top this all off, these addresses are based in Russia. So obviously, the vandal surely couldn't provide sources for his edits as the said cartoon (if I'm not mistaken) has not been aired out of the Philippines. The problem however, is he also does some minor valid edits and addition of ANN links. This makes a rangeblock a little touchy (they are under the 92.100.128.0/17 and the 91.122.80.0/20 ranges). But he's becoming a problem as well. So please give action to this in the earliest time as possible. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Havew you tired communicating with them? Looking through the edits this is not something I am able to judge on being way way outside my areas of experience - but if he is doing a few good edits that suggests less a vandal as someone misguided. We need to try and open lines of communication :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two types of edits I've generally seen from this IP range. The first is adding genres that are very likely to be challenged, give the tendency for some to add anything that resembles that genre, or are redundant to one or more specific sub-genres already listed. The second is adding production studios that either cannot be verified or were studios where some work was outsourced from the actual production studio. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are several more addresses. It seems that this vandal is very obsessed on vandalizing on the Makisig Morales article. Again, these are Russian IPs putting misinformation on an article on a Filipino child actor:

• 91.122.94.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.100.170.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.122.5.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.122.10.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It looks like that two of the 91.122.x.x addresses are way outside the 91.122.80.0/20 range. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 21:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected the article for a while Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the other articles unto which he put the misinformation? Super Inggo At Ang Super Tropa isn't the only article the vandal hit. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So, any other suggestions on combating the vandal using these addresses? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I gave a final warning at User talk:92.100.182.39. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Request input on unblock request

KnowIG (talk · contribs) has been indefblocked for a history of problematic behaviour. He has been trying to get unblocked since. His unblock request have been denied 6 times, for not showing any reason how the problematic behaviour be prevented in the future. I asked him to present a plan so on the unblock list so that we won't be here in the future again. With his permission I'm reproducing my question and his answer here. My query:

Your messages to the unblock mailing list have been received. I am unwilling to unblock you. Obviously you have done a lot of good work, and we are thankful for that. In the mean time, there have also been a lot of trouble. You have proven yourself unable to discuss things in a positive constructive way. Everywhere where there was debate where you were involved, you have turned debate into an argument, and never has there been indication you have been looking for a way to resolve things through consensus. Every dispute you have ever been part of turned sour. It has always been your way, or the highway, going on until you get your way. You were blocked by an administrator for your incapacity to work in a collaborative environment. Three other admins reviewed your block on Wikipedia. All of them agreed that you were too combatitive in disputes to work in a collaborative environment, all while continuing to antagonise our administrative volunteers on site, and on this mailinglist. On this mailinglist, another unblock request of yours has been denied.

Including your original block and my rejection right now, that makes 6 administrators that have come to the same conclusion. Before I am willing to unblock, and although I can't speak for anyone else, I expect many others to agree with me, I would like to see a compelling explanation how you are planning to avoid the same problems you have encountered before. Others aren't going to change, I need to know what you are going to do about it.

I know how this sounds, it sounds like third grade: Think about what you have done, and write an essay about it. That's not what I'm trying to do here. The simple truth is at the moment I don't have any faith in any resolution if there isn't going to be any change on your part, and until I know what you are going to do about it, that will stay the same.

You may do so at any time, and I will consider what you write. For me, this is as much effort as I'm willing to put in to this. For others, this point may be further away, but it is more likely that we're already past that point. As a suggestion, put some genuine thought in it. For me, failing this, the door will be shut. Calling me and the other volunteers on this list out for being bullies/pathetic/illegal/unjust/corrupt/ganging up on you/etc will not likely help you much.

Regards,

Martijn

His response:

Hi all

I want to be unblocked. But there is nothing I have really done which I can specifically appoligise for. All I can say is sorry for being stubbon. I am not the best communicator as in explaining things simplierly. Secondly I have personally been told in a nice way that I am werid as I look at things from a different angle. But I am not going to change that trait because it's a good one. However a lot of the issues have arised when people have put me under stress with their bulldosering tatics. So what I am going to do is to ignore them and answer at my tempo in a way which communicates effectively and means that I don't get pissed off. If they then want to carry on with that's not an answer crap. I will simplerly ignore them and leave them to throw a tantrum in a corner. As theyu have my answer and an explanation. Nothing else needed from then. If they continue then I will tell them to go and ask someone else. And if people still complain then you know that I am not the issue. And that you should look at other issues, and leave me in peace. :)

Looking forward to being unblocked

knowIG

I believe that this is suffient for him to be unblocked with a few extra conditions: If he is getting into trouble, and feels unduely pressured or unable to deal with it, he should not only disengage from discussion about whatever the dispute is about, but also disengage from the subject of the dispute itself. Further he should realise this is a last chance, and that further difficulty, regardless of good intention, should result in another block. The reason I look for further discussion here is that firstly his unblock request has been rejected multiple times, and I don't want to go against consensus, and secondly, that I don't find his request entirely convincing. Sufficient, but not completely convincing, since he still places most of the blame elsewhere, while a good deal of the problem lies with the user himself. I do however see a genuine will to work towards a better Wikipedia, and at least a willingness to put effort in avoiding further trouble. I welcome all further comment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say "no" outright at this point, but I will say that I twigged on the same point you did -- it's not his fault, but he'll ignore them while they go throw their temper tantrum. Are you sure that he'll be able to edit productively, given this attitude? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and he'll stuggle. Yet I believe he could be a net positive. If he can find terms for himself to disengage, and revisit the subject later, and deal with 'tantrum fits' either real or conceived, in a civil, constructive manner, even if it is a few days, or a few weeks later, then there ought to be no problem. Also bear in mind the block is reasonably fresh, and there may still be some frustration mixed in. Sure, it isn't the easiest way to communicate, but it could well be enough. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had extensive experience of this editor, when I was an Admin, and I blocked him on at least one occasion. As regards tennis-related articles, it seems he is a knowledgeable editor, but unwilling to accept alternative points of view. His use of the word "bulldosering"(sic), above, makes me think that he is unused to negotiation, or seeking independent counsel. His heart may be in the right place, but his mind is not yet accustomed to dealing with dissent here. I hesitate to propose some sort of mentoring, since I'm not convinced, given his history, that he would either accept or stick to that sort of agreement. I think s/he needs to realise that nobody gets their own way here, however correct they may be (and that applies more so to me), and collaboration is better than combat. I'm not sure how that realisation may be expressed, but neither would I wish to shut him out for ever. Rodhullandemu 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just stumbled across this. Martijn, FWIW, as the blocking admin, I'm fine with you trying anything you think might be worth trying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked, with conditions on the users talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you help and support. I will be looking for a mentor. I shall also be using my right to reply in my own time and not like the last "dispute" I was in, where the other user, kept going that's not an answer. Which of course is not on, and leads to my stupid comments as I feel harrassed to answer. I will prove the doubters wrong in a good way. KnowIG (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, MOSNUM edit warring / ARBCOM Date delinking case revisited.

Resolved

 – blocked --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Originally from RFPP: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki)

RFPP:Full protection, duration unknown

Ohconfucius is edit warring over date formats at WP:MOSNUM. He's been previously topic-banned by ARBCOM because of his edit warring over date formats, and run disruptive date-formatting bots, and used multiple accounts to evade blocks. The sanctions have expired, but they are relevant for the context.

In a nutshell, there was a big RFC in 2009 on which date formats were allowed, which included an effort to get rid of YYYY-MM-DD formats. As you can see in the RFC, a significant number of people explicitly mentioned YYYY-MM-DD formats as an example of a place where they should be allowed. OhConfucius is currently trying to get a date-formatting bot approved, I've explained the current situation to him on the BRFA, which he originally agreed represented consensus, but now slaps me with 3RR warnings (when at the time only 1 revert was performed, [although now it's 3 on each side]),. He says he would not revert again, but did so anyway.

I've made threads on the MOSNUM (see here) and I've talked to him on my talk page (here), but he refuses to engage at WT:MOSNUM, and doesn't even bother checking the links I give him on my talk page.

I'm requested page-protection, as it's obvious OhConfucius will not stop. If something else needs to be done about this, I leave in the hands of admins. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this sudden change of heart seems to be that Ohconfucius was/is running his script to unify dates (specifically, here), then an editor asked him to stop doing that (see here). So instead of complying with bot policy as promised on his recent BRFA, Ohconfucius refused to stop, tried to legitimize his script through edit warring on MOSNUM [81][82][83], rather than adapt his script to perform non-controversial edits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Wjemather for pointing this out on my talk page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a request for protection earlier in the night (in green), but it seems that the scope of the request as expanded beyond the original thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm ... can you perhaps change the background on your comment from very dark green -- which is how you set it -- to white? I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say, and thought that perhaps it was the color.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Between the arbcom findings, objections to his edits, block history over edit wars on the same subject, and that he edit warred on a guideline, I've blocked him for 31 hours. Other admins are free to unblock earlier than that if they so desire. --slakr^\ talk / 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Head -- thanks for changing the background to a better color. I see that you are asking for page protection, but that is not what AN/I is for. Edit warring, as well, has a separate noticeboard. This is AN/I, and we don't want to clutter it up with things that belong elsewhere, when we have important issues like the above-mentioned serious illegal phishing/outing/ban issue to address. If this is the right church, your page-protection/edit warring concerns have certainly landed themselves in the wrong pew.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I read it as. I treated it as if it had popped up at WP:AN3, which would have been the most appropriate venue. --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The page protection request was the original thing. As I mentioned, it evolved beyond that, hence I moved it here. This is a mix of edit-warring, unapproved script-assisted editing (which fall under the purview of WP:BOTS), page protection, ARBCOM mess, etc... ANI seems the best place for a complex thing like this. Blocking is needed (and has recently been done by Slakr) for the short term, since the bot-like edits would keep on going otherwise. For the mid-to-long term solution, I've got no idea what the ideal result would be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi slaker. I'm still wading through the copious background material that you apparently finished. But between what I've read, and what Head has written in his complaint (see my above comments), I think with all due respect that your block should be summarily reversed. Preferably, by you. No block-worthy behavior was even alleged. The "edit warring" was equal (if it was even edit warring). And you've notably failed to block Head. From what I can see so far, on the facts that were disputed Oh seems to have made the superior case.

You've not even waited for input from the community. And there is no reason to believe there is need for a block "to prevent further disruption" -- certainly not you're "gosh, full steam ahead, let's rush to justice with zero input here because this is uber urgent" block. The urgency? We're terrified that, god forbid, a senior editor might (with an AN/I pending) change the format of a date in some article if we don't block him super duper fast??? That barely seems a credible concern under the circumstances, both because it seems unlikely and because the "harm" your block prevents (even if we believe there is a pending threat) is so ridiculously minuscule.

Here, on a page where in the above strings we are discussing illegal phishing (punishable in the US by five years in jail) and someone possibly threatening violence, you are blocking an editor over this? I'm flabbergasted, frankly. I would urge you to revisit your decision, rather than ring up a reversal of it by another sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was blocked super duper fast, because I believed that there was significant evidence in his prior and current actions to suggest that a preventative block was in order, as I explained above. AN3 is one of my haunts, and rest assured, blocks like this happen there frequently. Other admins are free to disagree and reverse me if they believe that the block is not or is no longer necessary—same with any edit warring block—and while mere edit warring pales in comparison to whatever drama is transpiring above, it is still nonetheless a frequent occurrence that we simply deal with so that we can get on to other things. --slakr^\ talk / 10:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• This all seems awfully quick to me. Regardless of "right"/"wrong", etc. there were two sides reverting in this issue. Wouldn't it result in a better decision for all if some time was taken to evaluate before blocking? Things had calmed down (out there), so this decision was too rapid. I'm sure if an unblock were made, the sky wouldn't fall, and the world wouldn't end. Ohconfucius‎‎ does such an amazing amount of good work, that this is just a bit too brutal.  GFHandel.   10:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bots are blocked on sight. That's pretty much what's happening here / why I came here, it's just mixed with a lot of background stuff and other problem behaviour (which alone doubtfully would warrant a block). That the block has been justified under 3RR (while technically no 3RR has taken place) detracts from the issue. As for the editwar itself, so far only Ohconfucius disputes that accessdates are allowed to be in YYYY-MM-DD format when the rest of the reference is not in YYYY-MM-DD format (even editors like Jc3s5h who are staunchly opposed to the use of YYYY-MM-DD format in general concede that the big date format RFC had no consensus to deprecate them and hybrid styles in citations). I tried to engage Ohconfucius several time on the MOSNUM talk page, but he refused to do so. I gave him the links to the previous RFC, and the diffs he requested, and he refused to look at them. There's not much one can do at this point.

There's a simple way to solve this issue, assuming the current version is challenged; create a new RFC specifically on the hybrid style, otherwise the old one will more less have the force of law on MOSNUM. Of all people, you'd think that Ohconfucius would appreciate the need for one. But that's a discussion for MOSNUM rather than ANI. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was blocked under 3RR because that in part is how you cast your complaint. As you (and I credit you for this) admitted that you were equally at fault on 3RR grounds, the fact that he was blocked and you were not makes the block automatically unsound. For my part -- I would not block either of you. But blocking one and not the other, for the same offense, is not appropriate. My advice to the sysop who re-jiggers the result is that they not even it out by blocking you, but by unblocking OC.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not running a script against bot policy, nor do I have a history of edit warring, incivility, block evasion, etc... on this topic (or any topic for what matters). That's hardly the same offense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad block. Unfair. Apparently not for the protection of the project. Tony (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the block appears not to have general support; if Ohconfucius commits to talking about the issue I'm willing to reduce his block to time served with a stern warning. No condemnation intended on Slakr; it could be that the block was useful in forcing OC to engage on the issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is certainly fair for Errant to ask O to talk about the matter -- though I imagine it is possible that in disgust he turned off wp for the moment. As far as using a block "to force [an editor] to engage" on an issue ... is that one of the permitted uses? I'm not clear that it is, and in any event no less draconian measure was attempted. I still think it was uncalled for overkill.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not one of the permitted uses, and I don't at all think that was the intent. But I was looking for positives :) what is done is done. OC does seem to have disappeared, I'll give him a bit to come back and then consider the best approach. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have to disappear, but I reduced the block to time served per my comments above. And have left EW notes for the various parties. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Errant. I urge the parties to discuss the matter between themselves. (But somewhere other than this page). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this and felt compelled to comment through my recent retirement. Personally I do not have a problem with most of the edits in the script the user was making (I don't agree all were needed or wanted but its nothing significant enough to get enraged over). I do think that there are other issues here however above and beyond simple editing such as ongoing disputes with other users (who also have done some uncivil things as well). I find it extremely discouraging and disappointing that my AWB rights were revoked and I was run down in ANI for doing what 1 or 2 users term as minor and trivial edits while other issues including this one are allowed to continue with violations of policy and etiquette far in excess of what I did. Admittadly this user wasn't using AWB but his own hand written script (which is even worse and according to the discussion from my own ANI likely amounts to an unapproved bot). I would suggest, if ANI wants to maintain any sort of credibility rather than the perceptions of favoritism and the singleing out of specific users while others are left free to do as they wish, that they should act on this rather than simply ignore it and hope it goes away. A little off subject of this specific users ANI and since it is clear that there are strict rules governing AWB use but the rules for scripts is much less stringent, I recommend that all scripts be required to be listed somewhere (perhaps under the BAG somewhere) prior to widespread use. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally see any breaks being given here; Ohconfucius uses a helper script, which is perfectly fine, and appears to manually check edits. Most edits come with other tweaks and fixes of substances (heading fixes, typos, fixing overlinking etc.). Date formatting is accepted as an element that should be unified on the article and I see no real issue with his edits (beyond the obvious disagreement on one specific portion ;)). --Errant ^(chat!) 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that other than I think that using a script (helper or otherwise) should fall under the same rules as bots/AWB to where contentious items should not be edited. Basically, as witnessed from my ANI, if someone complains, regardless of whether the argument merit or not, the editing must cease using said script, bot or application until the disagreement is resolved and a consensus is reached. This is what caused my AWB access to be revoked and I see no reason why that standard should not be applied throughout. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumiko; FWIW he has stopped doing the thing that was questioned. If I had to be harsh the bottom line is that what you were doing was extremely trivial compared to this, which is helping give a consistent style along with numerous other useful fixes :) Scripts are fine within reason. Advisor.js, for example, is one I use a lot. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps but my point was that several of the things he is doing in his edits such as delinking dates and changing the style of dates are things that many users have voiced opposition too in the past. That is why they haven't been added to AWB because they are too contentious and have no consensus and as such that would indicate that these edits are not appropriate to be done as a script either. If a user does something with AWB that causes them to be revoked then their access can be revoked. Scipts don't work that way so the only way to block it is to block the user. I think that most of the edits he is making are fine but there are a few that some users don't like. It doesn't matter if the arguments have merit as proven by my ANI, they disagreed so he needs to stop. Going back to the original point of this discussion users on both sides of the argument are disputing each others changes and reverting edits. I don't personally think that Ohconfucius is completely to blame and the other side has done just as many reverts and discussions in protest. Ohconfucius just happens to be the first one to end up here so that is what we are left with. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry question

Further information: WP:AN § SpeakFree

Where an editor is blocked on another language Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, do we need to block the socks on en-wiki too? There is a case currently at WP:AN of such a sockpuppeteer. My personal view is that there is no case for action against the main account in respect of editing outside en-wiki. If the main account can be shown to have been disruptive on en-wiki, appropriate action can be considered, but it should not be blocked on en-wiki just because it has been blocked elsewhere (sockpuppety apparently not the only offence on nl-wiki). Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to autoblock. After all, if everyone did, how could someone demonstrate on another project that they could edit productively? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But what about the socks? Do we leave these unblocked as long as they are not being used? Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Are they established here as socks of the same user? If so, they should be blocked if used abusively. Otherwise, I'd say to leave them for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Established on nl-wiki as socks, and presumably with global accounts could be used on en-wiki too. English language details on nl-wiki here. Identities of socks are Juvarra (talk · contribs), Xenon2 (talk · contribs), JosefK (talk · contribs) and TaranisJupiter (talk · contribs). The latter is marked as having been globally locked on nl-wiki. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of those accounts have no recent edits. But if there's any evidence of abusive activity it's worth checking.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

←Given that one of the accounts is globally locked, I performed a check. It is  Confirmed that TaranisJupiter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Juvarra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = SpeakFree (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The other two accounts are stale and cannot be checked. Tiptoety ^talk 20:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor agenda

User:MFIreland is refusing to acknowledge the views on the talk page of Republic of Ireland in relation to the sports section. He is trying to force through an anti-football agenda, completely against consensus. Onetonycousins (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - I don't see any consensus on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there. --Onorem♠Dil 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: MFIreland has numerous warnings in his talk page history regarding disruptive behavior. He deletes each warning as it appears, and does not discuss his actions. I issued a final warning a week or so ago (also deleted, but viewable in the history). I will examine the latest activity to determine if the final warning has not been heeded. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Seems both editors have dirty hands. MFIreland doesn't discuss disputes, and Onetonycousins appears to have made some personal attacks to which MFIreland objected (although a personal attack in an edit summary is no excuse for edit-warring as both have done). Both editors have a habit of removing warnings immediately from their talk pages. I don't see a need for action at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Both editors were edit warring; I warned both of them and restored the pre-edit war version of the article pending discussion on the talk page. If they knock it off this will sort itself out in the normal fashion; if not, further blocks or protection may be required.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Doug Phillips

I moved Doug Phillips to Doug Phillips (rugby) to create a new article on someone more primary. However after I did that someone noticed that the talk page for Doug Phillips still redirects to Doug Phillips (rugby). I can not find a way to fix this problem. Could you fix it or tell me how I can? Thanks. Jehorn (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait. You moved a stub article about a rugby player to a disambiguated title to make way for an even smaller stub about a guy who has no notability beyond being the leader of a largely unknown organization, and itself only has a stub article? Are you sure it shouldn't be the other way around, with Doug Phillips having a "did you mean" link to Doug Phillips (religious leader)? --King Öomie 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or even have Doug Phillips be a disambigation page itself? There have to be other notable Doug Phillips out there. At least one might think so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I did this because the current Doug Phillips is more notable. Just do a google search, bing search or google book search. The rugby player does not show up. Hope that explains it. Jehorn (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not resolved; what makes the religious Phillips more worthy of a primary title over the rugby Phillips? I think we need a 'Doug Phillips' disambiguation page, and the new article moved to Doug Phillips (religious leader). I don't have time to do it tonight (UK time y'know) but if nobody kicks up a major fuss and/or beats me to it, I'll do all the moves/redirects/link fixes when I find some time tomorrow. GiantSnowman 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Doug Phillips article urgently needs improvement to avoid deletion. It has no worthwhile assertion of notability, no content that justifies its existence separate from Vision Forum, and is badly supported by sources associated with the subject (and no independent reliable sources at all). This isn't an acceptable condition for a BLP article, ever. Bing search numbers are not evidence of absolute or comparative notability. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Prodded, definitely no established notability & I wasn't able to find anything usable to expand it. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A more notable Doug Phillips might be the newly-appointed Commissioner of Yukon, Doug Phillips, [84] about whom we don't seem to have an article - yet. Give me an hour and I'll write one tonight. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew there had to be others out there! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think we should keep Doug Phillips as a disambiguation page... GiantSnowman 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created the article at User:NellieBly/Douglas Phillips. He calls himself "Douglas" on his website, so I think that's probably a better choice for him than "Doug" at this point (although the media do call him Doug, or at least they did before he was Commissionerized). I'm putting in a request at Requested Moves to replace the redirect at Douglas Phillips with this article. If you want to disambiguate - his middle name is George so we could have him as Douglas George Phillips, but he doesn't seem to use his middle name - the only place it's mentioned is at the Prime Minister's website. Thanks, everyone. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If 'Douglas Phillips' doesn't work, why not Doug Phillips (politician) instead? GiantSnowman 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned that calling him a politician at this point in his career might be NPOV and have BLP concerns, since Commissioners are specifically meant to keep out of party politics - that's why they're there, to be apolitical. But if consensus has vice-regals as "politicians", that would be fine. --NellieBly (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about the Canadian system, and picked up nothing all the time I was living there. Let's hope 'Douglas Phillips' becomes free to avoid any and all such issues...good work on the article by the way! GiantSnowman 02:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and it appears that (politician) is consensus. I'll move it there and not worry any longer. I also think Doug Phillips should be a redirectdisambig - it's too common a name and, unlike George Harrison or James Brown, there's not one individual who is massively more notable than the others. Thanks again.--NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A redirect? Why not a disambiguation page? GiantSnowman 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the wrong word; I meant disambig. I blame my aging brain. :-) --NellieBly (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! GiantSnowman 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yworo

Extended content

Hello, just notifying that Yworo is abusing his power through a series of reverts on the Monolith (Space Odyssey) article, with no solid reasons, while applying the WP rules to his own personal point of view. He's also deleting what I'm adding to the discussion page of the latter article, so please check the modifications history of said page. Links to concerned pages: History to the Monolith article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history History to the Monilith discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history Personal page of the IP I'm using right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.19.187.248 Personal page of Yworo : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo That's the first time I have to deal with Yworo, it's not a big issue and I don't have anything against him, but it's a weird enough behavior from an administrator to be notified. Thank you. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) First off, I'm not an admin. Second, despite being pointed to the relevant guidelines and warned about 3RR, 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly reinserted trivia removed from the article on December 31, breaking 3RR in the process. The 3RR report can be found here. The IP has also engaged in several personal attacks, mostly in edit comments, but also on its talk page. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) IP has now started to inserted the same pointless trivia into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yworo (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from applying rules in a discriminate manner the way you did on the linked article. That's infringing the rules that you keep bringing up to get me out because you don't agree with me. Also please check the context before applying rules blindly, otherwise you only end up modifying articles with a narrow point of view and thus take the risk to erase content that shouldn't be erased. I don't want to bug you, I'm only complaining about your behavior on this particular matter, please think about it. Thanks. As for what you call "the same pointless trivia", it was there, on both articles, a couple months ago, before it got deleted due to a lack of source. It now has a source, and there's no reason, besides your tastes, to disapear. Else it would have disapeared before it got marked as unsourced. Again, please think about coherence and context. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly pointed you to WP:IPC. First, I don't believe the source is reliable. Second, even if it is reliable, the trivial mention is simply not significant to the subject. Yworo (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) You started by reverting my modifications before pointing anything. And what I added, I actually added it back with a source, since it only got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source, and not because it shouldn't be there. Also, you deleted things I didn't added that were in-topic too (about a music band IIRC). And you left a line about a video game, while deleting another line (mine) about a video game, with the same kind of sources for both. Isn't that discriminatory and incoherent? 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I see that despite my arguments you keep deleting my modifications in a discriminate manner and without any solid ground, so from now on I won't edit anything until this matter is resolved, either by a higher authority, or by yourself if you can manage to think about your behavior. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It looks to me as if you have both broken 3RR on the monolith article. Take the debate to the talk page, seek further input from other editors if necessary, and for goodness sake stop reverting each other's edits or else you'll both end up blocked. Simples, no?--KorruskiTalk 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) No, I haven't. Yworo (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1, 2, 3. No?--KorruskiTalk 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Read 3RR. It's the fourth revert that's a violation. The IP made three before being warned, and one after, and should be blocked. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 4. Either way, you are edit warring and show no intention of stopping. Indeed, you seem keen to continue on a second article, so I would suggest that you yourself are blocked.--KorruskiTalk 23:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Same crap, different article. Reread 3RR, it four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. That insertion makes 5 for the IP, who is clearly intentionlly trying to take the war to another article which I regularly edit and on which the primary editors have made an agreement about the level of citation required for cultural references, see the article talk page. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) They are all the same article. Just for a minute, stop telling me to reread 3RR, and listen to me when I tell you that you are, or at least were edit warring.--KorruskiTalk 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, no, they are two separate articles, Monolith (Space Odyssey) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). There's also a separate article on the book. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) The four reverts in 24 hours that I have linked to are all on the same article. 1, 2, 3 4. In any case, continuing an edit war on a second article is still edit warring, whether 3RR is breached or not.--KorruskiTalk 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, number 3 is the removal of an insertion of a hoax which is clearly vandalism. Reverting obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) In addition, a series of edits without any intervening edits by another editor counts as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. Edits 3 & 4 are sequential and count as a single edit. Yworo (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Didn't spot this, sorry about it, I messed up my revert. By the way, it may not be an hoax, but only about the movie, can't remember. But it doesn't matter, my edits was only about the monolith in popular culture. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) If it were in one of the books or movies, it should be mentioned in the text. It was written as if factual. I don't recall any such event in any of the books or films, and it wasn't sourced. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I totally agree, but I didn't add this part. Just check the history. I only added back something about Eve Online that got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source. I added a source to it to bring it back, on both articles. That's all, really. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Good faith edits are not vandalism. This edit cannot possibly be characterised as 'clearly vandalism' and your attempt to do so suggests that you are simply trying to avoid scrutiny of the fact that you yourself are engaged in an edit war here. --KorruskiTalk 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Addition of a hoax is never a good faith edit. From my point of view, you are now starting to harass me. Please back off. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It is obviously not a hoax, it is the addition of information in an 'in-world' voice, as though the fictional world was true. That may not be the best way to write it (although is is consistent with some of the rest of the article) but it is clearly not a hoax. I cannot believe that you are characterising my behaviour as harassment, but since I am obviously getting nowhere with this, and have no desire to get dragged into some epic AN/I drama, I'm going off line. No doubt at some point an admin will deign to turn up and sort this all out.--KorruskiTalk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Really, which book or film was it in? I don't recall it being in any. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) @Korruski I won't edit back anything on these pages now. I hate these situations, each time I find it to be mad and meaningless to be forced to do this for a couple stupid lines on an article, only because someone is editing way too fast and/or blindly. It's a sink of time. Yworo, I have no grief against you, you just acted wrong to me on this. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Guys, I've started a section on the article talk page for y'all to discuss things. I'm pretty revert happy and I still think y'all should stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC) And for the other article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I gave my last opinion on both. Thanks for your interest on that matter. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I have warned Yworo about the multiple issues he's engaged in. Please stop arguing over content here. If you would like to have a civil discussion, take it to the relevant talk page. --Selket Talk 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This discussion thread is about a content dispute and edit-warring, neither of which is appropriate for ANI. I suggest it be closed and the discussion continue at the talk page, and/or the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This edit-warring matter should be addressed on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work -- the edit warring noticeboard. And for the record, I agree w/Korruski. What he pointed to was indeed block-worthy edit warring. We can block editors who have only made 3 reverts -- not the bright-line rule "4" reverts -- if it is apparent to the blocker that they are warring. Not that anyone's comments above suggest a tendentious edit-warring approach, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Repeated personal attacks from User:93.19.187.248 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Yworo is ... paranoid" "Keep your paranoid suspicions for yourself, you fucking maniac. I'm out of this, feel free to continue your delirium alone." "this user looks like a narrowminded maniac" "But that was probably either a very naive insinuation, or a purposely slanderous one." "Please also stop acting like an admin. You are not one, and probably won't ever be, with such nefarious behaviour." All documented here. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This report is now causing more problems than it's solving. Both editors are warned to stop edit warring, be civil, not stalk each other, and not argue over content disputes at AN/I. --Selket ^Talk 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Doug Phillips

I moved Doug Phillips to Doug Phillips (rugby) to create a new article on someone more primary. However after I did that someone noticed that the talk page for Doug Phillips still redirects to Doug Phillips (rugby). I can not find a way to fix this problem. Could you fix it or tell me how I can? Thanks. Jehorn (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait. You moved a stub article about a rugby player to a disambiguated title to make way for an even smaller stub about a guy who has no notability beyond being the leader of a largely unknown organization, and itself only has a stub article? Are you sure it shouldn't be the other way around, with Doug Phillips having a "did you mean" link to Doug Phillips (religious leader)? --King Öomie 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or even have Doug Phillips be a disambigation page itself? There have to be other notable Doug Phillips out there. At least one might think so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I did this because the current Doug Phillips is more notable. Just do a google search, bing search or google book search. The rugby player does not show up. Hope that explains it. Jehorn (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not resolved; what makes the religious Phillips more worthy of a primary title over the rugby Phillips? I think we need a 'Doug Phillips' disambiguation page, and the new article moved to Doug Phillips (religious leader). I don't have time to do it tonight (UK time y'know) but if nobody kicks up a major fuss and/or beats me to it, I'll do all the moves/redirects/link fixes when I find some time tomorrow. GiantSnowman 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Doug Phillips article urgently needs improvement to avoid deletion. It has no worthwhile assertion of notability, no content that justifies its existence separate from Vision Forum, and is badly supported by sources associated with the subject (and no independent reliable sources at all). This isn't an acceptable condition for a BLP article, ever. Bing search numbers are not evidence of absolute or comparative notability. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Prodded, definitely no established notability & I wasn't able to find anything usable to expand it. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A more notable Doug Phillips might be the newly-appointed Commissioner of Yukon, Doug Phillips, [85] about whom we don't seem to have an article - yet. Give me an hour and I'll write one tonight. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew there had to be others out there! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think we should keep Doug Phillips as a disambiguation page... GiantSnowman 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created the article at User:NellieBly/Douglas Phillips. He calls himself "Douglas" on his website, so I think that's probably a better choice for him than "Doug" at this point (although the media do call him Doug, or at least they did before he was Commissionerized). I'm putting in a request at Requested Moves to replace the redirect at Douglas Phillips with this article. If you want to disambiguate - his middle name is George so we could have him as Douglas George Phillips, but he doesn't seem to use his middle name - the only place it's mentioned is at the Prime Minister's website. Thanks, everyone. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If 'Douglas Phillips' doesn't work, why not Doug Phillips (politician) instead? GiantSnowman 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned that calling him a politician at this point in his career might be NPOV and have BLP concerns, since Commissioners are specifically meant to keep out of party politics - that's why they're there, to be apolitical. But if consensus has vice-regals as "politicians", that would be fine. --NellieBly (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about the Canadian system, and picked up nothing all the time I was living there. Let's hope 'Douglas Phillips' becomes free to avoid any and all such issues...good work on the article by the way! GiantSnowman 02:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and it appears that (politician) is consensus. I'll move it there and not worry any longer. I also think Doug Phillips should be a redirectdisambig - it's too common a name and, unlike George Harrison or James Brown, there's not one individual who is massively more notable than the others. Thanks again.--NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A redirect? Why not a disambiguation page? GiantSnowman 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the wrong word; I meant disambig. I blame my aging brain. :-) --NellieBly (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! GiantSnowman 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yworo

Extended content

Hello, just notifying that Yworo is abusing his power through a series of reverts on the Monolith (Space Odyssey) article, with no solid reasons, while applying the WP rules to his own personal point of view. He's also deleting what I'm adding to the discussion page of the latter article, so please check the modifications history of said page. Links to concerned pages: History to the Monolith article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history History to the Monilith discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history Personal page of the IP I'm using right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.19.187.248 Personal page of Yworo : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo That's the first time I have to deal with Yworo, it's not a big issue and I don't have anything against him, but it's a weird enough behavior from an administrator to be notified. Thank you. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) First off, I'm not an admin. Second, despite being pointed to the relevant guidelines and warned about 3RR, 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly reinserted trivia removed from the article on December 31, breaking 3RR in the process. The 3RR report can be found here. The IP has also engaged in several personal attacks, mostly in edit comments, but also on its talk page. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) IP has now started to inserted the same pointless trivia into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yworo (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from applying rules in a discriminate manner the way you did on the linked article. That's infringing the rules that you keep bringing up to get me out because you don't agree with me. Also please check the context before applying rules blindly, otherwise you only end up modifying articles with a narrow point of view and thus take the risk to erase content that shouldn't be erased. I don't want to bug you, I'm only complaining about your behavior on this particular matter, please think about it. Thanks. As for what you call "the same pointless trivia", it was there, on both articles, a couple months ago, before it got deleted due to a lack of source. It now has a source, and there's no reason, besides your tastes, to disapear. Else it would have disapeared before it got marked as unsourced. Again, please think about coherence and context. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly pointed you to WP:IPC. First, I don't believe the source is reliable. Second, even if it is reliable, the trivial mention is simply not significant to the subject. Yworo (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) You started by reverting my modifications before pointing anything. And what I added, I actually added it back with a source, since it only got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source, and not because it shouldn't be there. Also, you deleted things I didn't added that were in-topic too (about a music band IIRC). And you left a line about a video game, while deleting another line (mine) about a video game, with the same kind of sources for both. Isn't that discriminatory and incoherent? 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I see that despite my arguments you keep deleting my modifications in a discriminate manner and without any solid ground, so from now on I won't edit anything until this matter is resolved, either by a higher authority, or by yourself if you can manage to think about your behavior. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It looks to me as if you have both broken 3RR on the monolith article. Take the debate to the talk page, seek further input from other editors if necessary, and for goodness sake stop reverting each other's edits or else you'll both end up blocked. Simples, no?--KorruskiTalk 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) No, I haven't. Yworo (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1, 2, 3. No?--KorruskiTalk 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Read 3RR. It's the fourth revert that's a violation. The IP made three before being warned, and one after, and should be blocked. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 4. Either way, you are edit warring and show no intention of stopping. Indeed, you seem keen to continue on a second article, so I would suggest that you yourself are blocked.--KorruskiTalk 23:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Same crap, different article. Reread 3RR, it four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. That insertion makes 5 for the IP, who is clearly intentionlly trying to take the war to another article which I regularly edit and on which the primary editors have made an agreement about the level of citation required for cultural references, see the article talk page. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) They are all the same article. Just for a minute, stop telling me to reread 3RR, and listen to me when I tell you that you are, or at least were edit warring.--KorruskiTalk 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, no, they are two separate articles, Monolith (Space Odyssey) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). There's also a separate article on the book. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) The four reverts in 24 hours that I have linked to are all on the same article. 1, 2, 3 4. In any case, continuing an edit war on a second article is still edit warring, whether 3RR is breached or not.--KorruskiTalk 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, number 3 is the removal of an insertion of a hoax which is clearly vandalism. Reverting obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) In addition, a series of edits without any intervening edits by another editor counts as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. Edits 3 & 4 are sequential and count as a single edit. Yworo (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Didn't spot this, sorry about it, I messed up my revert. By the way, it may not be an hoax, but only about the movie, can't remember. But it doesn't matter, my edits was only about the monolith in popular culture. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) If it were in one of the books or movies, it should be mentioned in the text. It was written as if factual. I don't recall any such event in any of the books or films, and it wasn't sourced. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I totally agree, but I didn't add this part. Just check the history. I only added back something about Eve Online that got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source. I added a source to it to bring it back, on both articles. That's all, really. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Good faith edits are not vandalism. This edit cannot possibly be characterised as 'clearly vandalism' and your attempt to do so suggests that you are simply trying to avoid scrutiny of the fact that you yourself are engaged in an edit war here. --KorruskiTalk 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Addition of a hoax is never a good faith edit. From my point of view, you are now starting to harass me. Please back off. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It is obviously not a hoax, it is the addition of information in an 'in-world' voice, as though the fictional world was true. That may not be the best way to write it (although is is consistent with some of the rest of the article) but it is clearly not a hoax. I cannot believe that you are characterising my behaviour as harassment, but since I am obviously getting nowhere with this, and have no desire to get dragged into some epic AN/I drama, I'm going off line. No doubt at some point an admin will deign to turn up and sort this all out.--KorruskiTalk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Really, which book or film was it in? I don't recall it being in any. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) @Korruski I won't edit back anything on these pages now. I hate these situations, each time I find it to be mad and meaningless to be forced to do this for a couple stupid lines on an article, only because someone is editing way too fast and/or blindly. It's a sink of time. Yworo, I have no grief against you, you just acted wrong to me on this. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Guys, I've started a section on the article talk page for y'all to discuss things. I'm pretty revert happy and I still think y'all should stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC) And for the other article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I gave my last opinion on both. Thanks for your interest on that matter. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I have warned Yworo about the multiple issues he's engaged in. Please stop arguing over content here. If you would like to have a civil discussion, take it to the relevant talk page. --Selket Talk 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This discussion thread is about a content dispute and edit-warring, neither of which is appropriate for ANI. I suggest it be closed and the discussion continue at the talk page, and/or the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This edit-warring matter should be addressed on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work -- the edit warring noticeboard. And for the record, I agree w/Korruski. What he pointed to was indeed block-worthy edit warring. We can block editors who have only made 3 reverts -- not the bright-line rule "4" reverts -- if it is apparent to the blocker that they are warring. Not that anyone's comments above suggest a tendentious edit-warring approach, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Repeated personal attacks from User:93.19.187.248 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Yworo is ... paranoid" "Keep your paranoid suspicions for yourself, you fucking maniac. I'm out of this, feel free to continue your delirium alone." "this user looks like a narrowminded maniac" "But that was probably either a very naive insinuation, or a purposely slanderous one." "Please also stop acting like an admin. You are not one, and probably won't ever be, with such nefarious behaviour." All documented here. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This report is now causing more problems than it's solving. Both editors are warned to stop edit warring, be civil, not stalk each other, and not argue over content disputes at AN/I. --Selket ^Talk 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

I would like to raise what looks to me like a violation of 1RR by Emmanuelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations: [86] and [87]. Since the editor has a previous block for exactly this type of violation, I assume no prior warning is necessary. I posted about this earlier on AE [88] but a few of the regulars there are not active and there has been no sign of it being seen/noticed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can ask him to self revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the 3RR and 1RR is that it applies to one particular text or source in an article. My two edits above are on different subjects in this article: (1) Bayefski on Dugard and (2) Canadians + Costea on Costea. These three sources were deleted by two editors (Nomo and User:Passionless) without discussion. Also, my understanding is that the intent of these rules is to protect the work of editors. With these edits, I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting this work from being undone without discussion. I use WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality for guidance. Finally, we are here talking about the worthiness of particular sources, a matter that should be discussed in the talk page of the article. A discussion topic already exist on Canadians & Costea on Costea; Passionless as so far not commented on his/her deletion. I just created another for Bayefski on Dugard. I trust Nomo will come discuss his/her deletion there. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm: I am not going to block you for a 1RR violation at this time, but your interpretation of the rule is incorrect. This is the wording of the rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions." (emphasis mine) 1RR simply replaces all "three"s with "one". NW (Talk) 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Living supercentenarians

After two rounds of reverts on this page about living people, I've placed this plea on the article talk page, and linked to it on User:NickOrnstein's talk page.

Louis Epstein's Oldest Human Beings page, hosted at www.recordholders.org, is not a WP:RS. It's specifically disallowed in the notability and sourcing guidance at the World's Oldest People WikiProject. Please view it. It starts with a disclaimer and proceeds to selling books before the first item on the list even appears. But when I replace it with actual reliable sources, I'm reverted. Twice. Nick has re-reinserted it and I'm not going to play that game. But admin assistance is definitely required. David in DC (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Non-admin comment: Eligibility for this list is predicated by WP:BLP, and one reliable source for that is Guinness World Records, an annual publication, and updatable by reliable news reports, which tend to be fairly quick off the mark in these matters. You don't necessarily need Admin input here unless it descends into a real edit war, but this noticeboard exists for this very purpose. If you end up in a revert war beyond WP:BRD, there are other noticeboards. Rodhullandemu 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified NickOrnstein. This whole longevity topic is the subject of a recent ArbCom case. It has descended into an edit war. A review of the edit history of the article will, I think, persuade an Admin that intervention is necessary. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.David in DC (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Deferred to WP:AE Arbitration Enforcement is the proper forum The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. David in DC (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Offer you some popcorn nom nom nom The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Doug Phillips

I moved Doug Phillips to Doug Phillips (rugby) to create a new article on someone more primary. However after I did that someone noticed that the talk page for Doug Phillips still redirects to Doug Phillips (rugby). I can not find a way to fix this problem. Could you fix it or tell me how I can? Thanks. Jehorn (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, wait. You moved a stub article about a rugby player to a disambiguated title to make way for an even smaller stub about a guy who has no notability beyond being the leader of a largely unknown organization, and itself only has a stub article? Are you sure it shouldn't be the other way around, with Doug Phillips having a "did you mean" link to Doug Phillips (religious leader)? --King Öomie 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or even have Doug Phillips be a disambigation page itself? There have to be other notable Doug Phillips out there. At least one might think so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I did this because the current Doug Phillips is more notable. Just do a google search, bing search or google book search. The rugby player does not show up. Hope that explains it. Jehorn (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not resolved; what makes the religious Phillips more worthy of a primary title over the rugby Phillips? I think we need a 'Doug Phillips' disambiguation page, and the new article moved to Doug Phillips (religious leader). I don't have time to do it tonight (UK time y'know) but if nobody kicks up a major fuss and/or beats me to it, I'll do all the moves/redirects/link fixes when I find some time tomorrow. GiantSnowman 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Doug Phillips article urgently needs improvement to avoid deletion. It has no worthwhile assertion of notability, no content that justifies its existence separate from Vision Forum, and is badly supported by sources associated with the subject (and no independent reliable sources at all). This isn't an acceptable condition for a BLP article, ever. Bing search numbers are not evidence of absolute or comparative notability. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Prodded, definitely no established notability & I wasn't able to find anything usable to expand it. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A more notable Doug Phillips might be the newly-appointed Commissioner of Yukon, Doug Phillips, [89] about whom we don't seem to have an article - yet. Give me an hour and I'll write one tonight. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew there had to be others out there! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think we should keep Doug Phillips as a disambiguation page... GiantSnowman 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created the article at User:NellieBly/Douglas Phillips. He calls himself "Douglas" on his website, so I think that's probably a better choice for him than "Doug" at this point (although the media do call him Doug, or at least they did before he was Commissionerized). I'm putting in a request at Requested Moves to replace the redirect at Douglas Phillips with this article. If you want to disambiguate - his middle name is George so we could have him as Douglas George Phillips, but he doesn't seem to use his middle name - the only place it's mentioned is at the Prime Minister's website. Thanks, everyone. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If 'Douglas Phillips' doesn't work, why not Doug Phillips (politician) instead? GiantSnowman 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned that calling him a politician at this point in his career might be NPOV and have BLP concerns, since Commissioners are specifically meant to keep out of party politics - that's why they're there, to be apolitical. But if consensus has vice-regals as "politicians", that would be fine. --NellieBly (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about the Canadian system, and picked up nothing all the time I was living there. Let's hope 'Douglas Phillips' becomes free to avoid any and all such issues...good work on the article by the way! GiantSnowman 02:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and it appears that (politician) is consensus. I'll move it there and not worry any longer. I also think Doug Phillips should be a redirectdisambig - it's too common a name and, unlike George Harrison or James Brown, there's not one individual who is massively more notable than the others. Thanks again.--NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A redirect? Why not a disambiguation page? GiantSnowman 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the wrong word; I meant disambig. I blame my aging brain. :-) --NellieBly (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! GiantSnowman 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yworo

Extended content

Hello, just notifying that Yworo is abusing his power through a series of reverts on the Monolith (Space Odyssey) article, with no solid reasons, while applying the WP rules to his own personal point of view. He's also deleting what I'm adding to the discussion page of the latter article, so please check the modifications history of said page. Links to concerned pages: History to the Monolith article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history History to the Monilith discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monolith_%28Space_Odyssey%29&action=history Personal page of the IP I'm using right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.19.187.248 Personal page of Yworo : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo That's the first time I have to deal with Yworo, it's not a big issue and I don't have anything against him, but it's a weird enough behavior from an administrator to be notified. Thank you. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) First off, I'm not an admin. Second, despite being pointed to the relevant guidelines and warned about 3RR, 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly reinserted trivia removed from the article on December 31, breaking 3RR in the process. The 3RR report can be found here. The IP has also engaged in several personal attacks, mostly in edit comments, but also on its talk page. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) IP has now started to inserted the same pointless trivia into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yworo (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from applying rules in a discriminate manner the way you did on the linked article. That's infringing the rules that you keep bringing up to get me out because you don't agree with me. Also please check the context before applying rules blindly, otherwise you only end up modifying articles with a narrow point of view and thus take the risk to erase content that shouldn't be erased. I don't want to bug you, I'm only complaining about your behavior on this particular matter, please think about it. Thanks. As for what you call "the same pointless trivia", it was there, on both articles, a couple months ago, before it got deleted due to a lack of source. It now has a source, and there's no reason, besides your tastes, to disapear. Else it would have disapeared before it got marked as unsourced. Again, please think about coherence and context. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly pointed you to WP:IPC. First, I don't believe the source is reliable. Second, even if it is reliable, the trivial mention is simply not significant to the subject. Yworo (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) You started by reverting my modifications before pointing anything. And what I added, I actually added it back with a source, since it only got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source, and not because it shouldn't be there. Also, you deleted things I didn't added that were in-topic too (about a music band IIRC). And you left a line about a video game, while deleting another line (mine) about a video game, with the same kind of sources for both. Isn't that discriminatory and incoherent? 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I see that despite my arguments you keep deleting my modifications in a discriminate manner and without any solid ground, so from now on I won't edit anything until this matter is resolved, either by a higher authority, or by yourself if you can manage to think about your behavior. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It looks to me as if you have both broken 3RR on the monolith article. Take the debate to the talk page, seek further input from other editors if necessary, and for goodness sake stop reverting each other's edits or else you'll both end up blocked. Simples, no?--KorruskiTalk 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) No, I haven't. Yworo (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1, 2, 3. No?--KorruskiTalk 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Read 3RR. It's the fourth revert that's a violation. The IP made three before being warned, and one after, and should be blocked. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 4. Either way, you are edit warring and show no intention of stopping. Indeed, you seem keen to continue on a second article, so I would suggest that you yourself are blocked.--KorruskiTalk 23:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Same crap, different article. Reread 3RR, it four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. That insertion makes 5 for the IP, who is clearly intentionlly trying to take the war to another article which I regularly edit and on which the primary editors have made an agreement about the level of citation required for cultural references, see the article talk page. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) They are all the same article. Just for a minute, stop telling me to reread 3RR, and listen to me when I tell you that you are, or at least were edit warring.--KorruskiTalk 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, no, they are two separate articles, Monolith (Space Odyssey) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). There's also a separate article on the book. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) The four reverts in 24 hours that I have linked to are all on the same article. 1, 2, 3 4. In any case, continuing an edit war on a second article is still edit warring, whether 3RR is breached or not.--KorruskiTalk 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Uh, number 3 is the removal of an insertion of a hoax which is clearly vandalism. Reverting obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) In addition, a series of edits without any intervening edits by another editor counts as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. Edits 3 & 4 are sequential and count as a single edit. Yworo (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Didn't spot this, sorry about it, I messed up my revert. By the way, it may not be an hoax, but only about the movie, can't remember. But it doesn't matter, my edits was only about the monolith in popular culture. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) If it were in one of the books or movies, it should be mentioned in the text. It was written as if factual. I don't recall any such event in any of the books or films, and it wasn't sourced. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I totally agree, but I didn't add this part. Just check the history. I only added back something about Eve Online that got deleted a couple weeks ago due to its lack of source. I added a source to it to bring it back, on both articles. That's all, really. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Good faith edits are not vandalism. This edit cannot possibly be characterised as 'clearly vandalism' and your attempt to do so suggests that you are simply trying to avoid scrutiny of the fact that you yourself are engaged in an edit war here. --KorruskiTalk 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Addition of a hoax is never a good faith edit. From my point of view, you are now starting to harass me. Please back off. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It is obviously not a hoax, it is the addition of information in an 'in-world' voice, as though the fictional world was true. That may not be the best way to write it (although is is consistent with some of the rest of the article) but it is clearly not a hoax. I cannot believe that you are characterising my behaviour as harassment, but since I am obviously getting nowhere with this, and have no desire to get dragged into some epic AN/I drama, I'm going off line. No doubt at some point an admin will deign to turn up and sort this all out.--KorruskiTalk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Really, which book or film was it in? I don't recall it being in any. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) @Korruski I won't edit back anything on these pages now. I hate these situations, each time I find it to be mad and meaningless to be forced to do this for a couple stupid lines on an article, only because someone is editing way too fast and/or blindly. It's a sink of time. Yworo, I have no grief against you, you just acted wrong to me on this. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Guys, I've started a section on the article talk page for y'all to discuss things. I'm pretty revert happy and I still think y'all should stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC) And for the other article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I gave my last opinion on both. Thanks for your interest on that matter. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I have warned Yworo about the multiple issues he's engaged in. Please stop arguing over content here. If you would like to have a civil discussion, take it to the relevant talk page. --Selket Talk 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This discussion thread is about a content dispute and edit-warring, neither of which is appropriate for ANI. I suggest it be closed and the discussion continue at the talk page, and/or the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This edit-warring matter should be addressed on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work -- the edit warring noticeboard. And for the record, I agree w/Korruski. What he pointed to was indeed block-worthy edit warring. We can block editors who have only made 3 reverts -- not the bright-line rule "4" reverts -- if it is apparent to the blocker that they are warring. Not that anyone's comments above suggest a tendentious edit-warring approach, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Repeated personal attacks from User:93.19.187.248 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Yworo is ... paranoid" "Keep your paranoid suspicions for yourself, you fucking maniac. I'm out of this, feel free to continue your delirium alone." "this user looks like a narrowminded maniac" "But that was probably either a very naive insinuation, or a purposely slanderous one." "Please also stop acting like an admin. You are not one, and probably won't ever be, with such nefarious behaviour." All documented here. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This report is now causing more problems than it's solving. Both editors are warned to stop edit warring, be civil, not stalk each other, and not argue over content disputes at AN/I. --Selket ^Talk 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)