Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive667

Twinkle please

Admin SarekOfVulcan temporarily removed my twinkle 3 days ago [1] and told me to practise without it for a while. I have made 60 edits since then and i think i am eligible to get my twinkle back. Could someone remove my name from the blacklist please? Someone65 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): After reviewing your edits, you definitely need to edit more without Twinkle before requesting it back. 60 edits over 3 days does not "a while" make. Twinkle is not necessary for editing or reverting. I would give it 30 days from the time of removal and then ask again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Suggest you work on improving your edit quality, and providing more accurate edit summaries. Aquib (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User biography of 13 year old

I reverted (name redacted for user's protection after the fact) for an unsourced theory about Vanessa Hudgens's current dating status and I usually check user history to see if they have a past history of unsourced edits (nothing really questionable though here, just a fangirl who means well but needs to learn J-14 and Tiger Beat aren't proper sources). Read her userpage and it's written as a biography, but with details such as hometown, parents names and full name. Since she's thirteen should this one be reduced a little to be vague about those details? Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Given that it refers to named third parties and personal details of a minor, I've deleted it. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  For future reference, stuff like that would fall under suppression guidelines, so notifying the oversight mailing list is a good move, though at least this was handled quickly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oversighted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, wasn't sure of the proper protocol. Have blanked out subject's name now that deletion has occured. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson - another controversial/disruptive page move: Juan Carlos I

PMAnderson has once again unilaterally moved an article instead of submitting a move request via the WP:RM process.

Back in August (August, not November, this is important and easy to get confused about) was a discussion and decision about the title in which I was the closing uninvolved non-admin (trying to help with the backlog); the decision was to move Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I, as proposed:

• Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Requested_move_.28August_2010.29

Note the detailed explanation in my move decision comment there and the lack of any challenge to that decision at that time.

A subsequent discussion from November 2010 proposing that Juan Carlos I be moved to Juan Carlos:

• Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Requested_move_.28November_2010.29

This proposal was closed as no consensus.

For the last couple of days there has been a new discussion about all this (which I've followed but managed to restrain myself from participating, thank you very much), along with a move war apparently based on a misunderstanding which resulted in a 24 hour lock of the page just yesterday[2]:

• Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Juan_Carlos_I

Note the edit summaries of the brief move war that preceded the talk page discussion for those two reverts (User:GoodDay, odd) and the intervening moves (User:Kotniski, even) from yesterday:

1. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: There was no RM consensus to move this article to Juan Carlos I)"
2. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: this has been stable for long enough - do a move request if you want to change it)"
3. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: No consensus was reached for change to Juan Carlos, in last RM (November 2010))"
4. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: see explanation at talk - mover was looking at wrong discussion)"

Also note that the person moving the article yesterday, GoodDay, thought the discussion/decision he was challenging was the one from November, not August. On the talk page, this oversight was acknowledged.

Yet despite all that controversy, PMA took it upon himself to move the article soon after the lock expired despite any evidence whatsoever that there is consensus support for it[3], and clear evidence that there is opposition to it [4]

In the discussion just cited above, here is how PMA rationalizes engaging in the very behavior he has been warned repeatedly to not engage in[5]:

This would be reversing an improperly closed move request [edit: from 5 months ago, and after there was another intervening move request], closed by a non-admin who is deeply involved in such issues[my involvement in WP:NCROY issues, especially 5 months ago and prior, was very light], despite extenxive opposition. This was the 5-3 #Requested move (August 2010), above; not the more recent failed move request. This was not consensus then; it is not consensus now. If this cannot be simply reversed, we may have to request that the closer be sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The title since the improper closure is not stable. It was protested then and now, and a request to move it to a third possibility has been undertaken in the meantime. A move reuseat will only confirm this; but the proper placement without any consensus is where it was before this process began; which was the title for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with my move decisions being reviewed by an uninvolved neutral and possibly reversed; I welcome it, though I suggest after 5 months the grapes are way past being merely sour and I agree with Kotniski that at this point the only proper course to take is reassess consensus via another WP:RM discussion.

People accuse me of being disruptive for posting too much on talk pages about title issues, but while I might dream of pulling a stunt like this, I wouldn't actually do it. And believe me, it is a stunt, and PMA knows it (warned and even blocked more than enough times), but he obviously doesn't care. Is there anyone who does care?

Instead of reverting PMA's unilateral move myself, I decide to file this AN/I.

I know what I think should be done in this case, but my history with PMA suggests I best just report the facts and stay out of it, which is what I'm doing. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is growing wearisome. Is there a page-move or article-titling controversy that PMAnderson is not at the center of? It never ends. I'm beginning to believe that, if he were removed from the matter entirely, 90% of all article-title wars would evaporate overnight. After seeing this go one for years, I am beginning to feel that he's an aggrivating force in these controversies, and something, perhaps some sort of community imposed editing restrictions, may be in order at this point. --Jayron32 05:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit war on this unstable page before I acted; I explained my action at length on the talk page as restoring the status quo ante, in the absence of consensus. Any admin who sees consensus, or any group of editors who can establish one, is free to act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle is again making a content disagreement with his own (improper) action into a conduct dispute.

• The placement at Juan Carlos I is based, if anywhere, on this move request, which Born2cycle himself closed as a move.
• He is not an admin.
• He has a deeply held position on what titles to use on monarch articles, and closed in accordance with it; if he were an admin, he would be considered involved.
• The discussion was at 5-3, when he moved it.

is is manifestly improper; and there has been a discussion over the last several days protesting this move as ungrounded, including another replacement of the article where it was. (The explanation of my move as restoring the long-standing stable title is at the end.) Until an uninvolved admin decides there was consensus to move this page from its old title, where it was stable for years, it should stay there, shouldn't it? If an uninvolved admin finds there was consensus to move, he is free to do so. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Born2Cycle were reminded not to close move discussions unless the result ismanifestly clear; and not to drag ANI into his content disputes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If anybody feels I should have dragged ANI into this myself, please say so, and I will apologize; but I try to avoid drama on this much-crowded page. If so, please consider it done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As Fastily deleted the blocking redirect as uncontroversial, you should not have moved the page with no discussion. I've locked it in its current location to avoid move warring, but I think it belongs where the last RM discussion placed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the last move discussion (actually the next-to-last, since Born2Cycle's action inspired another move request; there is no consensus on where his POV would place the article) properly closed? If not, why should an improper action have binding force? If any editor from one POV can close move requests to suit himself, the nationalist editors will have a heyday moving articles to suit their various Causes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, Fastily deleted the redirect because of the move discussion, so I'm hesitant to call it an "improper action". And the last move request showed there was no consensus to move it away from the then-current title. You overrode two closed move requests without discussion. Regardless of what I may think of other parties' discussion styles, That Was Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion linked to above is not the only time Born2Cycle has been closing move requests to suit his preferences; he was also roundly criticized fot it here; and there may well be other cases; if may be useful to look at his move log. Can we at least agree that this should stop? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As a single-purpose campaigner for a particular approach to article naming, Born2Cycle cannot in any reasonable way be considered to be uninvolved in RM discussions. I agree that this should stop, and if B2C does not explicitly commit to refraining from RM closures, enforcement should follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Said closure was in August. Sanctioning him for it at this point would seem a bit much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The page was moved 5 months ago. Is Born2Cycle actually doing this now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I voted on the proposal, so am not uninvolved. I didn't know Born2Cycle wasn't an admin, and the custom is that only admin closures are really binding when the close isn't obvious. However the latest name is now stable. Since there is so much anger, the most obvious solution is for some kind of majority poll where several possible locations are listed for 'discussion' but where there is no prejudice against any name because of precedent. Thoughts? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) All I can say is that the name Born2Cycle moved it to didn't look stable to me. It was opposed at the time; it is protested now; and another move request in November suggested the article be moved to Juan Carlos, on the same arguments as Born2Cycle used. A discussion of all possibilities is the only way to reach consensus; but what if there isn't one - again? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In my suggestion, there wouldn't need to be consensus; just a majority (no prejudice against any name because of precedent). If we are entirely honest about it neither name actually has "consensus" in any meaningful sense of the word. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the title is "not stable" is because someone admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. And the other issue is that you (Pmanderson) have been previously told that your habits in moving pages is not welcome on this project, yet you still see fit to act without a consensus behind your actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please put it back to the stable name (i.e. the one we had for many months before GoodDay through a mistake, and PMA in full awareness, came along and started tampering with it). If individuals are going to be allowed to just come along and impose their own preferences over consensus, we may as well abandon the discussion process altogether, and just decide on article titles according to who's best at maniuplating the move-warring game.--Kotniski (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The stable name is where the article was for at least five years; Born2Cycle's isn't. see comment above after edit conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I have to just say this since PMA is predictably trying to make this about me. Back then, five months ago, I was trying to help with the WP:RM backlog and I might have been a bit overambitious in that effort, including closing proposals that were not unanimous (if you limit yourself to only the unanimous ones, you can't help much at WP:RM). Anyway, I was called to task for that (though not for this one, and despite the fact that it's very common and uncontroversial for many other non-admins to do this as far as I can tell), and I've essentially stopped making potentially controversial decisions (and the WP:RM backlog grows).

The incident related to my behavior which PMA is questioning here is from five months ago and was not even questioned until the last day or so. The incident related to PMA's behavior that I'm questioning here is from less than five hours ago.

By the way, I have explained in more detail how and why I made that closing decision five months ago here. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For information, I've opened a new discussion at Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain about what the article should be titled. <moan>It seems always to be me who ends up starting the discussion process after disruptive behaviour, never the disruptive users themselves</moan>--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The August 2010 RM, should've been closed by an administrator. Though I supported having the page moved to Juan Carlos I (back in August 2010), I still object to the RM ruling & subsiquent move. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have complained to Born2cycle a couple of times in recent weeks about his practice of moving articles to the title that matches his personal preferences, having "judged" the arguments subjectively rather than seeking consensus. I also see some inconsistency in his attitude to this move - compare with his comments at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia where he agrees that controversial moves made without consensus should be reverted as soon as possible. Deb (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're conflating two different scenarios, Deb.

1. Potentially controversial moves that occur without going through WP:RM (like what we were discussing at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia, and what PMA did here) are widely held to be inherently wrong (regardless of whether the move is "right" or "wrong") and need to be reverted quickly and swiftly. Then, if someone really wants to move it, they are encouraged to go through WP:RM as should have been done in the first place.
2. Decisions and moves that are made normally via the WP:RM process, but are questioned, including maybe because it was contentious and closed by a non-admin, are not inherently wrong and so should not be swiftly reverted but should be brought to the attention of admins, either at WT:RM or here at AN/I, so that an admin can review the closing and decide whether the decision was reasonable or not (and potentially reverse if not). This occurs at least a few times a year.

I believe my position on this has been consistent for years, if not forever, and I'm pretty sure it reflects the consensus of the community on how these matters should be handled.

If consensus has changed... that the rule about non-admins not closing contentious discussions should be strictly enforced, then, yes, I agree those kinds of moves should be swiftly reverted too. But as far as I can tell, non-admin closings of contentious discussions occur multiple times every day, and nobody seems to mind. It's not reasonable to have a consequence which treats these non-admin closings as being inherently wrong when the community does not generally treat them as being inherently wrong. That would be an inconsistency. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two proposals

Withdrawn

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty much sick of these two editors appearing here over and over again for the same reasons, so I offer: Proposal #1 (withdrawn) User:Born2cycle is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months. Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Comment - Huh? Did I do something wrong? --Born2cycle (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Support. B2C's flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption, and it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Seriously? Even if "flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption" did apply to my behavior, which I deny on several grounds, how is it disruptive (preventing people from editing articles)? And since when is staying out of edit wars and move wars and instead focusing on trying to achieve consensus through civil discourse on talk pages an offense at all, much less a sanctionable one? I thought that's what we're supposed to do? --Born2cycle (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) As you have been repeatedly told by many editors, your flooding of discussions causes WP:TLDR problems and turns them in a long series of debates with you rather than proper multi-way discussions. If anyone is inclined to believe your claim that it doesn't apply to you, just look at how B2C has flooded this RFC with about as many posts as all 50 other RFC participants put together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - B2C's move-discussion arguments may be a bit tiring, but this AN/I report appears to be made in good faith and trying to WP:BOOMERANG it back to B2C for something done in August seems a bit disproportionate. As best I can tell, B2C did the right thing here: report the problem rather than join in the move-warring. 28bytes (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose Born2Cycle, like PMA, is a valuable contributor to the RM process, one who contributes intelligently if idiosyncratically. A ban on moving articles would be justified only by a pattern of habitual disruption; but as far as I can see his sin was not knowing the RM admin-preference custom ... 5 months ago. Punishing either of these users is not desirable at this stage, and think this poll is a distraction from finding a solution to the Juan Carlos problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose It appears that B2C is to be banned from participation in move discussions for the sin of being persistent. It certainly can't be for incivility or even for acting outside consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, B2C will no doubt take note of the advice given here about flooding discussions, other than that there doesn't seem to be any current problem with this user.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Support - The editor is on a crusade, and crusades are not appropriate in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Opposse - B2C meant well. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - too strict. Something more limited would be better. After all, his original point here, about PMA's non-consensus move, was valid. Someone else want to try to craft a #4?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Pretty much the only thing Born2cycle does these days is contribute to article move discussions, so his activities would be extremely restricted. I wish he would be more constructive, but I wouldn't want to force him into writing articles. Deb (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose for now, with the hope that the user will take to heart the concerns about flooding discussions and badgering opponents to his article naming campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Proposal #2 (withdrawn) User:Pmanderson is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months. Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Partial support. PMA's move was unwise. However, unlike B2C, PMA does not flood or overwhelm discussions, so should not be banned from that. IF PMA is restricted to the discussion pages rather than to performing moves, I don't see a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose I repeat my comments on Proposal 1. PMA's problem is that he loses his temper more easily than he should, but he is a valuable contributor to RM discussions and gagging him would be bad for the process and Wikipedia. And I say that as someone who disagrees with him frequently. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - it's not PMA's discussion of moves that's the issue here, it's unilateral moves themselves. If he agrees to takes a move he wants to do to RM and discuss it, that would seem to solve the problem, no? 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose I don't see any reason to stop PMA participating in RM discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, per Deacon (and as someone else who disagrees with him frequently).--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, ain't nothing wrong with passion. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, no particular reason I see to ban him from the discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Proposal #1 and 2 above clearly did not represent the general feelings of the community, so I withdraw both of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

Proposal #3 withdrawn

Proposal #3 — withdrawn in favor of Proposal #6, below User:Pmanderson is banned from moving articles and from closing any move discussions. He is, however, welcome to propose moves and add requested move templates to the talk page, and he is welcome to participate in any move discussions to make his case why moves should or should not be done. Comment as proposer: I don't know if this is the right solution, but IMO it seems to get closer to the issue at hand here. 28bytes (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC) If anything, this would indeed seem to address the actual problem at hand, though I would add "when knowingly controversial" or something like that, so as not to get in the way of normal useful behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC) With that condition added, it sounds fair. Even if I think Pmanderson is "right" in his moves, he shouldn't do it without something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, I don't view Pmanderson as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I have never closed a move discussion - and would not do so unless there was an enormous backlog and unanimous consent that a page be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #4

WP:NCROY is marked as deprecated or failed proposal, as it clearly doesn't have anything resembling site-wide consensus, and appears to be a platform from which move-wars are regularly launched.

• Support as proposer. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per the growing inconsistancies of monarchial article titles. There was a time when we had'em all nice & neat under Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The exceptions are clearly delineated, despite the amount of argument they entail, and we need something of the sort to get consistency for historical names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't a proposal; it has been a guideline for four years - probably longer - and it has been our practice for much longer; I believe the distinction between policy and guideline is younger than this page. The convention has evolved to cover a complex area of article naming; those who would simplify it either to establish an artificial consistency or to have no consistency at all have always rebutted each other. This is the middle ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek of Vulcan. There are many possible approaches to naming this sort of article, and the guideline provides stability for thr bast majority of articles within its scope. --17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. If there is a desire to change or deprecate a guideline, it must be done through discussion on that guideline's talk page, not through a discussion of a limited number of admins on ANI. Resolute 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's useful, particularly for new users, to have some guidance with the aim of achieving consistency - but maybe the conventions ought to be frozen for a while to give us all a chance to recover. Deb (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: a necessary naming convention for a field with confusing naming options. Also, this is the wrong venue to make the decision.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #5

That Born2Cycle be admonished not to close move requests made through WP:RM. This is slightly more restrictive than most non-admins; but since he has been

• closing move requests without noting that he is a non-admin - and this discussion shows this has led to some people assuming that he has made an admin close
• closing move requests without consensus
• closing them on issues on which he has a strong POV, in accordance with his POV. Admins should not close issues in which they are involved; why should non-admins?

this seems reasonable and minimal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If he has stopped doing this, so much the better. if not, it's time to stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as only administrators should close & make rulings on RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's goes against what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says. I agree that this particular close probably wasn't suitable for a non-admin but non-admins have always been allowed to close certain RMs so it seems perverse to penalise someone on the grounds you give. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been told in the past that there is no need to note that you are a non-admin when closing a requested move and indeed there is nothing that says you have to at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Therefore I think your first point is unfair. No comment on the rest. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Most non-admins do, however, say Non-admin close; it may not be necessary, but it will save a reviewing admin trouble. Non-admins should be free to close requests where there is no doubt of consensus - and no admin action is required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well I haven't been saying NAC since this comment on my talk page and because of what it says in the instructions (when I have been pushing the boundaries a bit, and only a bit, recently to help clear the backlog I've made it clear in the edit summary that I was a non-admin). It has also become accepted practice for non-admins to use G6 if necessary after an uncontroversial close (many more admins seem willing to do a G6 than close a RM so this speeds things along). I'd agree that non-admins shouldn't be closing anything that requires more complex action than a G6. Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • • The point is only really important in conjunction with the other two problems. If everybody who looked at B2C's closes had said, "Yes, of course, anybody would do that; it's obviously consensus", we wouldn't be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
            • That's a standard nobody can meet. Many RM closes can go either way, and the outcome often depends on who closes it and how they decide it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Which is exactly why someone with strong opinions[6] on article naming should not close them.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose In most, if not all RM closers, there are hurt feelings. It doesn't matter if the user closing is an Admin or not. Singling out Born2Cycle because he makes many RM closings, that many admins are not willing to do, is a bit much. He should be rewarded not admonished. I have suggested in the past, that there should be a non admin privilege, similar to Rollback, that allows non admins to close RM discussions. This way, not every non-admin can close an RM, and closings can be monitored more easily, and the tool taken away for abuse, like Rollback privileges.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue with Born2Cycle isn't just that he isn't an admin, but that he strongly opposes naming conventions that don't strictly follow the common name principle. He is not a neutral party. Both of the royalty article moves he made in contradiction to the royalty naming convention.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He may very well have had a conflict of interest on these closures, but that is why I propossed to have Non Admin closures as a privalege, same as Rollback, rather than something any non admin can do on their own.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requested moves says "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to: Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days)." Has B2C been closing discussions contrary to that? 28bytes (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. See Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain#Requested move (August 2010) and Talk:Queen_Victoria#Requested_move, the two other people have have noticed. How many more there are I don't know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- he has been closing discussions that were borderline enough to make admin closes preferable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: a partisan should not be closing move discussions. The user is not a neutral observer in page name disputes.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm curious... Will, do you believe this rule, "a partisan should not be closing move discussions", applies only to me, or also to all the partisans who have voted in support of this proposal so far?

    Also, please remember that everybody has a bias... the issue is whether that bias is put aside in making decisions from an NPOV. When was the last time you think I made a non-NPOV decision in an RM discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Giving a view in an ANI thread does not make one a partisan.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course giving a view here is not what makes them partisans. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal ban but would suggest that B2C consider voluntarily excusing himself from closing RM discussions on topics where his strong views on naming (which I share in general) are well known. Not only should closers be fair, they should be seen to be fair. However well B2C interprets consensus, his known and entirely legitimate POV will mean that a significant grouping of editors will feel, fairly or otherwise, that the decision has been prejudged. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #6

As I see it, there are two problems here:

1. The initial NAC close of the Juan Carlos I move discussion by User:Born2cycle, which was a poor decision since Wikipedia:Requested moves (which B2C is no doubt familiar with, having edited it himself on occasion) specifically advises non-admins against closing discussions that are contentious.
2. The unilateral subsequent page move by User:Pmanderson, when he knew there was serious contention about the title.

To avoid problems of this nature in the future, I propose:

1. Born2Cycle be advised not to close any move requests, and
2. Pmanderson be advised not to make any unilateral page moves unless the move is clearly non-controversial and has not been subject to any debate in the past. He is advised to take all but the most obviously non-controversial move proposals to WP:RM for broader discussion.

• Support, as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Whatever my action may have been, it wasn't unilateral; I knew there was a problem because there were loud complaints at WT:NCROY, and I found more on the talk page. I restored the status quo after other people objected to the move; isn't that proper when the propriety of a move is plausibly disputed and there is no consensus? If somebody can see consensus or make one, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are often complaints about moves - those are not excuses to justify the unilateral decision to move it back. Complaining about a move is not the same as supporting an immediate revert. The proper course in egregious cases of improper moves is to take it to an admin or file an AN/I, as I did here, or request it be moved back as uncontroversial at WP:RM (though that usually applies to only recent improper moves). Starting a move war is not the right answer. When questioning a decision/move that went through WP:RM, the proper course is to ask another admin to review the decision, not to unilaterally decide to revert it yourself. If an admin agrees the decision was improper, then the admin will revert it. But you know all this, yet you reverted anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Although WP:RM specifically advises that non-admins should not close discussions that are contentious, that is not common practice. In these days of a large WP:RM backlog, it is common practice for non-admins who are knowledgeable and experienced with naming policy and the RM process to close all kinds of discussions, including relatively contentious ones. It is unfair to single out one of those non-admins for engaging in behavior five months ago that the community largely considers acceptable despite what WP:RM states.

  PMA has been advised to not make unilateral moves before. He continues to do it, as long as he feels it's justified, and continues to defend it. See above. These are empty words. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to RFCU or pretty much anyplace else

Good gravy. If the solution to a problem requires a poll with six options, ANI is not the venue of choice. Please move this to a more appropriate venue or seek actual dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone please look past all the disruption above about an incident from 5 months ago and address the incident in question (from yesterday), please? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Implement the community sanction for which there is already consensus

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names#Proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson, there is a community sanction proposed by me which I believe has community consensus for implementation. It looks like it was forgotten about after being split to a subpage, but just needs an administrator to evaluate and close the discussion, and to note the sanction at WP:GS.  Sandstein  00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Sandstein's proposal had consensus, but perhaps was forgotten, after being moved to an ANI subpage. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would have most definitely prevented this thread. It should be implimented—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't know how PMA even found himself at Juan Carlos I except to rip at his "opponent" (no history of him at that page -or- commenting on the previous threads he cited concerning it). Doc talk 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this thread has gone on too long; nobody reads all of it. As I said above, I got to the page from WT:NCGN#Juan Carlos I, the governing guideline, where there are vitriolic complaints about B2C's original move, as not consensus. I agreed - and I am one of the majority on the !vote now ongoing who agree with the guideline - so I replaced the article to the status quo pending either a determination by a neutral admin that there was consensus, or the formation of a new consensus. Under the same circumstances, I would have done so no matter who had moved it first (that the mover was not a neutral admin are two of the circumstances). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm dubious about whether you would have done the same if it wasn't me, but if so, that would be even worse. Consider the coincidentally similar situation that occurred at Talk:Ann Arbor a few days ago. A non-admin closed the discussion and moved when there was no indication of consensus support. In that case, unlike in mine, the mover who was not a neutral admin did not even leave an explanation, explaining how the arguments were weighed, or anything like that. What you're saying is you would have reverted it. That's wrong. I didn't. I brought it to the attention of admins to let them decide. And that was a "fresh" move, not one that had been stable for 5 months. I still wouldn't unilaterally reverse an action that was part of the WP:RM process, no matter how confident I was in it being blatantly wrong. I respect the process the community has established for these kinds of things. That's the difference between you and most of the rest of the community, and what this is ultimately about. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see unanimity at Talk;Ann Arbour; but it is much closer to consensus than either of your closures (especially if repetitions by the same editor are discounted). But this comes up against another circumstance; I agree with that closure, and reversing it on procedural grounds alone would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; it would not serve the encyclopedia. All are necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that the crucial difference for you about whether a unilateral reversal by a non-admin of a closure is justified is whether you happen to agree with it. That's the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would have prevented the current situation. I was seriously considering reverting the move of Juan Carlos I myself and was pleased that someone else did. The discussion at the article's talk page now does appear to vindicate (though it does not excuse) PMA's action. I also think that the dropping off of interest in the original proposal shows that there is less of a will to carry out these sanctions than might be thought from looking at the original discussion. I think that is partly because of the subsequent problematic actions of another user. Would Sandstein be prepared to repeat his proposal here and people can comment on whether they still think the action appropriate? (A simple "Yes" or "No" should suffice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

The discussion has already taken place at length here on ANI. The result is clear; it just needs to be implemented.  Sandstein  17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest what all this shows is how many do not apply the NPOV principle to these issues of internal strife. A lot of people obviously feel animosity towards me due because they disagree with me on issues involving article titles and how vocal I am, and seem frustrated that they can't "punish me" by any legitimate mechanism, so try to get away with as much punishment as possible, perhaps subconsciously, any chance they get. And when I make a non-admin move, about the only blemish in my record (never mind that non-admin closes of contentious RM discussions are generally treated as acceptable by the community despite what WP:RM states), that's a chance, even if it was five months ago (they'll take what they can get). To see if PMA's behavior is being judged neutrally here, I suggest the following questions be considered:

• If, back in August, someone besides me, anyone but me, had made the same closing decision I had (it's not as idiosyncratic as some seem to imply - there have been countless RM decisions made by deciding consensus by quality of argument rather than raw vote count of those participating when raw vote count is a majority but not a big one), and, PMA would have reversed it the way he did five months later, and someone besides me filed this ANI, would there be any difference in how this discussion would be going? If so, why would that matter in deciding whether PMA's move was justified and whether it should be reverted and he sanctioned?
• Would there be any difference in how the current voting at Talk:Juan Carlos I is going?
• Would PMA have even made that revert if it wasn't me who had made that original decision?
• Let's be honest, and I'm not the first to even suggest this. Didn't PMA do this revert precisely in order to take a swipe at me rather than improving the encyclopedia? Isn't that what this is really all about? If he did it in order to take a swipe at anyone other than me would his action be judged any differently? If so, is that okay? It's okay to take a swipe at me because you can't "get me" for anything else? Really? Is this Wikipedia or junior high?

Does anyone believe these people are even trying to be neutral here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C, you have consistently taken a highly partisan view on naming issues. That's your privelige, but when your main activity is campaigning for a particular approach to naming, it is complete nonsense for you to claim that your own weighing of arguments in an RM discussion is neutral or uninvolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're serious or just trying to bait me, but I'm taking this seriously. And thank you for recognizing the consistency in the positions I take. I try to reach all positions I take about naming by following logical paths from the underlying principles outlined at WP:TITLE; that's why they're consistent. If you're talking about the party of principle, yeah, I'm partisan.

First, the conflict of interest rule only restricts us from closing discussions that we've participated in. I had not participated in that discussion prior to my evaluation and closure. Extending that rule to argue that someone with a strong opinion about naming should be restricted from making such decisions arguably has some merit, but I suggest that consensus for new rules needs to be established before they are enforced, and certainly should not be enforced if they are established five months after the incident in question. As far as I know consensus for such a rule has not been established. If you know otherwise, please let me know.

Second, we're all biased and it's challenging to put our biases aside in these situations to make neutral decisions (for example, the challenges you're having in trying to be neutral here, if you're actually trying, are quite obvious, as demonstrated by your ignoring the questions and issues I just raised about you and others not being neutral here with respect to evaluating PMA's behavior, and instead shifting to the question of my neutrality at the decision 5 months ago), but I believe I did that reasonably well in that case, within tolerances generally accepted by the community, though I acknowledge it's not ultimately up to me to decide.

Third, whether that or any other closing RM decision was unjustified due to any reason including bias from the closing non-admin is a question that an admin should consider when reviewing the decision. It is not a decision for another biased partisan like PMA, you, Bugs, GoodDay, or Deb to make, five months later, to justify an RM-avoiding revert based on that decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How am I biased? I'm a republican who doesn't push his polticial PoV on monarchial articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Biased?" Funny stuff, coming from a user who's on an agenda he acknowledges will go on for years, and which is of no value whatsoever to the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't think he or she is biased is making my point.

I don't deny my bias. Acute awareness of one's bias is required to be neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can explain how I am "biased", you had best not make that comment again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be preferable to deny one's bias and not let it guide one's actions, than to proclaim it and act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course. That should go without saying. But it's virtually impossible to not be influenced by bias of which you are unaware, or in denial about. The first step towards neutrality is awareness of bias. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And the second step is not to act on your bias where impartiality is required. On this matter, you are an advocate, not a judge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You and I disagree about whether my advocacy for adherence as much as reasonably possible to the principle naming criteria set forth at WP:TITLE makes it impossible for me to be an impartial judge, but the point is it's not a matter for either of us to decide. That's why the community has created rules against making unilateral moves when there is potential objection, a WP:RM process, users with administrative privileges, and mechanisms like AN/I. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how some conformist "guideline" overrides common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#5._Please_explain_how_some_conformist_.22guideline.22_overrides_common_usage.. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in reading anything you have to say about this subject, and have taken any connections to it off my watchlist. Your efforts are of no value whatsoever to wikipedia's readers, and eventually someone is going to put the brakes on your little crusade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For an example of a properly held & closed RM, check out the discussion at St. Louis Blues. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another example (though B2C didn't do it) of an article RM being declared 'consensus to move' hastily & without consensus, is the article Ivan the Terrible being moved from Ivan IV of Russia. I'd hardly call a 4-2 support, a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Make that 5-2, (I am surprised I said nothing); probably still not consensus, but Ivan is one of the monarchs overwhelmingly known by nickname (to quote the guideline). But it can wait till next time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it me, or has this section gone completely off-topic???? Deb (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is because there is currently no consensus for an interaction ban between Pmanderson and Born2cycle. However, as this subsection started, it is clear that the page move ban that the community decided on for Pmanderson should be implimented, and this whole spectacle of a thread could have been avoided.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Clear, perhaps, to a half-dozen tendentious editors who would find my absence more convenient; User:Ryulong, for example, would like to own Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), and thinks my absence would make it easier; I doubt it: he is currently warring with Jpatokal and with Jinnah, and arguing with everyone else on the guideline talk-page for a bizarre reading of WP:PRIMAYSOURCES and for what he himself calls "my rules" (i.e. the ones Ryulong made up) of Romanization. Really, one gets tired of the same voices purporting to be neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My actions on other project pages has nothing to do with the current consensus to ban you from moving pages in the article space, Pmanderson. Stop trying to throw blame on other editors. And there is no edit warring going on at that page, only a discussion on what should and should not be capitalized ("my rules" refers to the guidelines I put forward for when or when not to capitalize certain short words in romanicized Japanese).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your revert-warring against me (and others; how many exact reversions have you done on that page? This is the latest) has nothing to do with your repeated call for sanctions against me. Let who will believe that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit is over the placement of a template pointing to a discussion on the talk page. Hardly a reversion unlike ones that had been done in the past to your radical changes to the guideline that had no consensus. Now stop changing the topic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to return to what I said above. I am not convinced that there is still consensus, and we either need to address this point or abandon the discussion. Deb (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  There was a consensus (15 supports/3 opposes/1 neutral) then but because the discussion went into a subpage (after the consensus was formed) it was never implimented. It is blatantly clear that by allowing Pmanderson to move pages as he sees fit will continue to cause unrest in the community (if not just Born2cycle). His blatant attempts to cast aspersions elsewhere throughout this discussion when they are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand (his mention of the current discussions on WT:MOS-JA and a completely out of context accusation on my use of the phrase "my rules" in one of those discussions) are another issue and are the only reason that this whole thread has gone all over the place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  There were half-a-dozen tendentious editors who set up a private subpage of ANI. This is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  My contributions to that page took place long before the subpage was created so your accusations are moot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  In short, another editor who insists that he may prosecute me, but his own actions - and the private enmity which inspires his persistence here - are above criticism. Hello, kettle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  I am not saying I should not be criticized. What I am saying is that your constant criticisms of my past actions to pages completely unrelated to the dispute that spurned this thread have nothing to do with the issue at hand which is that there is a standing consensus to ban you from moving pages and restricting your contributions to the page moving process that has never been implimented and would have prevented this mess from ever happening.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whoa! You're doing it again - both of you! Please, both, go away from this discussion for a while or something else will start up. I want User:Sandstein to comment (again), if he will. Deb (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have already replied above: The discussion has already taken place at length here on ANI. The result is clear; it just needs to be implemented. And the back-and-forth above is beyond silly; please take your private disagreements elsewhere.  Sandstein  23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view on this. However, actions which seemed obvious at the time ought to be reviewed in the light of subsequent developments. The fact that there have been no additional comments on the discussion page for over a fortnight suggests that those with an interest in seeing PMA's activities restricted have become distracted by other matters. Even in this section, they are unable to stick to the matter in hand. If things are left the way they are, it would look odd for that old decision to be implemented now. Deb (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that people can't stay on topic is because PMA starts baiting other editors he has had disputes with by bringing up said disputes to try and make him seem like the person in the right. PMA should most definitely have restrictions on his ability to change the titles of pages. The only reason that /Pmanderson and Byzantine names has been untouched in so long is because it disappeared from this page. That's what happens to every single thread that gets turned into a subpage and that's what's likely to happen with this thread because PMA and B2C cannot seem to play nice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, we do stay on topic. Both Ryulong's private reasons for wanting me sanctioned, and the underlying content dispute that he and others would like to settle as a conduct dispute, are on-topic here. The effort to reduce this to "PMA bad" is further from the real issues, and closer to baiting, than anything I have said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But there is no reason to bring up our previous dispute or my actions elsewhere on the project in this thread. It's not related to the fact that you moved a page without consensus behind your actions and that the resulting drama could have been prevented by the community sanction at /Pmanderson and Byzantine names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be more convenient for you to pose as a neutral voice when you are not. But that does not make it off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when was I portraying myself as a neutral opinion? It is plain to see that I am not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting it; in short, only my enemy supports this sanction - repetitiously and interminably. Should it be imposed? Deb, will you put an end to this thread, please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be hard pressed to believe that everyone who supported the sanction (User:Mkativerata, User:Chester Markel, User:Mathsci, User:Born2cycle, User:Dr.K., User:Jerem43, User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:GoodDay, User:Aldux, myself, User:Wjemather, User talk:Tijfo098, User:Cplakidas, User:Greg L, User:Hobartimus) is your enemy. Also, Deb would not be allowed to end this as she opposed the sanction and would not have consensus in saying it did not apply.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Parrot of Doom

Resolved

 – Whishtwhishtwhishtwhisht*SMACK!* HalfShadow 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom is edit warring, now for a third time, at Hanged, drawn and quartered. He refuses to use the talk page and insisted first on forcing a student essay in, failing that he now is forcing in a ref in which the ref itself clearly and unequivocally states:

• "No documents have surfaced to tell us precisely why these indulgences in overkill were considered necessary. We are free to speculate. The following are four possibilities, perhaps you can come up with others."

That quote is found on the ref page Parrot himself cites. Parrot is also on record, several times, stating that he wants to be blocked or have the page locked. He did manage to lock it once, indeed it just reopened hours ago.99.144.243.116 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked reporting IP 24 hrs for 3RR violation and being obviously unreasonable. [Please insert topic-related joke about appropriate level of sanctions here.] Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please? Opps same time posting.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain the IP has broken the 3RR rule so you may want to double-check the legitimacy of that block. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

[7][8][9][10] seemed pretty unambiguous to me. Am I misreading something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed the first revert. My mistake. Parrot of Doom 00:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The statement above contains several inaccuracies. Firstly, I have not refused to use the talk page, rather I have disengaged from discussing the matter with this editor because it seems we are unable to agree on anything. Interested parties will note that I have discussed the matter at length with other editors on the article's talk page, on my talk page and to a lesser extent on the reliable sources noticeboard. Secondly, I have never expressed a desire to be blocked, I simply do not care if I am or not as a block is of no consequence to me. Similarly, at no point (AFAIK) have I ever said I would like the page locked. Lastly, I have no administrative powers here so am unable to lock anything. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have been involved in this and there is related discussion at my talk page. As far as I can see the issue was decided in talk and the anon user just wants to wind up PoD (perhaps because of some pre-existing grievance?). Good block. --John (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot, Stevie Wonder, and I

I've been playing with my new toy (not my old one, although that's more fun it's also more chafing... no, I mean the Reviewer bit) and came across an edit at Stevie Wonder by Cluebot... my only option was to reject the edit, even though I couldn't see it. The bot edit was already accepted. What's up with that? Cluebot problem or pending pages problem? Doubt 'tis by design. Sorry if this isn't an admin issue but thought it best to bring it to the community's attention. Egg Centric (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is cluebot being speedy. It had obviously reverted the edit you were about to check just before you clicked to do the review. I just ignore it, and double check the history to make sure the bot got it right (cluebot ng seems to be catching an awful lot of vandalism at the moment, really smart stuff) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not possible to modify cluebot to automatically reject the edit then? Egg Centric (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Seems like something that could be programmed, i.e. to check and see if the article is on the "pending revisions" list. I assume you're referring to this one?[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Alternatively, maybe the rejected editons feature could recognise reverts like that as automatic rejection if frmo a higher level user. But I can see pitfalls Egg Centric (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I believe Cobi, the maintainer of ClueBot NG's Wikipedia interface, would technically be able to reject a pending revision instead of reverting text; however, this may be quite a bit of extra work for a somewhat cosmetic matter. Not only that, I was lead to believe that a pending revision which is rejected is simply another revision to the article, which removes the pending text and marks it as an accepted version, which isn't any different from what the bot does now. -- SnoFox^(t|c) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a significant amount of vandalism posted as pending changes, I think Cluebot should leave FR articles alone. Human reviewers can handle it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article owership and discourtesy

I recently attempted to edit Lyndon LaRouche. My edits were quickly reverted by Will Beback and SlimVirgin, with memos advising that there must be discussion and consensus before the edits could be made. After reverting, both editors declined to engage on the discussion page. At Wikipedia:Ownership of articles it is written as an "example of ownership behaviour" that "justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not." After careful inspection of both the article history and the discussion page archives, I see a pattern of this throughout the past years, with always the same two editors, Will Beback and SlimVirgin, exercising ownership over the article. When they have responded at all to comments on the discussion page, their responses have been dismissive. I should like to see administrative action to ensure that they cease this ownership behaviour. 190.80.8.6 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see: you tried to remove a large amount of material from an article on a contentious subject, you were reverted and told to get consensus on the talk page, you posted on the talk page and Will responded, but there's been no consensus determined. You've been treated decently, the only off-note being the suggestion that you seem to know a lot about the article for a "new 'editor, and I concur with that speculation. This is essentially a content dispute, and the only misbehavior I can see is yours, bringing the matter here unnecessarily -- so unless you want admins to take some action against you, I suggest there's nothing to be done here. You've got no beef with Will or SV, their behavior has been fine, go back to the talk page and see if there's a consensus for your edits (but I wouldn't hold my breath, there won't be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that you could say that, technically, Will responded, by making a post in which he attempted to evade and dismiss my point. When I pressed the matter, he then became quite discourteous and announced that he would no longer participate in the discussion. I suppose that you could also say that it is a content dispute, but when there are two editors that control all content and revert out of hand when other editors attempt to participate, then it becomes a matter of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I should like to re-emphasize that from what I could glean from the discussion articles, Will routinely treats other editors this way. SlimVirgin, on the other hand, makes whatever edits she pleases and ignores the discussion page altogether. So much for "consensus." 190.80.8.6 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What account names have you edited un der previously? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited without establishing an account name. Why am I being asked this? Do the rules apply differently when a request is made by someone who has no acount name? I have edited numerous articles without incident, but I must say that my attempt to edit Lyndon LaRouche has been an eye-opening experience for me. I realise now that I could have saved myself a few hours of labour, going through the article and discussion history, had I only heeded the admonition of another editor who said on the discussion page that "anyone who dares edit or comment on this article should first watch this superb series of instructional videos." 190.80.8.6 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI (non-incident)

This is not an incident, only a notification. This message board just achieved it's six hundred and sixty sixth archive. A bit ominous, maybe? Basket of Puppies 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a sign of 2012 the end of the world I am sure of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there something special about 666? It's actually a very good number in some cultures, you know... T. Canens (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's one of the few numbers divisible by both 333 and 37, if that helps. It's also one of the two numbers (the other being 616 - there's some confusion about the translation) that's supposed to be the "mark of the anti-Christ" or some such. Some thought Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ, being as how he had 6 letters in each name. The jury's still out on that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are an infinite amount of numbers divisible by both 333 and 37. A wouldn't call infinite "a few". --Jayron32 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fewer than the number of numbers divisible by 1. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. They are both countably infinite and so of the same size. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Every number that's divisible by 333 is divisible by 37... T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can a RfC and subsequent calls for topic bans and indefinite blocks of editors in regard to the subject of the divisibility of the numbers 37 and 333 be far off? This is, after all, Wikipedia... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• The real part of e^{666i is 0.9998 and the imaginary part is -0.0176, which are almost equal to 1 and 0. You can't tell me that's "just a coincidence."} Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• What about e^{666.66666...i ?} --Cyclopia^talk 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That is binary logic, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not coincidence. It's because π = 666/212 near as dammit. I wonder what the real and imaginary parts of e⁵²¹⁶³ⁱ are? Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Eyes on James Alesi, please

James Alesi is our article on a New York politician who was perfectly obscure last week, before he filed a lawsuit that can only be described as "ill-considered". Mention of this lawsuit has started filtering around the Internet over the weekend, leading to many random IP editors on the article as well as some unfortunate BLP violations being added. At the same time, the article has seen improvements and expansion since then as well, so it would be nice to avoid semiprotection if that's possible. Can we get some watchers on the article for now, please? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234

This user was the subject of a recent ANI on his civility and POV pushing. Most of the users condemned his actions (of which I was one), but agreed that a stern warning, not a block, was a sufficient response. I supported this result, but an admin who had previously interacted with the user noted "that there have to be consequences at some point". Arilang has (thankfully) shied away from civility issues, but I've noticed two very problematic practices that should be brought up and addressed on ANI.

The first, and most important, issue is the egregious amount of copyright violations (WP:PLAGIARISM) by the user. After encountering one of the articles he wrote, I noticed that the writing did not match the style of his talk page contributions, which led me to an investigation of the article. A quick google search revealed that much of the content was taken, or closely paraphrased, off other websites. Going over his contributions, I've noticed a host of other articles with the exact same problems. A few examples from randomly choosing articles off his Articles Created list:

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, was one of the most controversial and fascinating women of the twentieth century" (Wikipedia) with "beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, Madame Chiang Kai-shek... one of the most powerful and fascinating women of the twentieth century". (Amazon)
  • Compare "manipulative “Dragon Lady” and despised her for living in Western-style splendor when most of the Chinese still live in poverty... this book is the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad and access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Wikipedia) with "manipulative “Dragon Lady,” and despised for living in American-style splendor while Chinese citizens suffered under her husband’s brutal oppression... the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad, and written with access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Amazon).

I have moved the related article into my sandbox to work on it when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January 2011. This was taken from an Amazon review of the book.

• • Compare "Becker concedes that the American press reported the famine with accuracy, but leftists and communist sympathisers such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him (Wikipedia) with "Becker concedes that the American press (especially Joseph Alsop) reported the famine with accuracy, he notes that other Western "foreign experts" who admired Mao, such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him." (Amazon

I have removed the copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product description on Amazon. The quotes used in the "review" section are directly copy-pasted off the Amazon list of reviews.
  • Compare "Based on secret and classified Chinese archives documents smuggled out of China...the most important and mythologized communist China leader" (Wikipedia) with "The most important, most mythologized leaders in the history of communist China, based on long-secret documents" and "classified documents spirited out of China". (Amazon)

The related article has been moved to my sandbox to be worked on. Arilang ^talk 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From December, 2010. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house" with "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house". In this instance, the user did use quotes for the following sentence, but this initial sentence remained unquoted. An anonymous IP removed the segment with the editing summary "Removed copyright violation, new summary", but since (judging by the contributions) the IP's POV is different from Arilang's, I assume this is not Arilang's IP.

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2010. This was taken from a blog posted two days before the article.
  • Compare "which is a satire on the mainland Chinese government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of Green Dam Youth Escort and the travails of mainland Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Wikipedia) with "satirizing the government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of “Green Dam Youth Escort” and the travails of Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Blog).

Not sure about this one, it has been long time since I worked on that article. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From March, 2009. This was taken from a Guardian review.
  • Compare "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal" (Wikipedia) with "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal." (Guardian)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From November, 2008. This was taken from The Times Online
  • Compare with "On 2007 Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he has formed a underground New People's Party with 10 million members at home and abroad, and he was the acting chairman of the new party."(Wikipedia) and "Last year Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he was acting as the chairman of the underground New People's Party and claimed 10 million members" (Times)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From October, 2008. This was taken from this About page.
  • Compare "to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (Wikipedia) with "position at the doorsteps of China to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (About page).

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From May, 2009. This was taken from Radio Australia.
  • Compare "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors/petitioners. It's increased again with the recent Chinese National Congress meeting" (Wikipedia) with "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors. It's increased again with the recent Congress." (Radio Australia)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was just from randomly picking articles off his Articles Created list, a more detailed review of his contributions will reveal more incidents. Since this user has largely worked on topics that most Wikipedians are not interested in, the user's copyright violations have remained undetected, and the damage could be extensive. A search shows that this practice began as early as 2008, and the user currently has 8,707 edits, so there is a massive amount of content that must be reviewed.

These are not isolated cases, this has been occuring for years and it's going to be a headache to deal with. Now, you could argue that Arilang is unaware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright violations, but this is a user that has been here since 2008, it's difficult to believe he can contribute 8000+ edits without encountering WP:PLAGIARISM. Pretending to be innocent through ignorance is not an excuse. He was notified for copyright problems on one of his image uploads, other users have reverted his edits for copyright violations, he should know better.

There's also the second issue, which may be just as worrisome. In his last ANI, he promised to behave, and began to back away from the articles where his edits attract the most criticism. One of the problems identified in the last ANI included Arilang's habit of adding external links that are of his POV, even if they may be unreliable or unrelevant. He's still doing this, but with internal links, look at this article he creates and the link he adds here, under the See Also section. Judge for yourself. This seems like an attempt to flout his promise to behave, a sneaky way to POV push without triggering the scrutiny of the editors that criticised him in his last ANI.

On his last ANI, he was dangerously close to a block and users advised him not to worsen the situation, which he had been doing. While the plagiarism problems were not included in the last ANI, concerns over POV were. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I leave this up to the administrators and editors.--hkr (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the plagarism is a "new issue" (yes, I know that this is an issue that he should have been aware of, but "should have" is not quite the same as "did know") that he had not been warned about, I am not inclined to advocate for anything other than a warning.

As far as the "sneaky POV pushing," I would advocate now not a one-week cool-off block (which I advocated last time) but a one-month ban from all China-related articles, with an explicit warning that while he could return to them after the one month, if this resumes, he will be blocked at least one month for each instance. I realize that this is a harsh sanction, but I believe that the behavior warrants it. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to protest against the "sneaky POV pushing" label, though on various talk pages I have never try to hide my "strong opinions", but when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style. Arilang ^talk 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that this section is written in a "neutral style"? Don't you see how it would be problematic to link this article under the "See also" section of its subject? Please understand Arilang, I sympathise with your POV at times, but when act like this a few days after your last ANI, editors will take notice.--hkr (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the adding Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary to Zhou Enlai is an act of "sneaky POV pushing". On the contrary, it is in the everyday reader's benefit that more info about Zhou as a human being being offered in wikipedia. Arilang ^talk 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See? It's this type of response that creates the conflicts you've been involved with. A facetious response like "it is in the everyday reader's benefit" tells me that you're not taking this seriously. It's not your job to "benefit" the reader by promoting a bias. Don't you see how your contributions can be construed as POV? No amount of trouting seems to be working.--hkr (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If Mao Zedong can have Mao: The Unknown Story at the "See also", why is it that Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary became a POV issue when added on to Zhou Enlai article? Arilang ^talk 12:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The former is an article that has been worked on by many contributors and is (somewhat) neutral. The latter is an article that has solely been written by you, was created a few days ago with a clear POV, misrepresents the book it was written on by "selectively" quoting, and was created to (in my eyes), make a point of avoiding the scrutiny of the editors that typically frequent these articles. Strangely, the article acts as a disservice to the book (it's partially available on Google Books), which is much more moderate in its POV and nuanced in its analysis. I do not like Mao, I think the man is a mass murderer, but I care about neutrality, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back, with your last ANI so recent.--hkr (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have clean up Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary a bit, to make it more neutral. Since the article has been created new, I shall try my best to turn it into a more neutral article, just give me a bit more time. Arilang ^talk 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "selective" quoting might be too kind, "completely changing the tone of" is much more fitting. Compare the version of this section with the article its supposedly attributed to. Notice how the first expresses a negative tone of the subject, while the second is positive. Notice that both are attributed to same author, but make completely different points. He's taking quotes, chopping them up, and rephrasing them to make them support the POV he makes. There are ways of being critical while being neutral. Blatant attempts attempts like this are not. I've defended Arilang in the past, but I'm tired of all the final warnings. And the plagiarism issue remains.--hkr (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also copyright problems with his images. This File:People's commune3.jpg, labeled public domain, credits "Google Image Search" as its source.--hkr (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234. Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs. Arilang ^talk 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered these editing problems before in my previous dealings with Arilang, in which I have noted that he often inserts Google translated Chinese language blog and forum posts, as well as Youtube videos, as references and external links. While I believe that he added these in good faith, considering his time spent editing Wikipedia, I think he really should spend more time to familiarise with Wikipedia guidelines regarding these matters. Thus, I believe Nlu's suggestion of a one-month restriction on China-related articles to be appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we have a problem here. If Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary is Arilang's best attempt at writing neutral encyclopedic material, then this is more than just a failure. Given the long history of prior disruption, it becomes clear his presence is a net detriment to the project. I am willing to impose a lengthy block of disruptive editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced he's taken in the message about copyvio after looking at the article. And using Amazon's excerpts from reviews may not be as bad as copyvio but we need links to the originals so we can see the context of the excerpts. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph still contains the copyvio that I listed. The sourcing issues with the excerpts are a problem, but I agree with Doug that the priority should be on fixing the copyvios, removing or rewording the unquoted and closely paraphrased content.--hkr (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Main problem here are copyright issues (and frequently RS problems, as in his new article "Zhou Enlai..."). Perhaps the most constructive course of action would be as follows. Ask Arilang1234 to fix all copyright and RS problems he created, give him a couple of weeks for that, and check if he did it. If he can not, I leave this to judgment of more experienced people.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The cases that hkr showed are not a comprehensive review of all of Arilang's contributions: they are random articles taken from the list of articles Arilang created. Given his 8000 contributions, the fact that his copyright and other problems go back to at least 2008, and his unsatisfactory record in fixing the articles so far, it would be prudent to open a broad CCI on Arilang's contributions. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234-"when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style"

Again, let us take a look at Arilang1234's "neutral style" Boxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members ...The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme. this whole article which has massive sections written by Arilang1234 stank of POV and pure hatred toward some of the subjects he was written about, such as the Boxers, before admin User:Nlu thankfully deleted much of it Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234- "Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs"

Is he being serious here? He doesn't seem to have a single clue regarding rules for uploading images to wikimedia or wikipedia, saying he "successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs", with no evidence that he actually understands why there were allowed to stay on wikimedia while other images were deleted, he evidently has no understanding of public domain or copyright laws. He seems to by playing Russian roulette with his edits. Several entire articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written Chinese were deleted by Afd, and Arilang1234 himself said Well, your are free to create new articles, as long as they survive AfD, almost as his procedure for writing wikipedia articles was creating them with absolutely no idea of wikipedia rules regarding copyright, content, and neutrality, and seeing whether they get deleted or not.Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary into my sandbox to show my sincereness, and I shall try to fix the POV problem from there. Regarding other copyvio problems, give me some times, I shall fix them too. Arilang ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cautionary note: let's not turn this into an orgy of criticism. The issues are still: given what we have seen, what measures should be taken, if any? It should not turn into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang1234 has done on Wikipedia (and criticism thereof), nor should it downgrade into personal attacks (which it has not yet but appears on the cusp of). My recommendation still stands (but I think we need more opinions on this): no blocks, one-month ban from China-related articles (with a block to come if ban is violated). --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. 1. I do not think that creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary can be interpreted as an example of WP:DE by Arilang. 2. Copyright problems. This needs to be assessed. If this is a serious problem in a large number of articles, that's one thing. Otherwise, this just needs to be fixed. When I saw that kind of things in Russia-related articles, I tried to fix them immediately by removing or rephrasing the text and leaving a notice to the user.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The earlier version of the article was clearly disruptive. Arilang's later "fixes" to the article after this ANI was brought up, shows that that he does understand what the concept of neutrality is (it's hard to argue ignorance), and acknowledges that his earlier article was pushing a POV. The idea that he is intentionally POV pushing is later reinforced by a comment on this ANI where he defends the act as a "benefit" to the reader. I appreciate that Arilang apologised, I welcome his desire to improve, but sooner or later, he has to understand there are ways to be critical without pushing a POV. User:Greg Pandatshang and User:Ohconfucius are examples of editors critical of the Chinese government, that do an admirable job at remaining neutral.--hkr (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly protest at hkr using "disruptive" to describe the creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, which is a notable book reviewed by scholars such as Jonathan Spence and others. And regarding all those POV and copyvio problems, I shall be able to fix them when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't WP:N, the subject is notable, and notability was never brought up as a concern. The main problem is creating an article with "all those POV and copyvio problems" a few days after being warned about POV, which is disruptive.--hkr (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nlu, the one-month topic ban from China-related articles could work. And the plagiarism issue, although extensive, can be dealt with at CCI, with the coooperation of Arilang. But, because of the WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:POVPUSH issues related to Arilang's article creations, I propose that a longer editing restriction on article creation be implemented. Arilang should be, for a time, restricted to creating articles in his sandbox, which can be moved to the mainspace upon review and approval by an admin or uninvolved experienced editor.--hkr (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To show my sincerity, I have moved Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady into my sandbox to work on any copyvio problems, and I am willing to cooperate with other editors to eradicate any editing errors. Arilang ^talk 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of rewrite on Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady, and Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionaryand hope that it is OK now. Arilang ^talk 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I just found a new one on Plasma economy ("The final crushing irony... etc" from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1359670.stm). POV as well. Potentially a big problem here. Arilang1234, do you understand the problem of copyright violation? And a serious question; how much content have you copied? The one I found dates from '09. The problem we have here is that the use of Chinese sources causes a complication - we need Chinese speakers to check them for copyvio/plagarism --Errant ^(chat!) 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation with others

I have look into articles mentioned by user hkr, and have done quite a bit of cleaning up, and I shall continue to do so, until all the copyvio content is removed. I would like to stress my point again, I am here to contribute, not to disrupt. Please also have a look at the number of articles created by me: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Arilang1234&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=none Arilang ^talk 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was extremely forgiving last ANI thread in an AGF manner akin to "really, they won't do this again, who would deliberately get him/herself blocked after coming so close to the edge?", but I have to agree with User:Nlu and User:hrk this go. That's it's been only a few days since last "incident" suggests to me that any kind of block or topic ban would be 100% justified as preventative against further damage to the project. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a second ANI thread about the same user during just a few days, but the only thing he did between the threads was creating a couple articles about books. He is also currently making an effort to fix the alleged copyright violations [12]. Blocking/banning a user while he is cleaning up his mess would be highly counter-productive. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Again, I am not questioning Ariliang1234's good faith in remedying the issue. But what I believe is that during the middle of that process, there will be a trigger for something else to occur. I think a one-month ban from the topic area will be good for him, as well as for the rest of us, to get him to take a step back from the topic area and reevaluate. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that he created the articles (this is not a WP:N problem), it's the content in the articles that's problematic, when you consider that he promised to back off making controversial edits in his last ANI, a few days before. Just compare (using an example I gave on Arilang's talk) what Arilang writes in this section with the actual article it's supposedly attributed to. The former is a negative assessment, the latter is a positive one, and yet both are attributed to the same writer! I've never seen a better example of a WP:COATRACK article. Promoting a POV is one thing, misquoting and altering the meaning of your sources to promote a POV is another, and he should know better. I am not against (hell, often I agree with) Arilang's POV. The problem is how he promotes it unrepentantly, in an egregiously conspicuous and heavy-handed manner. I appreciate that Arilang promises to act in good faith, but if you're going to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which you shouldn't!), do it with a little finesse.--hkr (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You started this thread because of the alleged copyright violations by Arilag. Now you also filed a request for copyright investigation. Let's wait what this investigation would produce.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"But I've noticed two very problematic practices". I'm aware of what I said. If this had only been about the plagiarism, I would have gone directly to WP:CCI.--hkr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to Arilang; you need to make note of the copyvios you find and clean up so that an admin can revdel them --Errant ^(chat!) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, copyvios are unacceptable in all namespaces. Try working on it offline. MER-C 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to user MER-C and Errantx friendly comments. I have begun checking through all of my copyvios editing, and have since removed quite a few of them. I have promised not to repeat these silly mistakes again. Arilang ^talk 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

On his last ANI, Arilang was reported by another user for problems with WP:CIVILITY, WP:RS, and WP:POVPUSHing. He was let off the hook, but with the self-enforced promise that he back off from the topic that got him into trouble (Chinese politics and Chinese history), a result that I endorsed. However, a few days after his last ANI, he creates a WP:COATRACK article, violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS, on the exact topic he was specifically recommended to back off from. Contrary to my original assessment, I believe it's time for there to be some consequences. This is a user that has been repeatedly warned for his behaviour, and the cycle of "final warnings" and insincere apologies has gone on for far too long. This resolution is considerably less harsher than the one proposed by User:NicholasTurnbull in the last ANI, which proposed a wide-ranging community ban, and takes into account Nlu's suggestions:

• Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) is subject to a two-month one-month topic ban on editing topics relating to Politics in China and the History of China, except to fix the copyright violations listed in his contributor copyright investigation case. But, in fixing his copyright violations, he cannot add additional content in either 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies.
• Arilang can return after the two monthsmonth, but if this resumes, his next ANI could result in a block or a longer topic ban, possibly indefinite.
• This is only an article space topic ban, and Arilang can continue to contribute to discussions on the topic, if he so wishes.

I believe this will encourage Arilang to 1) step back and evaluate his actions 2) explore other topics outside the single one he is interested (and unfortunately, sometimes disruptive) in and 3) use the time to correct the copyright violations in his CCI case.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. For a more detailed explanation on the "coatrack" incident, see the sixth paragraph under the "Cooperation with Others" subsection above.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think two months is too long as an initial ban. (Yes, I had advocated for sanctions in the past, but the sanctions were not agreed to as community consensus. With this becoming the first initial sanction, two months is too long.) I'd still suggest one month. I agree with the scope of the ban being limited to political and historical issues, and So God created Manchester's proposal to allow Ariliang to continue working on copyright issues, I think I agree to as well, with some reservations — I think that's going to be too much of a temptation to write in things that will be POV-pushing or perceived as POV-pushing. I don't necessarily oppose it, but I still think that a simple break from the topic is better. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I've reduced it to one month.--hkr (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I think the alleged copyright violations must be carefully investigated prior to making any action. As about other issues, this reminds me the Eastern European wikibattles after looking at actions by multiple editors. Now I realize why NicholasTurnbull suggested this resolution. Biophys (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The massive amount of edits by Arilang1234 will surely turn in a massive amount of copyvio, along with all the unlicensed images he uploaded, no matter how long the topic ban will be, it will possibly take years to fix the copyvio, especially since few people are actually working at the CCI project. Also as i noted above, Arilang1234 doesn't seem to understand why his edits and image uploads are copyvio or unencyclopedic, someone needs to clearly explain to him word by word, at commons people already tried to explain, but apparently he responded by merely switching to uploading at wikipedia rather than commons rather than understanding the rules. In his comment to me on his talk page, he gave the impression as if creating articles which would get deleted later by Afd was almost normal for him, as if he doesn't even know why they are deleted. It has been explained to him multiple times apparently on his talk page and deletion discussions why xxx article was deleted, but he never listened and repeated the same thing again.Дунгане (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Like I have pointed out before, I will try my best to eradicate all the errors created by my wiki edition, and promise not to repeat those "silly" mistakes again. However, shouldn't user Дунгане be busy tidy up his own backyard first?

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане Arilang ^talk 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support enaction as an interim solution. However, there are two problems here that I can see. The first is that given the massive amount of copyvio text added by the user, it is questionable whether there is much to be gained from letting him do it again after the ban has expired. It's hard to see any contributions from Arilang in the China article diaspora that are genuinely productive. If it had been the case that Arilang had made good on the various promises that he made here on AN/I in the previous thread, I would have seen this differently. However, it does strike me that Arilang is editing these articles for the purposes of WP:COATRACKing and WP:WARring on the subject, and there are other editors besides Arilang (with whom negative interactions can be observed in his contribs) who will subsequently have to be given similar editing restrictions. This is not a resolution of the problem, and it will probably return back again to AN/I or else the arbcom with this ban alone. I fail to see quite why such an endless address of this dispute is a useful application of our time. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the following users are also included in the ban: Дунгане (talk · contribs), Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), Quigley (talk · contribs); all of these users have been involved in warring with Arilang and have not behaved very much better (the first user currently has an open CCI). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you pulled me into this. The only interaction I've had with Arilang in recent memory, besides commenting on Arilang's ANIs, is my participation in two tame talk page discussions involving multiple editors. Quigley (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is actually a pro-Taiwan user, just like Arilang. The evidence that users, who share the same opinions as Arilang (not just Kintetsubuffalo, but sternly anti-Communist users like User:C.J. Griffin), have been repeatedly reverting Arilang's edits, speaks volumes on the quality of Arilang's edits. And I agree that it's unfair to drag Quigley into this, he hasn't interacted with Arilang in a while.--hkr (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

and to User:NicholasTurnbull, if you've seen my editing history, i am rather not concerned with Arilang1234's edits and the content of his articles than his personal insults, which was why i am here. in the past two months i believe there is not an instance of me reverting an edit by arilang1234, and much of the discussion at ANI and the talk pages centered on his insults being flung around. I do not believe topic banning Arilang1234 is a good idea, rather, as in an ANI thread earlier, an editor suggested blocks for insults being hurled around, which would increase in time for every new insult. Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"

When Arilang1234 again started flinging around insults, to User:PCPP, thats when i returned into this ANI dispute, and why i'm here know even though the thread is about copyvio, not insults. I know its not binding but Shadowjams suggestion is a good idea. I will apply myself to Shadowjams suggestion as well, and suggest it be submitted as a proposal, but i have nothing to do with the content dispute and request my username be withdrawn, since i edited nothing on the articles named above by User:So God created Manchester. I do not see my username anywhere on this article, or on virtually 90% of the articles Arilang1234 edited, i have never disputed on most of his work.Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Nicholas Turnbull, as a wiki editor, I have one advantage that many wiki editors are lacking: the ability to read both simplified and traditional Chinese, as most of the bilingual editors can only read simplified Chinese. By that I mean I am able to read books and academic documents written in traditional Chinese, and translate them into Chinese, to enrich the content of wikipedia. I know I have been silly before, I would just like to make one more apology, and one more promise: I will do good this time.

And, in response to your above comment, beside Дунгане, who is adding Islam stuff all over the place, and no one ever said anything, PCPP is not an angel, either, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603 Arilang ^talk 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a useful skill of yours. However, as you probably already know, the English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources over foreign language sources, and reliable source translations of foreign language material over translations by Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources). Whilst in no way would I demean your language skills in this regard or their utility to Wikipedia, I would be concerned that given your track record in misrepresenting source claims that such translations may be more of a vehicle for inserting "opaque" WP:OR into the China articles in such a way as non-Chinese speakers cannot refute the source inclusions. I would therefore be wary about endorsing your efforts in this regard. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is, from now on I will do good. Arilang ^talk 11:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment All my edit warring With Arilang1234 consisted of me removing derogatory remarks about barbarians, banditry, and looting on the article to which Arilang1234 added these adjectives to describe subjects, and responding to outright insults about my alleged inability to speak english on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article. Without previous provocation from me, Arilang1234 went ballistic, accusing me of inserting communist party propaganda [13][14] and not speaking english, despite the fact that before i even had this dispute i warned against using Chinese government Communist sources and i criticized communist ideology. Seeing as you all understand my english, i have serious doubts whether Arilang1234 was sincerely suggesting that my english skills were so poor he couldn't comprehend them or rather he was sending a cheap insult. I have never provoked him before he started making snide remarks about my language ability. Arilang sought to put blame on an entire ethnic group for the war, saying "From the above sentence, it is very clear that 剛毅(Manchu official) was the main player in the Boxer Rebellion". as he did not add this particular line into the article, i tried to explain that hatred and insults toward the (manchu) people is not encyclopedic material, and he even went more out of line, bringing in references to "prove" that manchus are barbarians, which led to another ANI thread created by Nlu after i complained to him about this.

Arilang1234 claimed he was removing "unreferenced content" which had a referenced I have never misrepresented my edits in an edit summary on that article.

There was no significant content dispute, except for the insults being hurled into the article and the talk page, which was why i brought up earlier ANI threads about Arilang1234, due to his constant claims that i speak "pidgin english", which was a rationale he gave for not paying attention to any of my attempts to talk it out with him.

And if editors actually look at my CCI it is over 6 months old, i have already checked dozens of articles and cleaned several, and i have asked 3 admins to work on my CCI case. I asked User:Rjanag to do it but received no response, my request is somehwere in his talk page archives, and i asked one of the CCI admins, User:VernoWhitney to do so but he is frequently busy hunting for other copyviolations. My requests are still availible on his talk page or talk page archives.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User Дунгане's above 40 plus lines of comment, he/she used "i" about 14 times, "I" about 4-6 times, "english" 3-4 times. When a writer is confused about the use of "i", "I" and "e" "E", it is apparent that he/she really need some basic English writing tuition. My advice to Дунгане is a friendly advice, not a "cheap insult". Arilang ^talk 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"friendly advice", from a user accusing me of speaking pidgin english, who doesn't know how to spell savages and properly grammatically arrange a sentence- "Extremely stupid", not "stupid to the extreme" is very rich. Arilang1234 accused me of speaking Chinglish and Pidgin English, which have negative connotations, and have absolutely nothing to do with capitalization" (Arilang1234 notes that i don't capitalize my i's and english), rather, the distinguishing features of pidgin english and chinglish are incomprehensible and nonsensical grammar which look foolish to a fluent english speaker.Дунгане (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told everyone that I am not a native English speaker, and I always welcome friendly advice and constructive criticism from other editors. Arilang ^talk 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• OpposeI support the resolution by User:Ohconfucius below.Дунгане (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Off topic - content issues

Reliability of Arilang1234's translation is called into question User:Arilang1234 has inserted unreliable translations into articles. saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", claiming that the Chinese communist party "only" attack the KMT and not Japan, yet the majority of the wikisource article he himself wrote in chinese is about the Communist party encouraging attacks against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what he himself added to the wikisource article, since he created it, or is just flat out not telling the truth. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) And wikisource itself is not accepted as a source for wikipediaДунгане (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) The Google machine translated article is here The imperialist occupation of the Chinese Communist Party at the Northeast for the second time the Declaration, a declaration made by the CCP in 1931. In this declaration, Japan/Japanese/Japanese Imperilism was mentioned 16 times, whereas KMT/Kuomintang/Chiang Kai-shek was mentioned 38 times. If this is not enough to show that what is the real target of this War Cry declaration, let's have a look at the slogans at the end of the article: (1)Up!Students in all of China's peasants and soldiers and all the toiling masses! (2)Strike, strike, strike operations, strike, against Japanese imperialism! (3)Participate in all demonstrations and rallies! (4)The masses of armed workers and peasants, students! (5)Automatically obtain the freedom of speech assembly and association publication! (6)Entered into with all the imperialists against the Kuomintang secret of all! (7)Against all imperialism, hit imperialism! (8)The Soviet Union against imperialist attack on the KMT, the armed support of the Soviet Union! (9)Capitulated to imperialism against the KMT, the KMT down! (10)Down with imperialism, the only force supporting the Soviet Red Army! (11)The only support the anti-imperialist movement the Chinese Communist Party leader! (12)Long live the victory of the Soviet revolution in China! Just look at these War Cry slogans, "Japanese Imperialism" is mentioned only once, whereas KMT/Kuomintang is mentioned four times. You don't need to be a "Professor of Chinese Studies" to work out who(Japanese or KMT) was the real target of this War Cry Declaration. "Elementary, my dear Watson." Arilang talk 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) This is a content dispute. Without taking sides, ANI might not be the best place to argue about it, for either of you.--hkr (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution 2

I watched Arilang start off on WP, and was impressed by his undoubted enthusiasm for China-related-topics, and for starting articles which were potentially worthy subjects for this encyclopaedia. I also noted, however, the often mediocre quality of articles he created. The articles are often problematic in terms of language, content, political bias, and structure; he also tends to use a majority of Chinese language sources (often for want of English language sources because these are matters of little interest to the Western world), which poses problems for verifiability. In the past, he has invited me to examine some of his work, but not all have been sufficiently interesting to me; not all subjects are notable, IMHO. I have gone in and corrected, for example, his version of the Deng Yujiao incident, making significant content, style and referencing changes. I will just say I have not experienced any bitter confrontations with him, but his apparently poor interaction with certain others comes as little surprise, as he has very strong opinions which he expresses vocally in talk pages, but also has a tendency of permeating his content work with. I had hoped that he would have better learned the ropes of Wikipedia since he arrived in 2008, but he appears to be carrying on being aware only of WP:BOLD as policy. What I find of greatest concern now are problems with copyright.

I would suggest that, at a minimum, he should clean up all examples of copyright violations of which he is aware. To demonstrate his good faith, he should execute this in the most transparent manner by first creating a list of all articles where he is aware of such copyright issues, and then by working off that list, making progress comments to each and every article so listed. I would also suggest that Arilang worked exclusively those articles, and refrain from any further article creation or content addition elsewhere on WP. That way, others can interact and monitor the progress, and give guidance as required. I believe that Arilang (and his fellow editors) would benefit by Arilang being on civility parole and 1RR for three months. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Further to my suggestion above, I have now created a list of articles using Arilang's contributions history. He should now go through the list and remove all those where his involvement has only been minimal. The cleanup effort should proceed from there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Ohconfucius for your list, I have begun to work on it. Could you tell me where did you get the list? There is another question I like to ask you, like in the case of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, my initial contributions may have POV and copyvios problem, but the content has since being removed, or integrated, does it mean that the article is now clear? Arilang ^talk 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's compiled from your contributions history, using AWB, and thus should include every article you have touched. Yes, it will include articles like the 2008 Chinese milk scandal – I actively work that one, and I'm fairly sure it's clean. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Arilang1234 does not need to be topic banned, his content is of no concern, rather, the insults he chucks around are extremely offensive and rude, and if Arilang1234 is put on watch for civility and rudeness i will also submit to that too.Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

if you've seen my editing history, i am rather not concerned with Arilang1234's edits and the content of his articles than his personal insults, which was why i am here. in the past two months i believe there is not an instance of me reverting an edit by arilang1234, and much of the discussion at ANI and the talk pages centered on his insults being flung around. I do not believe topic banning Arilang1234 is a good idea, rather, as in an ANI thread earlier, an editor suggested blocks for insults being hurled around, which would increase in time for every new insult. Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"

Who's Seb? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556Дунгане (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When Arilang1234 again started flinging around insults, to User:PCPP, thats when i returned into this ANI dispute, and why i'm here know even though the thread is about copyvio, not insults. I know its not binding but Shadowjams suggestion is a good idea. I will apply myself to Shadowjams suggestion as well, I have little to do with content disputes with Arilang1234, i edited nothing on the articles named above by User:So God created Manchester. I do not see my username anywhere on this article, or on virtually 90% of the articles Arilang1234 edited, i have never disputed on most of his work, they contain strong anti communist POV, as i am not a communist agent, i am not interested in removing them.Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a list of my edits to remove copyvios and POV content

User:Arilang1234/Records of removing copyvios content, I welcome all the constructive suggestions. Arilang ^talk 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy to see you accept my proposal. I have copied over the relevant entries. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral, with a further comment. I still believe that a topic ban is more appropriate, but I am not going to oppose Ohconfucius's alternative proposal. Meanwhile, I would again urge Дунгане to not turn this into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang has done. Frankly, it looks petty and clouds the issue, and makes it look like it's a grudge rather than genuine criticism (constructive or not) of Ariliang's behavior. Keep to the point. If there is problematic behavior, stay with a neutral description of the problematic behavior, rather than make it into emotional accusations. --Nlu (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with all of Ohconfucius' observations; it nicely sums up my concerns over Arilang's behaviour. But I'm not sure if suggesting that Arilang avoid the topic, using his own self control, is enough. Why not go one step further and make the thing official? Arilang did not heed the suggestions in his last ANI, so there remains some doubt (and I think justifiably) if he will this time. I'm optimistic about Arilang, I appreciate that he wants to improve, and I have no qualms about his eagerness to change, but I'd like to see him demonstrate it first.--hkr (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I just hope I'm right that Arilang is not beyond redemption. I certainly hope he can moderate his direct tone and contribute positively to the project. He seems to have taken up my suggestion to transparently work through and clean up after himself, which is a good first move. He, like anyone, is sensitive to harsh or unfair criticism, but has indicated that he is receptive if criticism is constructive. Arilang should also appreciate he and others may have difficulties relying on simple written communication, because many of the common communication cues (facial expressions, body language, tone of voice) are lost, which often has the effect of making humour or even sarcasm translate poorly. I will try and cast a closer watchful eye over his activities when I can. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the consequences are slightly lenient, but if you're willing to take Arilang under your guidance, and teach him the basics of WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, I trust that your proposals (3 months of 1RR and civility parole) are enough. However, the editing restrictions should come with the warning that, although he is not topic banned, he should only add content (specifically, content that could be construed as POV or linkspam) after discussing the proposed additions on the relevant talk pages. I'm grateful that you're willing to help Arilang improve his conduct, and I'm hopeful that it will be successful.--hkr (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is a support (for the 3 months of 1RR and civility parole), but with the condition that Ohconfucius mentors Arilang, and that Arilang is strongly cautioned to discuss first, before making edits that can be construed as POV pushing or linkspam. Although we're divided on the details, there is consensus for editing restrictions; but, whether it's a topic ban or 1RR and a civility parole, what's important is that Arilang understands his mistakes, and not repeat his behaviour.--hkr (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by total outsider: I have no familiarity with this beyond having read this thread, but maybe it would be useful to ask Arilang to explain in his own words what the meanings of neutrality and copyright are? Not only might he learn something from such a process, but there would be no possibility of claiming ignorance later, should he have a rebound.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• So, we have 5 users supporting (3 for the 3 month 1RR and civility parole and 2 for a topic ban) and 1 (presumably) opposing both. How are the admins going to close this? Should we wait for more comments?--hkr (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

[a clarification]. I personally support nothing and oppose to nothing. I would like to notice very helpful and constructive actions by Ohconfucius who worked to actually fix the problems with content. Biophys (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

CCI now open

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arilang1234 Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome to help with this or any other open CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl for the notice, just to let you know, I have begun working on the problem:

User:Arilang1234/Articles with copyright issues, and I will see to it that all the copyvios edit done by me shall be removed. Arilang ^talk 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Edit Warnings

User: Cirt, in response to reasonable criticism (here and here) on the page Golden Raspberry Award, created an edit notice here which seems to simply serve the purpose of stifling this legitimate criticism. When I asked him if he could change this on both the article's talkpage as well as his own, he gave a condescending response. The user seems to have abused his sysop powers, and also seems not to understand the concept of WP:OWN. See, for example Talk:List_of_people_who_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#Opening_paragraph, Talk:List_of_people_who_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#First_sentence and Talk:Golden_Raspberry_Award#Poor_grammar_change_to_first_sentence. Thank you very much.. --Yaksar (let's chat) 02:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment of the situation. The page was under frequent page blanking vandalism, and so that was why the notice was created. I respectfully defer to any other administrator to change the notice as they see fit. Note: that later, after discussion on the talk page by another party (not the IPs that were vandalizing the page with blatant page blanking vandalism) I myself edited the page to its stable version, which is indeed a much much shorter lede/intro than it had been. Again, I will defer to other admins for any further edits to that template notice. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I am stepping back from both the page, Golden Raspberry Award, and the associated template. Any other administrator, feel free to modify the template as you see fit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If Yaksar is comfortable with it and without objection, I would remove the part in question myself from Template:Editnotices/Page/Golden_Raspberry_Award. But I will wait to hear back from either Yaksar or an admin, before doing so. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly have no objectionYaksar (let's chat) 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:Yaksar, from the evidence you present Cirt did not at any time use his sysop abilities during your encounter. Your claim that he has abused those powers is thus spurious. --Danger (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (see comment below) --Danger (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just meant in regards to creating the edit warning to essentially end a conflict he was involved in, which I think is a sysop ability? But I sort of spun into other criticisms, and probably should have labeled this more of a violation of WP:OWN or something along those lines, so for that I apologize. --Yaksar (let's chat) 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaksar, would you appreciate it if I removed the info you have questioned, from the page Template:Editnotices/Page/Golden_Raspberry_Award? -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. But this is not about satisfying me, I was more worried about putting off potential editors to the article and stifling legitimate debate. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, without objection from Yaksar, I have gone ahead and removed the text in question that was objected to by Yaksar diff. Hopefully that is satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaksar, any logged in editor can create a page, and that's all a template is. Sysop powers, in the context of edit related conflicts, are page deletion, page protection and blocking. I hope this clears up some confusion. Don't worry about it, though; it is confusing. --Danger (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you very much. I was under the impression that since it showed up only when you tried to edit the page it was an administrator ability. Thanks so much for your help! Although I am troubled by the fact that only administrators were able to edit it, and am still concerned about the comments I made regarding WP: Own. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Er... yeah, I'm so sorry about this mess. You're right, only administrators can deal in edit notices. I missed the whole "only shows up when you try to edit" bit, probably because I can't read or something. I've struck my initial response; your claim of admin powers abuse is not on face spurious. --Danger (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unrelated, but there's a bug in the software that leads non-admins to think they can modify edit notices: instead of the "view source" tab that you see with other fully-protected pages, you get an "edit" or "edit this page" tab. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also stifling edits based on a mis-statement of wp:ver which does not forbid addition of unsourcED material, it forbids entry of unsourcBLE material. North8000 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to point out the Scientology connection in all of this, but it may help Yaksar understand the odd reactions related to simple changes to these articles. The sharp-eyed reader will note that while actor Barry Pepper is included in List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards, he did not accept a Golden Raspberry Award but merely noted that he would have accepted it if he had been invited to the ceremony. Pepper won the award for his performance in Battlefield Earth, a movie based on a novel by L. Ron Hubbard and starring Scientologist John Travolta. This odd entry has been present since Cirt created the article in November 2009. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I did not realize this. I have opened this for discussion at Talk:List_of_people_who_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#Barry_Pepper. However, I am more troubled about what seem to be misuse of admin abilities, such as with the template mentioned above as well as in conversations such as User_talk:Cirt#User_talk:LWSlade (although this issue seems to have ended amicably, it does seem to be somewhat indicative of the user's behavior.) Yaksar (let's chat) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, should I have alerted those involved in the original discussion that lead to the edit template's creation of this ANI? The idea did not occur to me at the time, and I want to be sure of any protocol and etiquette. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also very troubled by Cirt's decision to make this archive decision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Raspberry_Award&diff=409280620&oldid=409280357 just as this discussion began, it seems to be an attempt to hide the earlier conversation just as it becomes relevant. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Update, continued disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), decision to drop the page

1. Summary of disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#Comments_by_Cirt
2. Further ongoing disruption by Yaksar (talk · contribs), at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_accepted_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#.22Though.....22_in_lede
3. Yaksar (talk · contribs) has shown a determined intention to engage in disruption and continue to revert and edit-war non-stop, before attempting to seek out consensus on the talk page through discussion.
4. I am going to back away from this page (which I had previously created from scratch) List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

editor Polaron moving articles and creating redirects

As discussed in User talk:Polaron#random moves of Connecticut church articles, Polaron has made multiple moves of Connecticut church and parish articles which are problematic. In response to disagreement and request to stop, he continued with many more. Upon further discussion and clarifications, he is continuing to make many more. This lays bare Polaron's view of Wikipedia as a battlefield, in my opinion, as discussed there. I request simply that he be stopped. I don't have time really to discuss this repeatedly here, so I hope other editors might be able to review what has occurred and take appropriate action. --doncram 17:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Some further problems with these moves is being noted within ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut).

About redirects and related behavior by this editor, please see User talk:Polaron#Non-useful redirects, User talk:Polaron#Controversial moves need to go through WP:RM before being moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#Connecticut communities topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#Connecticut naming "convention" for neighborhoods for just a few recent discussions opened by other editors and myself. --doncram 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Don, if you are going to file an ANI, please succinctly describe the supposed problem, along with links. I mean, "moves which are problematic" does not suffice. What's problematic about them?

  Yes, I've followed the discussion at Polaron's talk page, and the AfD, and even participated in it some. I still don't understand what your objection is, other than he won't comply with your request to stop fixing red links associated with a bunch of new preemptively disambiguated church articles (but he has even stopped that now that this discussion started). But until you succinctly describe the problem with links to specific issues, there can be no discussion.

  As far as the battlefield accusation, as I told you there, you're the one who seems to have the battlefield mentality, including, arguably, filing this ANI. It's not like Polaron has refused to discuss this with you there. You're the one not answering his questions[15], and instead filing this ANI. Polaron is just doing what Polaron normally does, as far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My wikipedia name is doncram, thank you, or you may refer to me as "D" for short within a discussion like this where i may refer to you as "B". There are sufficient links to specific articles moved in the "random moves" discussion at P's Talk page, plus you have P's contribution history. Also I have been annotating the AFD discussion list to identify City, State of the now unclearly named churches. Each one of those is one that Polaron moved. Another editor has now also independently objected to Polaron's moves, and Polaron responded to say he is no longer making moves, pending discussion.

The request was for some action to be taken to prevent further disruption. Disruption was expanding when i opened the ANI here. P did not cease making moves until this ANI was opened, making moves right up to when he received notice. P has not responded here. P has not responded about which list is his source of articles to possibly move, despite my request in the discussion there (similar to not responding to many previous requests for what is his database or other source on other topics where he has made many contended edits). I went through all articles in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut to identify most of them for the AFD, but he has moved others since i tagged all those for the AFD. The new articles he moved seem mostly or all also appropriate to include into the AFD, and i will add them. I think there is some category for new articles in Connecticut category or something that he reviews.

At this point the incident is not hot, as P is not moving articles now, but presumably he would begin again if not given direction (he agreed to stop "pending discussion"). Since the big AFD is now ongoing and involves discussion of naming/disambiguation of most of these, I suggest that temporary resolution be reached by advising Polaron not to make moves/redirects until that AFD is completed. At his Talk page and in the AFD, Polaron has disputed whether any problem is caused by the moves, but the AFD is gradually making clear, i happen to think, that the moves have caused problems (including that within the AFD itself, it is confusing to understand which of many Blessed Sacrament Churches in Connecticut are being referred to, by the name Blessed Sacrament Church (Connecticut) that P moved the Bridgeport one to). Rather than have a separate discussion, I think the problem is being clarified by several editors' comments in the AFD discussion. There is more to discuss there, though, e.g. about his assertion of value of creating many redirects for each placename, not yet discussed (and which I disagree with). So, can P be directed to consider the AFD to be the discussion to be completed before any further moves or redirects, and to participate in the AFD towards getting clarity on these points. To settle this ANI, Polaron, can you please just agree here to stop with moves and redirects until that AFD is completed? --doncram 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Polaron has resumed making moves, including this move of an article already with AFD tag upon it. AFD instructions are not to move an article under AFD. Explicit discussion in the AFD by other editors including Orlady is that these articles should not be moved. Could someone please strongly advise Polaron to stop. Or impose a 24-hour block now. Note, i might ultimately agree this article, if kept, should be moved as he was doing, but the point is to comply with AFD rules and to stop with contentious moves, contentious because in part because confusing. P does not get it. Please block him. --doncram 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment by User:Carolmooredc

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

Unblocked, per apology and consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) has objected to my questions at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CarolMooreDC. In this post she links to an off-wiki site [16] which in turn links to my talk page where she had already posted a frivolous, false and offensive complaint. Trolling my talk page is one thing -- publishing my userid and offensive and false allegations off-wiki goes well beyond the limits of acceptability. Perhaps she should take a very long break from editing Wikipedia? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent link to the mentioned version of the off-wiki site [17] --Danger (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorse a 6 month minimum block Absolutely atrocious behavior The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if 6 months is necessary -- trying 3 first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious how this differs from similar stuff that routinely appears on WR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it wasn't on WR, it was on KT's talkpage. I didn't consider the external link when blocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The second paragraph of the cited diff is awful, but since the thread is titled "Off-wiki harassment" it wasn't clear whether the off-wiki stuff also figured into the logic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support a long block. This seems to illustrate Carol's thinking: scattergun attacks on other editors, not strong on relevance or coherence. If she's extending it to offwiki venues, it's another reason to call it a day. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Conditionally Oppose lengthy block. After looking over the previous discussion it seems that Kenilworth Terrace and Jehochman were arguably wikilawyering and baiting Carol to the point of harassment. POV-pushing and COI are not the same thing. The endless interrogation that Carol was subjected to was not necessary or appropriate. Without any evidence to the contrary, Carol's initial denial of COI should have been sufficient. Carol's response to this incident was also out of line and a personal attack against Kenilworth. I think Carol should remove her post to the external wiki and to Kenilworth's talk page, and both parties should be asked to apologize. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama (or lengthy blocks), as both editors are useful contributors to the project. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• • It is entirely appropriate to ask questions when a user is on the record stating that Jews control the media, and is a well known pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli political activist, and then starts editing Allegations of Jewish control of the media to downplay the falseness of the claim and to highlight ways that this claim might actually be true. The problem is, these claims are well known anti-semitic lies originating from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whether an editor has been duped into believing this trash, or something else, doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not for playing out the Israel-Palestine conflict. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for broadcasting anti-semitic lies, myths or whatever you want to call them. When the editor has a group of friends who follow her from venue to venue launching counter-claims and counter-attacks and frustrating the formation of consensus, that's a bad thing. That's what's been going on here, and it continues on this very thread. For the record, I started exactly two threads about this matter, one at WP:ANI where I was told to go elsewhere. Eventually I was told to go to WP:COIN so I did. Carolmooredc or her wikifriends then started two additional threads at WP:ANI and WP:WQA against me, and both fizzled or boomeranged. Finally she placed an awful, sexist attack on Kenilworth Terrace's page after Kenilworth intervened as an uninvolved party at COIN. That attack was her responsibility alone. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But as I keep explaining, you should not be asking the question "what is Carol's POV" and demading answers from her. You should be asking "Is Carol's actions on this article disrupting it". Attempts to get that question asked in the proper way were simply ignored in favour of more "questions". Carol felt harrassed, that should have been enough warning sign for you. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask that those looking into this also look into the On-Wiki harassment of Carolmooredc, It is clear that there has been a concerted effort to raise issues in multiple places, to the extent that an entirely new noticeboard seems to have been set up largely to 'try' her once again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol has been very badly treated here; demanding people discuss their POV is utterly reprehensible and irrelevant. However it doesn't really excuse this sort of frustrated snapping. I was planning to take steps to bring sanctions against those hounding carol unfairly last night, but ran out of time. Kinda sad it had to end like this :( EDIT: to say, it is not Kenilworth I refer to here BTW, xhe seems to have just gotten in the gunsights when she snapped --Errant ^(chat!) 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like, once again, somebody's been harassed until they snapped... of course, it's only their fault. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec3)Yes all around reprehensible behavior here if you ask me. I find it particularly troubling that when Jehochmann posted this to the COI/N it was appropriately suggested that he start an RFC/U, to which he replied - "I don't want to spend the next month watching over an RFC that draws in the usual I-P combatants and generates a stalemate." The result of not having the time to comment on Carolmooredc's POV editing in the appropriate forum was this ugly harassment charade, inevitably ending with Carol's own inappropriate behavior. IMO lot of people invovled in this ought to be reprimanded even if that just means a stern talking to.Griswaldo (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to repeat SBHB's question. How is this different than the stuff we put up with when disgruntled editors run to WR to have their complaints validated by the...userbase there? We don't (AFAIK) block people for WR posts if they aren't exceedingly eggregious. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Uh, hasn't Sarek addressed that above by explaining the block is related to the pretty nasty on-wiki attack? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hasn't so much as explained it as offered an example of some on-wiki problem which we might independently want to look at. I'm not trying to be thick here, just asking if we are supposed to consider the off-wiki issue as problematic by itself. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well I think the block for that attack is sound. On your other point: I don't think anything written off wiki in this case is really actionable here. I guess we have to take each case on its own merits; I'm sure there are some cases when off-wiki activities are relevant to a block (i.e. perhaps a wide ranging hounding attempt of an editor across multiple areas of the web etc.). Perhaps a question to discuss in a separate thread?--Errant ^(chat!) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Probably. I just wanted to insert the question early and without waffling so that it would at least be considered. My gut feeling is that generally off-wiki stuff is to be ignored unless it is off-wiki and IRL (e.g. someone calls my school to say I deleted their article). I don't so much want to generate a big general discussion about that but make sure we had it in mind when looking at this issue. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Carol's action here was pretty bad, but I agree with others who have noted that there is a broader context, in which Carol herself is being borderline harassed by a handful of other editors across numerous venues. I think three months is excessive, especially considering her up to this point pristine block log. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This Carol was being harassed stuff is an unsupported claim spread mainly by her wikifriends. I've seen no diffs showing Carol being harassed. All questions posed to her had a basis in fact. She created this thread,Wikipedia:WQA#WP:Harassment_by_User:Jehochman,Perm Link where her claim of harassment was rejected by uninvolved editors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • What about this: Talk:Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media#Straw_Poll:_Carolmooredc - an attempt at an entirely against-policy 'straw poll' kangaroo court being set up to exclude her from debate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) No, just no. I am about as polar opposite Carol's views as you can get, but you'll find me leading the charge on this. I suggested to you over a week ago that bringing up the old email to prove some sort of anti-semitic view was the wrong approach because it is utterly irrelevant what our personal points of view are only whether we are adversely affecting an article. But you rejected advice to start an RFC/U as too time consuming, instead consistently bringing up that damned email. In fact there is an assumption of bad faith involved there after you ignored her original explanation and demanded another one. Seriously; a 7 year old email is hardly relevant to wiki editing today. Whether or not Carol might be anti-semitic is also entirely out of scope. Jehochman, I respect you as an editor, but I don't think you have taken the right approach here at all. I will be the first to admit Carol can end up being disruptive on talk pages and has an "off the norm" point of view on things, but that does not excuse the way she was treated --Errant ^(chat!) 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, just no. As a frequent target of off-Wiki harassment across numerous topics and on external sites, you'll see me leading the charge as well. If I carried the off-wiki harassment I endure to Wiki, I'd rightfully expect to be sanctioned for BATTLEGROUND behavior, and even if the charges that she was harassed were true (I don't think so), she knew very well that she was engaging in battleground behavior, evidenced by her own words, the WQA, and her recent input at WP:ACTIVIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think if the issues had been raised correctly (i.e. talking about her behaviour) then it would have been proveable one way or another if her input was disruptive or non-neutral and a topic ban woul;d have happened with minimum fuss. I've watched this from the sidelines, Carol did some silly things (BOOMERANG wise) but the opposite side persistently did the wrong thing as well. Both are a problem to address --Errant ^(chat!) 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Since the section below (where I posted an arb ruling in a case of off-Wiki harassment involving me) has been marked resolved, I'll re-add here that I support the longest possible block because Carolmoorebc was engaging in battleground behavior, and knew it. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
          • I've enjoyed CarolMooreDC's lively input at the feminism WikiProject, but I have to agree with SandyGeorgia and SarekOfVulcan—the on-wiki attack was completely uncalled for and wa-a-ay beyond a matter for wrist-slapping. Carol is a veteran activist in real life, so she cannot be let off the hook for this on-wiki breach, as if she was overly sensitive to people needling her. She's been a vigorous political activist for more than four decades; she does not have thin skin. As far as off-wiki behavior, I have no comment. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm hardly a "wikifriend" of Carol's. I have, however, read the discussion regarding her at WP:COIN, and to me, it looks as though there are a number of editors who keep prodding her for more and more details, far beyond the scope of what WP:COI means. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Q: the basis for this being really terrible is Trolling my talk page is one thing -- publishing my userid and offensive and false allegations off-wiki goes well beyond the limits of acceptability. What is the evidence that the same person published whatever is was off-wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A: Carol admits to posting this herself here. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. OK, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know the background of this Allegations of Jewish control article, and I didn't see the initial AN/I complaint. But that she's being harassed is just nonsense. She's targeted me because I set up Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard when I saw Jehochman having difficulty finding a suitable venue to post his concerns about her —not a special board for Carol, for heaven's sake, but only as the trigger for an idea I had ages ago. She then accused me of being involved with CAMERA of all things, and maybe wanting to set up the board because of that involvement (though I was instrumental in having at least one the CAMERA accounts blocked). And what the connection might be remains unexplained. Then she accused Kennilworth of being an S&M person who was using her to obtain free kicks via verbal abuse. :) [18] She brings the same approach to articles whenever I've seen her edit, and I'm putting that very mildly. Please don't allow her to impose one of her conspiratorial structures on events here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Similarly, I didn't follow everything leading up to this, but in the brief days I've encountered Carolmoorebc (because of the WQA and the ACTIVIST essay), I've seen classic battleground behavior, as described by SlimVirgin above. These sorts of behaviors aren't usually "tamed" by short blocks, particularly with the long history evidenced here. They always claim they were harassed: right, so was I, the solution is not to carry the battleground to and from Wikipedia and external sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Have you guys looked at the previous discussions? I see Jehochman accusing Carol of having a conflict of interest due to having received a death threat (which is absurd enough to be baiting in my view), and Kenilworth Terrace giving her the 3rd degree about her COI denials. The POV-complaints about Carol may be valid, but the way this was handled clearly was not. We have plenty of venues for resolving POV-pushing problems. This aggressive wikilawyering and forum-shopping seems quite excessive from an outside perspective. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, and for the record I'm not a "wiki-friend" of Carol's, just an recent spectator to the charade at COIN and the spillover here.Griswaldo (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Have you looked at the previous discussions? The COI is discussed, no need to replay it all here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: what exactly is the claimed harassment involved in this offwiki link? Has it been edited subsequently, or am I just missing it - I can't see any connection there with Kenilworth Terrace. Rd232 ^talk 00:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed it. This is the edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with managing the Arab-Israeli content is that it is a contested area with reliable sources making claims in support of both sides. What's concerned me about Carol's involvement in the Jewish media is that in goes beyond normal wiki-activism into supporting an aspect of the Fringe theory of the Jewish octopus exercising control of the world through sticking its tentacles into various power areas. She has tried to legitimise her presence at the article by including it within the IPCOLL background but actually the core of the article is not an IPCOLL matter one but one of how back to the 19th century anti-Semites have tried to fabricate a Jewishh conspiracy out of how a number of Jews have independently acquired positions within the media. This fringe theory needs to be dealt with in the manner of other fringe theories such as Holocaust Denial and the Shakespeare authorship question with the content being weighted (per WP:NPOV) according to what the best sources (PER WP:V) - peer-reviewed academic publications - say and with what other sources, such as famous airmen, Presidents, Palestinian supporters, black activists and, on the other side, anti-anti-Semites downplayed except in as far as they ade discussed as examples of what the best sources say about the theory's place in wider political discource.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a serious allegation, and as such needs evidence. Can we see diffs to back this up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but she has commented on her block here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Side question

Resolved

OK, I'd like to ask an ignorant question here, which is one thing I'm an expert at doing: To what extent, if any, can off-wiki activity result in actionable consequences on-wiki? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ask Essjay. Kind of resulted in on wiki and off wiki "consequences". Although one may argue in his case it was the lack of off-wiki "activity" that was the concern. Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As with most things, I believe this issue is taken on a case by case basis. Clearly, off-wiki behavior has resulted in on-wiki blocks before. However, the threshold seems to be moderately higher for off-wiki behavior. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed. In this case off-wiki actions don't seem to be worth considering --Errant ^(chat!) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally it can't unless it's something like recruiting meatpuppets. My own personal feeling is that block on Carolmooredc is over the top. I think she's basically a good person, maybe a little overzealous, maybe a little misinformed, but I'd support an unblock if she agrees not to post any more comments like the one she posted. Jehochman ^Talk 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another item that comes to mind is when a user tries to spam his own website into wikipedia, but that's a somewhat different matter. I wasn't even particularly talking about the above case, it merely put the question in my head. But it's clearer now. Thank you all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"this case" was not what Baseball bugs asked, though. Kaldari is correct that it's case by case. Eccoletage/Theo/Horsey on Wikipedia Review was "moved along" over off-wiki activity bordering on actionable in real life. Essjay lied about real life and gained many positions of trust on-wiki through it. WR are currently running into some 8/9 pages of crap about a serving Arb that concern real life v "wiki-life". Case by case. We can't - indeed should not - make "rules" around it. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Bugs, see here for an arb ruling (that affected moi :) Considering that Carolmoorebc knew very well that she was engaging in battleground behavior, evidenced by her own words that she might get in trouble, the recent WQA, and her recent posts on the topic at WP:ACTIVIST, I support the longest possible block. She knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong, the claims that she was harassed are a meme that is spreading, and we don't need activists carrying battles to and from Wikipedia and external sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's unfortunate that some editors want to abuse wikipedia in furtherance of some kind of cause, or "crusade" as I call it. Those folks generally have a short life at wikipedia, although "short" may seem "long" sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Short-lived or not, their unfounded claims live on outside of Wikipedia, and when hosted on external sites, get plenty of mileage, so Wikipedia and defamed editors continue to pay the price. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that we are powerless to do anything about what someone says off-wiki. Seems like, with wikipedia now 10 years old, some fundamental changes might need to be made. Like, is the "anyone can edit" model still appropriate? Is wikipedia a victim of its own success? I'm not saying we should become like citizendium supposedly is, extreme the other direction. But something needs to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree: this is the Internet, where anyone can say anything about you, and they will and do (in my case). If you can't toughen up and ignore it, you shouldn't be on the Internet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about toughness, I'm talking about trying to ensure that wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source for the public. Battlers just make it harder to achieve that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(restart indents) Relevant policy on this: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." betsythedevine (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just remember the maxim from half a decade ago: Wikipedia's social policies are not a suicide pact. It is the origin of both of our stances on such issues. We don't want to get sucked in to things that are entirely outwith Wikipedia. So we don't handle issues that are none of the project's business, and decline any attempts to entangle us in them. Conversely, we don't allow people to game the policies by tricks such as keeping anything disruptive (to the project and its participants) that they do entirely off-wiki, whilst being sweetness and light on-wiki. We don't close our eyes and ears to the world that Wikipedia is part of, and pretend that the project exists in a vacuum; thereby ignoring off-wiki things that are relevant to contributions to and participation in the project. (And we also remember various important considerations, not the least of which is that on-wiki discussions occur in public and in full view of the entire planet, and all of the various ramifications of that, in doing so.)

And since we're in the Ten Years Along mood, here's a reminder: We actually have official off-wiki channels. (They've largely fallen into comparative desuetude. But they've been there since 2001, as you can see from the archives.) What's on the wiki wasn't intended to be the whole of the project. The physical tool that we use to write an encyclopaedia, the MediaWiki wiki, isn't intended to be a boundary in itself. It's just a writing and collaboration tool. Uncle G (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What just happened?

From WP:HARASS:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Now the external page itself [19] seems like perfectly acceptable offwiki commentary. this post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism mentions an addition to the external page; which points at this diff. Does the diff amount to harassment? Not obviously. Pointing to it from offwiki may seem harassment territory to some, but if Carol didn't point Kenilworth to the external statement, it doesn't seem to meet the definition. Either way, it seems in the very shallow end of the pool, especially considering that Carol uses her real name and Kenilworth Terrace is obviously a pseudonym, and the context of the prior treatment of Carol. In sum, I find it rather unlikely that Carol would have been blocked for this if the battleground/advocacy behaviour which keeps being alleged weren't an issue. But if that's the case it should probably be handled via an Arbcom case, where these things usually end up; or at least via a community discussion focussing on that. So I would suggest the block be reduced to time served, and if someone wants to propose a topic ban or battleground/advocacy block or whatever, then do that; though I can't help observing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Carolmooredc is a redlink. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232. I also question why Jehochman has used this discussion thread as an opportunity to make numerous accusations against Carol, most of which are irrelevant to her editing and are not backed up by editing differences. In fact some of these issues have come up here before. TFD (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, I think you mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Carolmooredc. HeyMid (contribs) 11:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not too impressed by Kenilworth Terrace's diffs as examples of off-wiki harassment, at least as taken all by themselves. The harassment level shown is pretty feeble as such things go. What it means in the context of the very long Carolemooredc saga, I don't know, since I've never paid much attention to Carolemooredc's activities. It's possible that she has enough history of battleground editing to justify a long block, with these diffs as the last straw; but those diffs by themselves aren't enough. More generally, the currently fashionable remedy for tendentious editors in single topic areas seems to be topic bans. Would that fit Carolemooredc? As for SlimVirgin's new noticeboard, it appears to be an effort to do something about the perennial CPUSH problem. I have doubts about the noticeboard's usefulness, but the underlying problem certainly is real and severe. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• CommentIts seems that carol is still expected to defend her self and to at the right thing even though she has been blocked for three months[[20]]. The hounding is still going on even though she can no longer edit (or reply) this has to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any indication Spaceclerk is aware of the block? They don't seem to have taken part in this discusion Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither have I amd I am aware of it. But they have now been informed so hopefully this will now stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The user is now aware of the block and is sill attacking the user with accusations of anti-Semitism [[21]]. This has to stop, as Carol has apologised for her misdemeanour should we not now be asking other users to behave as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, can others take a look at the diff that Slatersteven gives, and decide whether they think Spaceclerk is accusing other Wikipedia editors of antisemitism too? The wording is a little imprecise, but at least according to Spaceclerk's 'assume bad faith' principles he may well be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that Carolmooredc was blocked for three months when I made that previous post. I am, however, quite glad to hear it. I do not intend in any of my comments to call anyone who hasn't made antisemitic remarks (e.g. "mostly Jews" "own and/or control the media") or openly defended open antisemitism an antisemite. I am instead simply quite astonished that, when editing Wikipedia, being an antisemite is considered nothing more than a minor matter of personal taste. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is an evasive answer, if ever I've seen one. Personally, I find this random usage of the term 'antisemite' to describe anyone who doesn't support a particular POV as grossly insulting to real victims of antisemitism. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that it is in itself a form of antisemitism, in that it exploits the suffering of others for political gain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If a user makes Racist remarks on wikipedia they can (and will) be banned. You report them If they have made no such remarks on wikiepdia then that’s tough. What a user does off wikipedia (with one or two exception such as harassment) has nothing to do with our or any one else. The fact that Carol was forced into outing herself by constant harassment based upon other users assumptions and accusations (as well as the clear implication here that the user will not in fact stop because they believe they are justified) means that action has to be taken.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Spaceclerk: I don't think this is the correct forum for leveling accusations of antisemitism (implied or otherwise). Isn't that what started this whole mess to begin with? If Carol has POV-pushing problems, start an RFC or an ArbCom request. Relentlessly attacking her across every forum available is harassment, and its disappointing to see that there are still editors refusing to disengage from this conflict, even after Carol has been blocked and apologized for her actions. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Since CarolMooreDC has posted an unblock request, in terms which reflect some of the comments here, I would like to make a supplementary comment. CarolMooreDC presents her action as "failure to think straight under the circumstances", those circumstances being "harassment by a user" (ie me), and the latter comment has been echoed here. I would like to point out that I asked her two three questions at WP:COI/N, namely whether she felt that she had a COI, and what she thought an impartial observer would think of her actions. (Oh, and there was a request not to add content to postings without signing again) Her responses were detailed, robust, and in my view not always to the point, and there was a discussion about what her answers meant. It is quite wrong to characterise this as harassment by repeatedly asking the same questions. CarolMooreDC repeated this characterisation in various fora but did not trouble herself to raise it with me or take it to dispute resolution. She was blocked for a grossly offensive personal attack on me on-wiki, framed as a spurious COI comment. It was compounded by publicising it off-wiki with further references on-wiki to the off-wiki fora, but this was not part of the rationale for the block. As to whether this was a momentary lapse I suggest that this draft of her attack on me and this threat to make a personal attack, spread out over a period of some 24 hours, speak more to a thought-out decision than a temporary lapse. I also note that her unblock request does not suggest that she sees anything wrong with making grossly offensive personal comments about other editors. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, three questions, the last being "Are you involved with any organisation that engages in advocacy in an area in which you are also editing?". All seem to me perfectly reasonable questions to ask in a COI discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it? How do you define 'involved', or 'advocacy'? Would say membership of the Catholic Church imply a COI when editing articles on Catholicism? Or membership of the Republican Party (or the Democratic party for that matter) when editing articles on Sarah Palin? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not define them. The object of these open-ended questions is to get someone to reflect on their own behaviour. This is perfectly usual in dispute resolution. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost everyone that edits Wikipedia is involved in some group that advocates something. That's the whole problem with your line of questioning. It's straying from COI concerns into POV concerns, which is inappropriate. COI concerns are about personal gain that might come from editing, not personal beliefs. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I also bleive that Carol had ansewrd the question more then once, and was asked it more then once. She should not have done whaqt she did, but a three month block given teh level of bating seems excesive.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The concept of COI is not vague and does not have "fuzzy edges" as suggested by Jehochman. Torchiest's definition is correct so I won't bother repeating it here. Conducting a POV interrogation in the guise of a COI complaint is an abuse of that forum. Carol's first response to you of "No. I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic." was completely sufficient given that there was no evidence to the contrary. Your continued interrogation on the basis of defining COI as POV amounted to inappropriate badgering in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenilworth Terrace, can I ask you something which may make you reflect on your behaviour (not that I'm singling you out, but you've raised the issue). What do you think "an impartial observer" would make of the same one-off mistaken comment from seven years ago being endlessly raised to 'justify' ongoing allegations of antisemitism by people who refuse to provide more recent evidence to support this? What do you think this "impartial observer" would make of recent events to 'try' CarolMooreDC in a talk page straw poll, and when that was ruled out, the following attempt to create an entirely new noticeboard apparently for the same purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask me to reflect on my behaviour, and I have done none of those things, I might stop here. But in the interests of a full and frank discussion, and anyone coming here should be prepared, as I am, to have their own conduct scutinised ...

"What do you think "an impartial observer" would make of the same one-off mistaken comment from seven years ago being endlessly raised to 'justify' ongoing allegations of antisemitism by people who refuse to provide more recent evidence to support this?" They might take the view that a comment made and not retracted remained in force.

"What do you think this "impartial observer" would make of recent events to 'try' CarolMooreDC in a talk page straw poll, and when that was ruled out, the following attempt to create an entirely new noticeboard apparently for the same purpose?" As to the first, I think it possible that, having been such an observer at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, they might agree with my comment, made several times there, that The guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." seems a very good one As to the second, perhaps that observer might agree with my comment that it would be better to discuss the principle first.

Anything else I can help you with? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

She is asked here to say she has no COI [[22]] Carol responds that she does not meet the criteria in this case [[23]] She is then asked the question again[[24]] Again she replies [[25]] The question is then re-worded [[26]] She is then found wanting because she cannot say that because others think she has a COI she should admit it (as far as I can see), or that she has not answer the question that she has a COI (apparently saying you do not have one does not count) [[27]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you characterise CarolMooreSDc's answers as constructive and responsive to the spirit of the discussion? Or are they not rather attempts to evade the issue by frivolity and misdirection? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. Absolutely no. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Spririt of the discusion? If you mean did she say that according to wikipedias definition as stated in policy she did not have a COI yes she does answer that question. If you mean did she address any issues of POV bias that is not the subject of a COI report then I would answer that is irrelevant, its not a POV board but the COI board. As to the sugestion that she should ask her self what others might think, that is also not within the remit of a COI report. We comment on the subject of the talk page (COI) not on the users motivation out side that area. If it were an RFC many of these questions would have been relevant, it was not.Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your views. Meanwhile ...

• I am glad to say that CarolMooreDC has made a personal apology which I accept. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So am I, as I said she was wrong and I hope that she will learn from this.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jrtayloriv on unblock

As I've stated here, CarolmooreDC should not have blown up and attacked people, either on or off wiki, and she has acknowledged this. She also should not have been harassed about her own off-wiki activities, which have repeatedly been brought up in an attempt to discredit her as an "advocate". Nor should she have been the target of repeated aspersions regarding "anti-semitism". Her politics and personal views should not be the subject of personal discussion, any more than those User:SandyGeorgia (a wealthy medical professional, IIRC) and Jehochman (a 42 year-old marketing consultant and entrepreneur).

So what if CarolmooreDC is a left-wing, sign-toting, smelly, hippy protester, and possibly even a Socialist (gasp!). Can someone explain to me why that is of any more concern to us than being a wealthy doctor or corporate advertising agent is, in regards to writing an accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia? Why is it that being a leftist activist would imply that one is unable to represent reality accurately, while being a wealthy white-collar capitalist enables one to talk about history "objectively"?

How would people here respond if CarolmooreDC constantly hounded Jehochman about his off-wiki work at his Internet marketing firm? What if she used everything she could find about him, on or off wiki, to imply that because he works as an advocate for hire, that he has a conflict of interest just about anywhere other than comic books and soccer articles?

What if, similar to Jehochman's aspersions about anti-Semitism, CarolmooreDC were to start suggesting that due to the information Jehochman adds/removes from articles related to U.S. history, she fears that he might be a jingoistic imperialist, and an advocate for the inane world view transmitted through high-school history textbooks and corporate punditry?

How would people have responded to that? Would they have told Jehochman to develop thicker skin if he blew up at her? Probably not. Would they have supported the nomination of Jehochman as the subject of a report on the newly created Advocacy Noticeboard for being an "advocate of U.S. imperialism and historical mythology"? Doubtful. If he blew up at CarolMooreDC for this, it would likely have drawn requests from other editors that CarolMooreDC stop harassing him, as well as an apology from him for blowing up. It's not any more acceptable for Jehochman to harass people about their political beliefs or real-life activities, just because his worldview is the norm on Wikipedia.

I think that at this point, CarolmooreDC has expressed that she knows she did something wrong, and took efforts to fix it by emailing the administrator of the offsite wiki to remove the offensive comments. She is clearly asking for advice on how to fix her behavior, and how to deal with this sort of thing in the future. I have not seen the same thing, at all, from the other side of the dispute. Because of her acknowledgement of error, and her openness to changing her behavior in the future, I think that a 3-month block for Carol is wholly unnecessary, and punitive rather than preventative, and would be a net loss for the project (and a net win for the editors who have been harassing her). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the last sentence of this. At this point, the block is entirely punitive and should be reduced to time served. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted, should unblock

Since Kenilworth Terrace has accepted Carolmooredc's apology, and there isn't a strong consensus above to leave the 3-month block in force, I propose accepting her unblock request at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've both butted heads with and communicated with Carol. A 3 month block for an experienced and active editor is like a death sentence, and for someone who has contributed much. I'd suggest finding a way out. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. An apology being made and accepted is rare enough that we should, y'know, do some kind of a happy dance. And the underlying issues seem best handled by WP:RFC/U; if that's too much hassle for the people who have a problem with her, then the problem can't really be that bad, can it... Rd232 ^talk 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will support a reduction of the block to a one-week duration. The proximate issue has been resolved, but I think there is an undue risk of the overall pattern of disruptive/battleground behaviour shown over the last several days resuming if the block is lifted at this time. Franamax (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to one week, per the above discussion. Is there consensus to reduce it further? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say the consensus seems to be for an total unblock. Blocks are preventative not punative and she has accepted she did wrong has appoligised and prety much seems to have learnt her lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly my view, but I'm too tired to judge the consensus properly, in the context of the evolving situation and taking into account WP:NOTAVOTE. Rd232 ^talk 00:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The en:wiki notion of "consensus" is (or at some point used to be) that it is not a straight vote count, the nature and strength of argument presented counts too. I've presented an argument that complete unblocking is unwarranted at this time. Leaving aside that others have not had time to weigh in, it is possible to determine an undisputred consensus above that of all possible courses, reduction to one week is acceptable, i.e. no-one will insist on retaining the staus quo instead. Since that happens to be exactly what I (and the blockee BTW) have said, I'm fine with this outcome. Franamax (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Late to the table, but in the interest of encouraging apologies (in the circumstances, not easy to give; to my reading, sincere) I support an unblock.--SPhilbrickT 04:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Having read the discussion, I also support an unblock. In summary it would appear to be a content dispute between editors with clearly acknowledged POVs, one of whom was interrogated on her POV, which wrong; the editors should be discussing the substance of the substance of the articles under discussion, rather than each other's POVs. Carolmooredc lost her temper under pressure, and just as the pressure was wrong, so was her outburst. However, she has now apologised, and since blocks are intended to be preventive not punitive, it should be lifted immediately.

Additionally, all these editors should be reminded to discuss that editors should discuss content rather than each other's POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock per SPhilbrick. un☯mi 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus of uninvolved parties to unblock at this point.Griswaldo (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with an unblock, given that this is an established user and that there has been an apology. Agree that this was a content dispute, and that the user blew her stack after being singled out. I have been troubled since the beginning that this user's political views may have tainted the process. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock. Even though the editor has said that she is fine with serving the 1 week block, I feel that at this point the block serves no preventative purpose. -Atmoz (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guy Stone

Would someone please execute the speedy delete request on this clearly non-notable autobiography? It's already attracted 3 vandalistic edits and would be semi'd if it was a real article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not related to this but this article title has an interesting history. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, I wondered why that article was on my watchlist -- I had forgotten that incident. Seems to be different Guy Stones, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I almost restored the old history because at first glance of the deleted revisions it looked like User:GuySone "hijacked" an existing article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles propagating socks

Resolved

 – IP blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked User LouisPhilippeCharles's latest sock is 90.193.109.158. Since November he's been evading blocks with socks while pleading to be allowed to resume editing, yet never complying with admins' instructions. His previous blocked socks include tbharding and these anons. He's trying to vary his edit pattern somewhat to stay beneath admin radar. But 1. edits under this IP only began the day after his last anon was blocked, and 2. they reflect LouisPhilippeCharles's exclusive focus on historical royalty, peculiar objections to the name "Antoniette/a" for various princesses (here, here and here), and deletions of the prevalent prefix "Bourbon-" before the Sicilian and Parma branches of that dynasty here and here. This is clearly LouisPhilippeCharles trying to edit Wikipedia anonymously. FactStraight (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for a month for evasion. He does certainly seem to have ramped up his activity as of late. Anyway, the IPs are all over the place, so we can't do a rangeblock or anything. Just list the IPs that show up on the SPI case and we'll block as necessary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs Help

Resolved

 – Working with folks on Commons:COM:AN and other Commons pages. No en.Wiki admin attention is needed now. If anyone else has any input, please add it to my talk page. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am having an issue with a move of one of my images on Commons. I only use Commons to upload images, so that is about as far as my familiarity goes with Commons. I can't find an admin there, since there isn't an ANI board there like here. I have tried contacting one on their IRC channel, nothing. Tried finding one on our IRC channel, nadda. So, I bring my issue here.

Commons editor Snowmanradio moved File:NH Gumdrop.JPG (a pic of my bird for my userpage) to "File:Myiopsitta monachus -pet perching on cage-6a.jpg" without my knowledge or permission. I release all my images under CC-SA 3.0, which I am pretty sure doesn't allow some guy to come along and rename it cause it feels like it. I am at a loss as to what to do on how to get this image back to "File:NH Gumdrop.JPG" as it was before. Can anyone help here? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do from en.wiki. You want Commons:COM:AN (their equivalent of this board). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HJ. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Posted there, but no one had edited that page for 4 hours before me and 2 hours before that edit. So I am not hopeful. If a Commons admin passes through (we do have dual Commons/en.Wiki admins) please take a look at this discussion at Commons:COM:AN. Sigh. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The move to a neutral, descriptive name was appropriate and executed correctly; note that ownership cuts both ways. The rename is Commons' version of "if you do not want your contributions edited, used and redistributed at will." Commons has been struggling to make filenames unambiguously descriptive for some time. As long as a redirect is created to keep from orphaning existing uses, or some other strategy is employed to the same effect, there is no problem. (No, I'm not Commons admin, but I do have rename rights) Acroterion _(talk) 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just having them removed (since they were only for use on my userpage). I will have one uploaded here on en.Wiki and use it on my userpage, possibly on other Cat related pages, but other than that, I am just having them removed. Less problems and not being used for much than decoration anyway. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Now we are in a battle for the image to be used on Commons. So, this has surpassed what en.Wiki can do. Marking resolved. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Oppenheim

Three editors have been making changes to this biography, all based on the subject's purported death today. I can't find any evidence of the death in Google, though that doesn't mean there isn't any to be found. No cites are given. I would just delete it all, pending proof, but don't know how to rollback through three editors. Can anyone here help, either to find a cite or to rollback? Thanks Bielle (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

His official site certainly doesn't state that he's dead. Article has been "de-deathified." Or something. HalfShadow 07:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Resuscitated? Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Coverage I've found on the web says that he was alive and attended a showing as recently as the 19th, and there are no news announcements or obituaries anywhere reliable. However, I've also turned up some evidence of art critics saying they've "received word" that he died. Our standard is clear enough: until there are reliable sources (not blogs or Twitter) reporting his death, we do not report his death based on mere rumors. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is fairly common. Remember Richard Winters about two weeks ago? We had to practically stand watch over the article until we found something official. No fewer than two warnings not to state he was dead until an official source was found and they were still adding it... HalfShadow 07:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is possible confirmation: ArtNet.com - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an official source, though. HalfShadow 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, it ain't great. :( ArtNet reported it on their Twitter account as well 12 hours ago with a cause. Still, doesn't meet RS though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The White Box Gallery is also reporting it.[28] per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[29] I think this is good enough to mention in the article, possibly as an unconfirmed report. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the article talk page, but note that the Journal-Sentinel report is on an art blog, and it is only repeating the ArtNet report. It's not a product of independent confirmation. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wee bit of an edit war at Deaths in 2011 over this...GiantSnowman 23:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The JS blog post has been updated with a confirmation sourced to a friend of Oppenheim's.[30] 67.122.209.190 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This still does not have proper confirmation. Could we not protect the page until we do have it? Bielle (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I have asked Masterknighted, who is the current bringer of the news. to desist until we do have a reliable source. There is still no mention I can find except as leads back to the original blog post. Bielle (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced by any source that I've seen so far; either the Milwaukee piece or the artnet column. I think we should wait for the NY Times or another more conventional source...Modernist (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

El Norte de Castilla: [31] 67.122.209.190 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone who reads Spanish comment on the above link as to its (a) reliability and (b) own source for the information, please. Bielle (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection someone? I'm finished for the night. Bielle (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The JS blog author seems to have obtained independent confirmation (since in the earlier version of the post where she referred to the artnet twitter, she said she was looking for independent confirmation but hadn't obtained it yet). El Norte de Castilla is a midsized Spanish newspaper and its mention is sourced to Cris Gabarron of the Gabarron Foundation. So I think the report is pretty credible by now and I wouldn't go too berserk over it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is now a proper English-language news source for his death: [32] Guess we can put the matter to rest, so to speak. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Block socket master and sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Blocked named accounts; left IPs to a local checkuser to handle.

Block the users *Ulla* (talk · contribs · block user), E.G. (talk · contribs · block user), The Great Cucumber (talk · contribs · block user) and John Anderson (talk · contribs · block user) as confirmed sockpupets (and E.G. as master) (*Ulla* here on enwp is Ulla on svwp according to the respecitve users userpages. These accounts, and some more, have already been blocked from editing svwp and these are the accounts have edited on the same way here on enwp, by changing consensus by supporting each others actions. Please also block, for as long as enwp policys and you sees fit the IP 137.61.234.225 that has been used when this person has been at work, including changes from logged in users to prevent further sockpuppetry. As you can see the oldest account has been active since 2004 so it's not a new idea for this person to use multiple accounts. This IP seems to be a static one for the person in question and belongs to the Swedish Tax Agency and is not a dynamically assigned address that someone innocent could get at home. GameOn (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this: it seems like three of the identified users were checkuser confirmed at the Swedish Wikipedia as socks. There's evidence of abuse of multiple accounts in this edit history, where Ulla attempted to change something and was reverted as against consensus. When told "You are the only person insisting on adding a "the". No reliable source in English does so", s/he brought in a sock: [33]. (also: [34]). The other account, E.G. (talk · contribs · block user), was stale, but has evidently been blocked ([35]) on behavioral evidence ("Det finns ingen IP-information om EG, men en stark koppling till de övriga.") I'm in the process of blocking the named accounts and will come back to consider what actions may or may not be appropriate with regards to the IP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have solicited the assistance of a friendly checkuser to help out with necessary action for IPs. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Though look at *Ulla*'s user page. Because the account name starts with a wiki syntax symbol (*), the sockpuppet template is messed up at the bottom. HeyMid (contribs) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you've tidied up after me. Thanks. :) Anybody know a workaround for that issue? :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This should fix it, I think. HeyMid (contribs) 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that worked, so it works fine now. HeyMid (contribs) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All accounts are  Confirmed as the same person. Let me know of any future abuse, in which I would need to take further actions. –MuZemike 16:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

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

No evidence has been presented that admin action is required. ANI is not for content disputes and there is a content RFC under way. See also other Dispute Resolution options. Rd232 ^talk 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, this editor is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the page Talk:List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011#Splitting and other stuff specifically- "editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error." Myself and the other editors active in the discussion have heard his points but we stand by the consensus reached on the topic. I warned him that he was simply repeating the same thing over and over again and that he had heard him, but he continues on "So unless the community thinks there is something bizarre about continuing the unchallenged policy of List-terrorist articles, I'll take the liberty and create a new List of terrorist incidents, 2011" even after a long discussion which showed we not only challenger the policy but changed it, and the only thing stopping him from creating his article by himself is that a redirect already ahs that title. I'm not sure what should be done to User:Wikifan12345, but something needs to be done to make this editor a better listener and a part of the community and not trying to act so unilaterally. It also may be of interest that this user is under an eight month ban from editing Palestine-Israel articles, and that this article has contained attacks in Palestine, and has always prominently linked to articles on the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Passionless -Talk 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't acted unilaterally Passion. I didn't even edit the article, yet. There is nothing tedious or outrageous about my suggestions or complaints and another editor supported the move and my position. The article is not a legitimate continuation of the standard List-styled terrorist articles such as List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, List of terrorist incidents, 2008, etc...etc. I made that quite clear here and here with no response. Instead of attacking me passion, it would have been better to respond to the issues at hand which there are many. Since Passion and user:Lihaas seem to be the only ones supporting the article I encouraged the editors to request a third opinion or bring in an user that is part of Wikiproject terrorism. There is no consensus to include the US army or any military along with the Taliban or Al Qaeda in a List-style article. I support what the community has considered the norm for Terrorist-list articles and the only one who doesn't seem to support that is Passion. Really, anyone reading this ANI just look at the article. It has nothing to do with 2011 and only a small portion of it deals with terrorist incidents, and acts committed by sovereign militaries are included alongside registered terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Is this really encyclopedic? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote you linked to is out of context, the editor was saying that people should stop adding incorrect templates and categories to this article. that is all. he did not support your overall idea. You also forgot to mention the third and forth editors who disagreed with you, O Fenian, and filceolaire. Also please do not continue your persistant argument for changing the title here, it's inappropriate. Passionless -Talk 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will thank you not to misrepresent my position. Given my first comment in the section concerned begins "Wikifan12345 is correct here" it is quite clear I do not disagree with Wikifan12345. O Fenian (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry O Fenian, I saw your agreeing with Wikifan to be only about the templates, not agreeing with his never ending suggestions of wanting to create a new article and his claims that this is not a sucessor article. Passionless -Talk 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Passion, the article has nothing in common with any of the other List of terrorist incidents articles. Any mediator will tell you this. All my suggestions are supported by precedents and guidelines. What does the Irish conflict have anything to do with 2011 or terrorist incidents? Why is the CIA placed in the same category as Al Qaeda? The fact that I ask the same questions over and over against isn't a violation if editors cannot support their contributions with reliable sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See, he just keeps going and going. Passionless -Talk 04:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, there is agreement to add a state-terrorism bit, (which was derived aFETER o fenians suggestion of controversy on the term toaccomodate various vviews (something the others dont seem to want to do) Wikifan currently seems to restrict himself to one norm of terrorism that has been explicitly refuted on this and other wikipedia articles.

wikifan: "Passion, the article has nothing in common with any of the other List of terrorist incidents articles. Any mediator will tell you this." = WP: CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE and dictatorial views that refuse to contribvute to discussion will not help them (o fenian/wikifan, apparently). + thjen his suggestion tht "What does the Irish conflict have anything to do with 2011 or terrorist incidents?" doesnt read consensus, however "controversial," that the article is move d to "List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011" which includes ongoing conflicts (see the CURRENT IMC reports for the ongoing aspect.

O Fenian, who is quoted here, i also is in need of some STRONGEST POSSIBLE WARNING to contructively contribute instead of blackmail to get his war Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts abd [36].

Passion is also NOT the only opposer to the move, others have done so. Though ive also furthered 'discussionm (an increaslingly meaningless form on wikipedia) to generate further consenss).

Also note the article has recently come off TWO full locks. + that continuing discussion IS STILL ongoing to refine definition Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#new_criteria_NEED_OTHER_OPINIONS(Lihaas (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

The discussion should be streamlined for clarity. Clearly I have been explicit about how I feel about the article, so has O Fenian and others. So in terms of policy, what have I violated to justify an ANI? I have not made a single edit to the article. Passionless and Lihass have essentially built the article and contributed the most, thus they have more to defend. My original issues remain unchallenged, that A) The article is not a proper successor to the List of terrorist incidents genre, and B) Half the article is simply regurgitation from List of ongoing military conflicts. All I care about is continuing the standard that the community has accepted. Passion is accusing me of promoting claims that have been firmly rejected by the community and consensus (core principal of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). The fact is the article itself was created unilaterally and in spite of the standards set by the previous additions. And no consensus has been reached regarding the legitimacy of the article in terms of being a part of the List of terrorist incidents family even though Passion claims one exists. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

bear in mind that the original ANI idea wasnt mind, i was trying at consensus (As you can see the new RFC i created because, oddly enough, of what YOU suggested it. i tried to discuss with you, o fenian (though giving up there), and request [not forthcoming] opinion from others.

then again also bear in mind that there is no STANDARD wikipedia hard and fast rule. things can change so its reccomended that you change from asserting "standard policy" instead of discussing reason/s for keeping such contentLihaas (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edit above, but the discussion is about my behavior and the accusations made by Passion. Unless a moderator finds merit in the accusations I suggest a close to this and regulate the dispute to the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but even so if I were one I would probably be wondering, in this rather long discussion solely involving those already active in the dispute it was probably explained what admin action is asked for here. Could you summarise it for us? I presume people aren't asking for an RFC or an X-opinion or other stuff that are part of the dispute resolution process which you are generally expected to try first because these have already been tried and/or the problems are the sort that warrant admin attention without those. BTW summarise does not mean start another long discussion solely involve those already active in the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this, so I do not know what is appropriate to ask for, from a strong warning to a block to a ban if admins feels he has edited a page related enough to his very broad block of Israel-Palestine articles. I told Wikifan many times to stop bringing up the same thing over and over, but he would not stop, that is why I came here. Passionless -Talk 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Passion, you seem to be the only one claiming I have violated IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I demonstrated above that I did not violate the policy, because there is no consensus that supports the article is a legitimate successor to the List of terrorist incidents family. Do you deny this? ANI is not a place where content disputes are supposed to be resolved. Using the board to removed editors from the discussion is not tolerated. Dozens of admins watch my contributions closely and they would have blocked me days ago if they felt your accusations had the slightest bit merit. Saying your new to this is dubious at best, considering you've issued harsh warning against editors involved in other content disputes. again. I would support an uninvolved admin to review Passion's attitude towards editors who disagree with his views. Also, the article needs a thorough examination and comparison with core wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay I see that's mentioned in the original post, I missed it after getting distracted by the long discussion that followed, sorry about that. I agree the question of whether Wikifan12345 is violating his? topic ban by his involvement in Talk:List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 and if so whether anything should be done is warranted here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I may be mistaken. I presumed this topic ban was related to a general community imposed sanction. I now realise it's the result of discretionary sanctions in an arbcom case therefore I believe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement would probably be the appropriate place (but don't quote me on that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I brought it here was because Wikifan was a case of "editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error." I brought up his ban to show that he has a record of lack of cooperation with other editors, which may weigh in on the weight of the punishment. That he may be breaking his ban is a seperate subject. Passionless -Talk 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not subject to I/P general sanctions. At least not right now. I am willing to settle this dispute once and for all and encourage passion to participate in the on-going discussion. Until an admin responds to these issues here it would be inappropriate to move the dispute to AE. I'm only saying this because you said you're new to this. That makes sense, considering you did not support or respond to the my suggestion to bring in an uninvolved admin to weigh in on the discussion. Like I said before, my contributions are watched very, very closely. 64 editors, I'd wager many of whom are admins, have placed me on their watchlist. I have provided clear evidence demonstrating I haven't violated consensus. No consensus exists. The article was created unileral and in spite of precedents sent by the list of terrorist incidents family. Begging admins to block users who call a spade a spade is suspect IMO. Please Passion, find me a diff showing a consensus was reached supporting the legitimacy of the article in terms of being a part of the terrorist incidents genre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please realize this is not about the article, this is only about your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and please no more personal attacks either. Passionless -Talk 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Histowiki

A couple of weeks ago, I discovered that Histowiki (talk · contribs) had been involved with the upload of several screencaps of a performance of the band Girls' Generation to the Commons, as well as additions to each of the band members' articles on this project. Two days after I managed to get everything deleted on the Commons, he uploaded them all again and reverted my edits claiming restoration of public domain image deleted by vandal. He's been indefinitely blocked at the Commons. I think we should follow suit here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block might be a bit much. If he was a chronic offender, I might change my mind though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If he does not know what he did was wrong despite warnings on multiple projects as to what it was, he should not be allowed to continue to possibly cause copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can afford to give a final warning. This editors efforts were directed to improving Wikipedia, even though the were impermissible. Copyright rules are hard for some people to grasp and accept. We'll quickly know if he has learned his lesson.--agr (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations are not improvements to Wikipedia. When does it become disruptive enough that a block is appropriate? Three times? Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, though: we have to assume good faith here. He might not even realise what he's doing is wrong - he's not trying to disrupt the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

When does good faith become ignorance? This guy has had many, many good faith efforts expended towards him. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The unusual case of Jeremiestrother

Now here's an odd case. We've got a very productive wiki-gnome, User:Jeremiestrother, with a few thousand constructive edits. Recently he has started editing city articles and replacing the city's official name with the city's common name. When asked, he cited the MoS. Mind you, this is a field in the city's info box specifically labeled "official name". Sure, this seems obvious to me, but I thought I'd bring it up on the MoS talk page, just to be safe. Two editors commented - both agreeing with the obvious interpretation, and I notified Jeremiestrother accordingly.

At this point, things got strange. Jeremiestrother replied and disagreed, though his disagreement made little sense. Then an IP replied, supporting Jeremiestrother. And yes, the contributions for the IP and for Jeremiestrother were nearly identical - including types of articles edited, types of edits made, and all with the same edit summary. But perhaps Jeremiestrother simply failed to log in, and he didn't really mean to employ a sock puppet? However, a reply on my talk page maybe (just maybe) hints that he's trying to represent these edits as coming from two different editors. And yes, that one is a matter of interpretation. I advised him about taking care not to let multiple accounts give the appearance of attempting to game the system on his talk page, but he hasn't responded yet.

Unfortunately, neither the obvious nature of the "official name" field, my advice, nor the discussion on the MoS talk page have dissuaded Jeremiestrother from continuing to edit scores of city articles to replace the city's official name with the city's common name in the city's info box field titled: "official name".

So here we are. I'm stuck undoing this particular aspect of his work while he ignores both the obvious and other editors. The whole thing gives the appearance of a slow-motion edit war, which I suppose it is. One might charitably call this in my support "vandal fighting." However, Jeremiestrother gives every appearance of being a well-meaning, albeit stubborn, wiki-gnome. And we all know how valuable wiki-gnomes have been to this encyclopedia. If ever a sculptor should undertake to memorialize Wikipedia in stone, I hope his or her first efforts take the form of a wiki-gnome. We could put it right smack in the middle of the lobby. Wherever that is. But I digress.

I'm posting this here because Jeremiestrother is now at risk of being blocked for disruptive editing and possibly for the abuse of multiple accounts. He has been warned about both (out of respect for his effort here, these warnings were not templated). I would like a few admins might review this matter - a quick survey of the MoS talk page, Jeremiestrother's talk page, Jeremiestrother contributions, and the IP's contributions should suffice - and post some friendly recommendations on Jeremiestrother's talk page in hopes of dissuading him from pursuing this particular line of wiki-gnomage. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth adding that Jeremiestrother has subsequently provided a long comment and request for mentoring here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the city edits without a doubt edits that Jeremiestrother would normally have made? (i.e. was he mainly active in articles about cities before this?) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these edits are consistent with his contributions to Wikipedia, and his comments on my talk page and the MoS talk page are also consistent.

Per his comments on [37] and noted above, Jeremiestrother views these series of edits as one of "style". That is, we really should see a city's common name in the "official name" field. He doesn't seem to understand the problem or the problem with going against logic and consensus, but he is asking for a mentor. I've pointed him to our mentoring page, so that may help. He also stated that he hoped to spark discussion by editing so many articles in this way, so I pointed him to our Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point page, too. Rklawton (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiestrother appears to be well-meaning, and simply took an approach that we recognize as inappropriate, but a relatively new editor without much interaction with others might not have seen it as inappropriate. It seems like the issue is resolving.--SPhilbrickT 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits.

The user User:PeeJay2K3 has been reverting my edits on Template:Limited_overs_matches, and any requests for discussions and warnings have been disregarded. I have asked him to discuss before making changes but he resorts to mocking. Kindly intervene. Thanks --ashwinikalantri ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 has taken the matter to the relevant wikiproject and it looks like the emerging consensus is that the image is not not preferable to simply text. So PeeJay is discussing the matter per WP:BRD. I took a look at the template's talk page but couldn't find anything that substantiates the accusations of "mocking", can you provide diffs? Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see that he is discussing the issue. That should clear things up!--ashwinikalantri ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Boys Noize

I few days back i listed the article Boys Noize at the suspected copyright page. The copyvio template I added allows for the article to be created at a temp page so long as what is written there is copyright free. I had a look at the temp page (Talk:Boys Noize/Temp) today and disovered that an anon had created the temp page with copyvio material lifted in part from facebook. I deleted the material and protected the temp page, but as copyvio concerns are not my forte I wanted to list this here to get a second opinion on my actions just in case I messed something up or acted out of order on the matter; In particular, I am unsure if protection of a temp page on copyright grounds is acceptable by wikipedia's policy/guideline standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not for a first offense, no. If there's a repeated and sustained effort to violate copyright with text or files, however, protection is appropriate to stem the disruption. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I've gone ahead an unprotected the page, in exchange I'll keep it watch listed for the time being. Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel : long standing tendentious editing and edit warring on human sexuality articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First of all, apologies if this is not the correct venue/not a correct report. DMSBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of inability to understand consensus and edit warring on human sexuality articles (particularly, but not only, Ejaculation), due to a basic inability to understand WP:NOTCENSORED. The user has been tolerated so far but the disruptive behaviour is becoming difficult to bear and is wasting a lot of editors' time. I admit having been sometimes a bit harsh with the user, but I think there's a serious objective problem. So far we have:

Persistent edit warring to remove images from the Ejaculation article which DMSBel doesn't like:

February 2010 RfC about the images here, with consensus for the images to stay.

• February 2010 warring episodes: [38] , [39], [40] and then [41]

After the RfC, warring episodes (check history too please):

• August 2010: [42]
• December 2010: [43] , [44], [45], [46]
• January 2011: [47] , [48]

Correlated refusal to accept RfC consensus on talk page (WP:HEAR issues):

• Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_6#Video
• Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_6#Four_Frame_Photo
• Talk:Ejaculation#A_plea_for_sanity
• Talk:Ejaculation#There_was_no_consensus_about_the_four-plate_photo
• ArbCom request by DMSBel, dismissed.
• Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_94#Can_photos_from_a_porn_site_be_deleted_as_an_unreliable_source.3F (somehow attempt at forum shopping; when I merely linked the discussion on Talk:Ejaculation, for transparency, DMSBel was quite angry and responded with Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive96#Cyclopia, which ended in a predictable boomerang)
• [49].

Edit warring on other sexuality articles

• [50] Page blanking of Cum shot
• User_talk:DMSBel#Edit_warring Block for edit warring (see page history here).

Other non necessarily disruptive edits but useful to understand DMSBel point of view

• AfD nomination of Cum shot (ended in nearly unanimous keep)
• Talk:Cum_shot#Fallacious_arguments_in_favour_of_illustration Thread to discuss removal of images from Cum shot
• [51] Explanation of the page blanking of Cum shot
• User_talk:Johntex#Could_you_pop_over_to_ejaculation_discussion_page.3F Comment where he seeks support from other user on the ejaculation images issues

In short, DMSBel has views on the removal of information from sexuality articles (certainly by itself a non-trivial issue, I admit) which are far and large away from consensus that we have on these and many other similarly problematic articles. Per se this wouldn't be a problem, but he engages in edit warring over the same articles almost since one year with several editors, is prone to wikilawyering around WP:NOTCENSORED, tendentiously moves goalposts in an attempt of getting an argument that sticks for removal of content, and repeatedly refuses to understand consensus on such issues. Lately the editor is became almost a single purpose account: as far as I can see, >90% of his last 6 months edits are related only to attempts to remove pictures from Ejaculation. In view of this pattern, I recommend a topic ban of DMSBel (talk · contribs) from human sexuality articles. --Cyclopia^talk 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Response by User DMSBel

I think Cyclopia has overstated the amount of edit waring in his complaint, in most of his cited instances there have only been one or two reverts, before I returned to discussion on the matter. Whether there was a consensus for keeping is debatable and the last RFC only maintained the status quo with the closing editor saying he "would hesitate to say there was a consensus". Generally I have avoided making controversial edits and have documented such edits on the discussion page. If there has been resistance to the edit I have made I calmly take a step back before it turns into an edit war, as I have done in this instance. His complaint here is about my deletion of pornographic content from the ejaculation page. As there has been new requests put forward for deletion by other editors my assessment has been that the consensus now is for deletion and that WP:NOTCENSORED does not prevent that, and that editors such as Cyclopia and a few others are not open to reason on this issue (other editors have noted Cyclopia's poor judgement in the discussion, and he has said that motives of uploaders do not matter, to quote him: "I don't give a frak if people who upload stuff do it because they jerk off on it or because of the most hideous possible hidden motivation."[[52]], and seems to have lost the ability to make a good editorial judgement here.

• To highlight Cyclopia's extremity he has said he would not disapprove of someone uploading a beheading video for the decapitation page. [[53]]

Taken from the earlier discussion on the ejaculation talk page linked to just above: - Question from User:Ucwhatudid: Cyclopia, I find the argument that the video is appropriate because it is about the topic not very compelling. Using that premise, any photo or video about this or any other topic is appropriate if it is about the subject. Under the topic of decapitation, I see no video of a beheading taking place. If I had one, would you feel it is appropriate to upload? If so, well, I give up already. If not, then there is some basis for determining that the material is inappropriate.

Response to that question from Cyclopia: "Yes, of course, and you would be welcome to do that."

• If it is the case that editorial judgement is impaired then new arguments will not convince these editors, I therefore take the view that all substantial and sensible arguments have been put forward for deletion and that it is stubborness, POV, and a lack of good judgement, plus a rigidity that is out of keeping with the principles of wikipedia on the part of Cyclopia and a few others that is the problem here, and that in seeking consensus it should not be required to convince the stubborn, wannabe radicals, the rigid, and editors who are seeking to push boundaries, snub the establishment, or anything else that has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. DMSBel (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Further Cyclopia has rather complicated the matter here by bringing up a lot of old stuff and pages that I have not edited for ages and have no intention of going back to seeing I cannot persuade editors there. This whole issue is very unfortunate and a lot of time could have been saved, both mine and others by using common sense here. DMSBel (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies but I have expanded my orginal response somewhat as I felt it was necessary - so there will be some parts of it that were added after other users have responded - I apologise for this.

Comments by other users

• Support topic ban. I've participated in a limited fashion on some of these articles, and DMSBel's editing and talk page activities have been disruptive and unproductive in my opinion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support topic ban. Note - my position was neutral (and hence was not going to post a comment) until I read DMSBel's response, below, which led me to then read the talk page of the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Changed from Support to Strong Support based on the editor's behavior here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies could I ask JoeSperrazza to clarify for my benefit, as I am not sure what aspect of this he supports? DMSBel (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban. DMSBel has repeatedly been warned about edit-warring, and acknowledges that the image insertion/removal is controversial on Ejaculation. As of recently, he was repeatedly asserting to remove based on "no consensus to keep". Today he decided that there actually was consensus to remove and then did so even after yesterday several editors concurred that doing so would require an actual new discussion not just reanalysis of long-ago statements. He's right that a lot of time by many editors has been consumed here, but it appears to me that his WP:TE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the reason. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban of Sexuality topics. Keeping it brief -- DMSBEL should have his picture in the dictionary definition of tenditious. Atom (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note Atom has a POV here, seems to have been meatballed to come here and support the campaign for porn on wikipedia by another editor AzureCitizen(retracted), and has failed to demonstrate the ability to differentiate between porn and educational content. He is therefore impaired to some degree in his ability to make good editorial judgements on this matter.DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The comment, above, is terribly uncivil (accusations of 'meatpuppetry' and 'use of porn ... children'; the former is evidence-free, the latter crosses a line that should not be crossed). Can the remarks be permanently removed, please? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The above comment restored after being deleted by DMSBel in this edit. Stop refactoring/deleting others comments, please, and remain WP:CIVIL, in ref. to your latest comments added in that same edit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted no comments by other users, I have no idea how it was lost, but appears to have been accidental. My comments about Atom I will not retract - he cannot differentiate between porn and educational material. DMSBel (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You did so in the edit shown, which deleted my comment, above, and added your personal attack, below. The edit is very clear. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this happen several times before, and he could very well be telling the truth: there's some weird bug that sometimes deletes comments of other users. Doc talk 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Although not a bug, an edit conflict can have the same effect, but one receives notice of that, and thus should be able to avoid deleting other's comments. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking thorough diffs now, but it happened relatively recently to an editor that definitely didn't remove a comment and received no edit conflict warning either. It is usually the last edit on the page that gets reverted, whether in another section or not. Doc talk 23:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this thread elsewhere (my talk page, perhaps?), but there is an intervening edit in this History between my addition and the deletion (whether intentional or due to EC or whatever by DMSBel...), so, if I understand the meaning of "usually the last edit on the page that gets reverted", this case doesn't fit your observed other cases. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen the same thing happen too, an edit that should have given an edit conflict, but instead it overrode and lost a previous edit - I suspect there's a bug in the edit conflict software, and a very small window in which it can go wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

@DMSBEL First -- The topic of discussion here is your actions and not of other editors. Your potshot at me is only intended as a distraction. Secondly -- Given the many, many discussions you and I have had in the past, it is really ludicrous to suggest that I am a meat puppet for anyone else's opinions. Thirdly -- It is you who doesn't get that the term "pornography" is a subjective term. The Miller test is what we use to determine what is "obscene". You yourself have admitted that the images in the ejaculation article are educational, it is just that you also believe several of them to be "pornography". That is your own opinion though. The very fact that the images are used in an educational article for an educational purpose, by Miller, makes the image *NOT* obscene. YOUR view though is that since you found the image on a pay for porn site, that it is automatically then Pornographic, regardless of the content (or Miller) and furthermore that being porn in that context makes it porn in any context, and that being pornographic overides any literary, scientific or educational use or purpose. That view is not supported by other editors, not supported by Wikipedia policy, nor legally valid. Nevertheless you insist that your view should prevail regardless of Consensus, Wikipedia policies, or federal law. Atom (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop getting carried away Atom, the only two images that I consider educational are the top two of the article, trying to imply that I think they all are will not work. I have always maintained the other images are unencyclopedic - Neither policy nor federal law helps anyone decide if the images are encyclopedic, discussion is how we settle this and an wider RFC. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it? This, to all practical purposes, is the "wider RFC", and everyone so far thinks not only that you are wrong, but that you are so stubborn and disruptive in your refusal to accept it that you deserve to be banned. There are two options: Either think about your actions and trying to understand if, perhaps, you have indeed been less than stellar in working with other contributors and in helping the 'pedia, or persist in the opinion that everyone here is wrong but you. Deciding what is the sane, mature option is left as an exercise to the reader. --Cyclopia^talk 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This "to all practable purposes" is nothing to do with content and is not even the place to try and run an RFC on it. You came to the wrong place if that was your goal. Remarks have largely focused on my editing behaviour not the content so you have it seems pulled the rug out from under yourself with that remark - that this is the "wider RFC". If you trying now to turn support for a ban in to an adjudication on content you are seriously barking up the wrong tree, and it will be seen. So stop trying to twist a matter on conduct into something else. I came on here now to try and draw a line under the matter, and to accept that no more deletion should have taken place without a wider RFC on the article talk page. I still want to do that. I leave it to other editors to decide what you are up to here, and if it is "forum shopping". DMSBel (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it has nothing to do with content, and it has all to do with you. What I meant is that this venue is firmly assessing that, despite your screaming to the opposite, there was previous consensus on the issue, and that you're disruptive in ignoring it -so we don't need another content RfC so far. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The last RFC was not clear on that, it merely decided to keep the images as default or as the status quo and said there needed to be wider input. I'll post the closing editors summing up here:

It appears no further input is going to be added to this discussion. As an uninvolved editor I'll put a button on it so it can be archived for future reference (and I don't doubt the issue will be breached again). 6 editors (inc. Luna Santin) are in favor of the image's inclusion in the article while 2 editors oppose it. Although not the largest sampling of editor input, it appears the brunt of reasonable arguments for or against have been put forth by both sides with a clear majority of editors in favor of image inclusion (I hesitate to call it a consensus with such limited input). As the article already reflects this conclusion, there is no need to make any change to it.

Dissent is based in the belief that the detail of text obviates the image's inclusion or that the image is simply unnecessary with a video clip already illustrating the exact same process. The former holds little water as any properly written article should thoroughly detail its subject without illustration - the purpose of the added images is to enhance and present the material in a different way. However, the latter argument certainly presents a potentially valid justification for exclusion. While a rebuttal exists in the fact that some users may lack the means to properly view the video, I haven't been able to dig up any guidelines or precedent with regard to multiple formats visually illustrating the same thing. The use of embedded video throughout the project is still largely in its infancy and many such stylistic guidelines have yet to be established. As such, if this matter is revisited in the future, I would recommend requesting input from a wider audience in an effort to do just that. --K10wnsta (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes, and there has been a significant number of requests for removal since that RFC. So we need a new RFC. What seems to have been my trangression here, is that I deleted (in regard to multiple requests on the talk page) and assumed consensus was with me. The only way out of this is a new RFC. It also needs to be set up by a neutral editor (who has not been involved in the discussion, most editors here have). As this is an issue which has repercussions on Wikipedia as a site, it should include open to the widest possible community input. There is no other way out of this impasse, I apologise for deleting before this was done.DMSBel (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, supreme case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in relation to content that he doesn't like, now becoming long term disruptive --Errant ^(chat!) 21:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban; enough disruptive editing already. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. DMSBel has been taking this campaign round just about every forum there is, and it's disruptive even for those who have no interest in editing the articles concerned. Plus edits such as this attempt at an underhand attack on another editor, are a particularly nasty extension of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You folks still don't see what's wrong? What a bunch of idiots. Ban me as far as you like, I would not come back to wikipedia in a million years, while such gross idiocy and blind stupidity is so rife on it as evidenced here. It is the joke of the internet, and whoever called it a dictatorship of idiots appears from this to have been right.(retracted as uncivil by myself) Have you all been here so long and become so enculturated that none of you (who have responded here so far) have good judgement anymore? With such admin and users Wikipedia will not last long. DMSBel (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, this is approximately third time he has said he was giving up on (wikipedia and/or the edit-war in question), only to return again with unchanged behavior and article-genre of interest. While he's welcome to leave, and that would resolve the WP:TE, we should probably see this discussion through to its normal end rather than allowing it to become mooted by this comment of his. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You can do what you like, if you all think you are working on an encyclopedia still, you have simply been here too long, any moron with an agenda can play you like fools and you do not notice, any joker is taken seriously, will any of you ever wise up? As editors with common sense gradually leave you will find it harder and harder to get stuff done here, and this is happening now due to ridiculous, totally ridiculous editorial judgements which become near impossible to reverse as the morons get control, and you guys live in denial and reassure yourselves wikipedia is working.DMSBel (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore what happens on wikipedia does have consequences in the real world. You cannot shirk responsibility here. There is such a thing as a day of reckoning and it may be close for wikipedia.(retracted, but was not intended as a threat)DMSBel (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consequences"? "Reckoning"? Over this issue??? Methinks you need a dose of perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue is symptomatic of a wider problem with wikipedia, namely that increasingly editors have become enculturated to assume what is acceptable on wikipedia is acceptable outside, you seem to be unable to think outside of wikipedia. In any event encyclopedias are not arenas for activism, radicalism, agenda driven, or boundary pushing. DMSBel (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For further comment, see this video, especially the comment at about 40 seconds:[54] In general, substitute "Wikipedia" for "No Name City", and we've got an appropriate warning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, wine, women and/or men, and song, that's why I spend so much time on Wikipedia. But really, I stay for the porn. Isn't that the same for everyone? --Danger (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban. Judging from DMSBel's comments here and on the ejaculation talk page I doubt he'll change anytime soon. --Six words (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify scope

Does this ban-proposal relate solely to article-space, or also to talk and other meta-pages? I would support the larger scope, per the extent of the already-documented and -discussed problems, but figured we'd better be clear here. Please confine comments/discussions in this section to this specific aspect. DMacks (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support General ban (article, talk, WP). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support General ban (all spaces, including article, talk, WP). JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if, as a proposer, it is appropriate for me to comment here but yes, I meant to support a general ban. Given the comments above by the guy, I suspect he's not going to be productive elsewhere, could a full ban be appropriate or is it too soon? --Cyclopia^talk 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this should stay focused on the original proposal of a topic ban. DMSBel might be a great contributor if they would refrain from editing articles they feel so strongly about. BTW, I also support the broadly construed version of this proposal. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend indefinite block. At least the last 500 edits were all about this ejaculation issue, which makes the editor a disruptive single purpose account as far as I'm concerned. Evidently a topic ban is needed if no block occurs.  Sandstein  00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum a topic ban on all sexuality articles, and <thisclose> to supporting an indefinite block for the ad hominem attacks and the threats issued above. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all human sexuality articles and talk pages, broadly construed. I'm not involved in this, but after looking over the relevant talk pages, I see that DMSBel has a bad case of "I'm right and everybody else is wrong". This has been going on for months. It's just too much patience to ask of other editors to have to continue to engage with an editor who will apparently never stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is not stopping here? Myself or Cyclopia. If this is an edit war, Cyclopia is part of it too. There have been at least three recent debates (on the talk page) on this none of them started by me (though I reserve the right to comment or support other editors, in doing so I have done anything any other editor including Cyclopia has done) As with BRD I had returned to the discussion after the reverts on my deletion.DMSBel (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

11 months, apparently (I had no involvement prior to the discussion here at ANI): [55], [56] JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

to Steven Anderson: Are you seriously saying you reviewed the discussion and you could not see that there were other editors who I supported in the discussion. It is absolutely impossible to have read through the discussion and come away with the impression that I thought I was right and everyone else wrong. DMSBel (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing is due mainly to a inflexibility on Cyclopia's part. I have the right to disagree with editors when they say there is consensus and there has been no consensus found in the last RFC. It cannot be construed as edit warring to follow the discussion and new comments and then to make a assessment (others have done so in this without an RFC) on whether there is a consensus. Quite clearly when there was only a very weak consensus at best (do I need to quote the closing editor of the last RFC again) and time had passed and several requests for removal had come in I thought it was ok to delete and make mention on the discussion page, that in my assessment the consensus had changed, after all everyone has been making their own assessments about the consensus (without the aid of an RFC).DMSBel (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support the ban, with the caveat that I have been involved in the discussion. It's one thing to advocate a position that does not ultimately achieve consensus or popularity, and no one should be penalized for that. It's quite another to edit in defiance of consensus. I don't like to see things come to this point, but at this point everything else has failed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Show me the consensus, show us where the closing editor of the last RFC said there was a consensus? He didn't.DMSBel (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would like me to run an RFC on this with a wider input I will as it seems the onus is on me to run it. It would however need to go out wider than the previous one as the last RFC concluded.DMSBel (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is unanimous support so far to topic ban you from sexuality articles; do you really think that we would like you to run such a RfC? Don't make your position even worse than already it is. --Cyclopia^talk 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Is this in the right place, isn't there an edit warring noticeboard?[[57]], but then I had not even violated 3RR which seems to be what edit warring is and what that board is for, and had backed away from making any further edits after the second revert. DMSBel (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not about a 3RR violation. This is about a long pattern of disruption, and this is the correct place to request a ban. --Cyclopia^talk 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• But your chief complaint here is about edit waring and most of your links are about that, even though most of them were not 3RR violations, How many times out of the occasions you have listed have I violated 3RR? DMSBel (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My chief complaint is with an overall pattern of behaviour, of which edit warring is just the most worrying symptom. That a 3RR violation is clear edit warring doesn't mean you can't edit war also without breaking 3RR. DMSBel, there's 13 long standing editors above agreeing you deserve a topic ban. Wikilawyering is not going to help you one bit -if anything, it confirms your disruptive pattern. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Its not about a 3RR violation", "it is about a pattern of which edit waring is the most worrying symptom" ??? A couple of controversial edits is not edit waring. DMSBel (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have linked to a lot of contributions I have made to discussions on a talk page, is this edit waring in cases where I have not made any actual change to the article? And why should my comments be considered tendentious when other users support the same changes to the article. DMSBel (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it's not edit warring. It's tendentious editing, precisely it is symptomatic of a stubborn refusal to understand consensus. And that is the core problem. --Cyclopia^talk 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand consensus fine, Thanks. I understand that the last RFC did not reach a consensus, from the words of the closing editor "I would hesitate to say there is a consensus". DMSBel (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Q.E.D. --Cyclopia^talk 15:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What? I Mean i know what QED means, but we have not had a new RFC on this. So can't see anything as QED , just some opinions and 3 more sections on a talk page started by other users requesting removal. DMSBel (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• (involved editor) Support wide ban (P.D.: meaning all human sexuality articles and its talk pages), since DMSBel is still trying to remove the same images by all means, trying to avoid consensus by several means (as shown by Cyclopia). This is not leading to any constructive improvement of the encyclopedia, and it's wasting the time and patience of editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am of the opinion that DMSBEL should be limited only in participating in human sexuality articles, and I do NOT support a general ban of the editor. I believe that his motivation to improve Wikipedia, and to not have content that could widely be perceived as offensive is a good one. In time I think he can learn to understand what the term "consensus" really means in our Wikipedia community, and get along with others without being tendentious. If he were to focus within his area of expertise adding information to Wikipedia he could benefit others rather than wasting their time. Atom (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So you will be pressing for the removal of the widely perceived offensive content from that page when this is over? DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is my aim to bring about constructive improvement to wikipedia too, and take seriously users complaints about content.DMSBel (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I support a general topic ban over the entire subject, including talk pages and anything that can be considered to be within the range of the subject. This is clearly been a long-running case of tendentious editing that needs to be stopped. Silverseren^C 21:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for taking up editors time with this, and where I have edited tendentiously I apologise. With regard to the recent 2RR of mine I agree that that was incorrect of me. I have also retracted comments above and rephrased other remarks that have been uncivil. Once again my apologies for this matter, I trust it will be understood that my motives have not be to disrupt, but to improve the article and wikipedia, and to take user complaints seriously. Please do not read into this any endorsement of the content on that page but only an acceptance that in my efforts to make wikipedia as widely acceptable as possible I may have in this episode been remise at times in how I sought to do that. DMSBel (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, especially in view of apology. Also, the complaint stated: "90% of his last 6 months edits are related only to attempts to remove pictures from Ejaculation." While I doubt that such image removal would continue in view of the apology, an article ban would have been a better proposal (most sexuality articles do not contain images that some people regard as pornographic), or perhaps merely a ban on removing sexual images. I'll admit right up front that I have some sympathy for the premise that images like the one at autofellatio are overkill, and would more appropriately be in a hide-show box, especially if you consider that such images are essentially primary sources that are much more graphic than what's found in secondary sources (I expect that the autofellatio image will ultimately be replaced by a video like the video at ejaculation). But I don't edit-war about it, and doubt that this editor will continue to do so either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Ejaculation has been by far and large the main subject of DMSBel crusade, yet I wouldn't be surprised, given the pattern at other articles, if an article ban would simply move his crusade on some other article (like the one you linked). The problem with DMSBel is much deeper: he is the textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has a critical problem in understanding what consensus really is and/or in recognizing it. About the apology, I think it is sincere but I am not sure, given again the pattern, that he will held up his promises. I still think a topic ban is the right compromise. --Cyclopia^talk 00:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

His block log is clean except for a 31-hour block back in September. Going from 31 hours to the-rest-of-your-life seems like a rather steep escalation. You would be removing a dissenting voice, and while dissenters are always "disruptive" in some sense of the word, they can be very helpful at Wikipedia, especially once they move from edit-warring to doing RFCs and making policy-based arguments. Why don't you support a block or ban for a limited time?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it: Indef block is not (yet) a viable option, even if Sandstein proposed it. We're talking about a topic ban: he would be free to edit everything else at WP, he should just stay away from sexuality articles, where in the course of 11 months he has abundatly proven he is not going to be constructive. Now, I agree absolutely that dissenting voices should be always welcome (heck, I am often a dissenting voice too), but the problem is not dissent, it is his way to fight for dissent, by edit warring, refusing to accept consensus, gaming the system, wikilawyering and forum shopping. --Cyclopia^talk 00:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about an indefinite topic ban, rather than a topic ban for a limited time. That seems very excessive for an editor who has only one block for 31 hours. Not to mention that the ban would cover lots of articles even though 90% of his edits have been at only one article. Pretty soon we're going to have videos of every sex act imaginable at Wikipedia, unless some editors are allowed to urge more encyclopedic treatment in conformity with reliable secondary sources. Now, I'm all for sex and entertainment and so forth, but there is such a thing as too much information, and I'd like to see this editor get a chance to make that argument in a civil and respectful fashion, even if the argument is wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what has a limited block log to do with this. Blocks and bans are different things. He has not done almost anything warranting a hard-and-fast remedy like a block. What he has done is slowly but steadily exhausting anyone's patience -this is independently of his position. You don't get immediate blocks for this but for sure you get bans. I'd like to see any editor make any argument in a civil and respectful fashion, but DMSBel has proven he is not be able to do that constructively. I understand you're sympathetic to his point of view but if it's so, well, trust me, you would be shooting yourself in the foot by keeping DMSBel -you don't want disruptive editors trying to "help" you. --Cyclopia^talk 01:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If there have been bans on this editor in addition to what is shown in his block log, then I'm unaware of them. All I'm saying is that if he's blocked or banned as a result of this discussion, it should be for a limited time. I saw this editor edit constructively at the abortion article, though your remedy would apparently ban him for life there as well. I thought your most recent comment at his talk page gave him one last chance to apologize, and he's done that. Anyway, I've had my say, so let the chips fall where they may.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there haven't been bans that I'm aware of, but how is this relevant? However, indefinite and "for life" are different things: there's always the standard offer. But he badly needs to cool down and make his mind clear about the situation. This is not something I propose to punish him; we're not here to punish people. This is something to avoid disruption for us. Thanks for your comments in any case. --Cyclopia^talk 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not do the same thing ArbCom does: make it an indefinite ban on all topics related to Human Sexuality, broadly construed, to include all namespaces, but give DMSBel the right to appeal the topic ban no more than once every six months, beginning six months from when the ban begins. This puts a clear minimum duration, and also makes it clear that in order to for the ban to be lifted, xe will need to clearly need to explain how xe will behave differently in the future. I'm not entirely certain who would handle the ban lifting request (since ArbCom handles them directly for bans they hand out), but I suppose WP:AN might be a good option. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind and what WP:OFFER recommends. It would help, always per WP:OFFER, if Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF-projects prior to requesting an en:return per this 'offer' as many unban-requests have been declined due to the banned user simply 'waiting' the six months out. This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. (in this case, being a topic ban, if we see productive work in other topics) but we'll see. --Cyclopia^talk 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing?

Is it perhaps time to close this? Consensus seems quite clear. --Cyclopia^talk 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I'll note that these kind of very recent of edits to the Talk page by the editor in question are not indicative of a lesson learned nor a desire to change: [58] JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that edit. It would be "a foolish thing" for Wikipedia to include videos of every imaginable sex act. It's an innocent talk page comment. Geez. I would have phrased it differently, but why do people have such thin skins? Especially people who make such a fuss about alleged "censorship"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue it is you to have a thin skin by considering videos of sex acts a "foolish thing" to include -do they hurt your eyes? And it would be an innocent talk page comment if it wasn't the N-th symptom of incurable POV pushing. See things in context. --Cyclopia^talk 23:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't physically hurt my eyes, but neither would it physically hurt my eyes if the video at Wikipedia had been shot from behind the mirror in my bedroom. The point is, reliable secondary sources don't usually include such videos. That's my POV. You have a different POV that has been successfully pushed into the article, by consensus. That's the context as I see it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that that's the substantive part of the edit; anytime a user says something "actually I would say Wikipedia is now borderline on becoming a cult", I have to worry about whether that user can continue to constructively work at Wikipedia. If DMSBel really believes Wikipedia to be a cult, I suggest for his own sake that he not get snared in; that he run away and don't look back.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The "cult" remark was not part of the cited edit, and was made days before. I've been known to say things like "screw Wikipedia". That's an institutional attack, not a personal attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And how can you constructively contribute to a project that you think is a "cult"? I mean, it may well be, and everyone's free to hate Wikipedia, but if so, how are you expected to productively contribute to it? --Cyclopia^talk 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By taking the attitude that editing Wikipedia can make it less bad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The cult remark was part of a comment he deleted a sentence from, indicating he still stood by the cult remark. I didn't say that it was a personal attack, but it's more severe then "screw Wikipedia", and if you say "screw Wikipedia", I think it wisest to take a self-enforced time away, and make sure you think that Wikipedia is a productive use of your time and that you can edit Wikipedia without stressing yourself out. Life's too short to work on Wikipedia if it's causing you frustration and annoyance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think my "screw Wikipedia" comment was perfectly okay.[59]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, could an admin make these sanctions official please? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin - it appears that there's a consensus here, for a complete ban on editing on the topic sitewide. Will close and put the ban in effect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error on main page, makes Wikipedia laughable

It is an American habit to call airports, "international airport". I have even seen Americans call it Heathrow International Airport.

Now it is on the main page for the world to laugh at Wikipedia (top right, news stories). Let us change the title and take out the word "international". See http://www.domodedovo.ru/en/ , the official webpage which states the correct name, Moscow Domodedevo Airport, not Domodedevo International Airport. Thank you.

The article is move protected so administrative help is needed. Nesteoil (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat of an over-reaction. It's commonly referred to as such. Our own article about the airport refers to it as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is likely to be done here because the article is indeed named Domodedovo International Airport. If you believe a move is justified, I suggest you follow the process outlined at WP:RM (since this is clearly going to be a contentious move). You may want to familiarise yourself with WP:Common name first since I'm not sure if you understand that we dont' always follow official names. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Domodedovo International Airport, where a discussion is ongoing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada also uses the term "international airport." Just sayin'.... freshacconci talktalk 17:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I can't see anything that says "international" in the name other than Wikipedia's own article. It's incorrect. Let's change it. --Dorsal Axe 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this makes Wikipedia "laughable", no matter what. Hyperbole. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering there is even a logo with Domodedovo International Airport on their site [60], I guess you just didn't look hard enough... While anyone in the airport has much more important things to worry about, I suspect under different circumstances they will probably be noticing similar things since going by their website, there is probably still stuff there as well which say 'Domodedovo International Airport'. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW if you want to blame anyone, you should probably blame the airport themselves who can't seem to decide what they want to call themselves having gone thru 3 names in the past ~10 years of which Domodedovo International Airport appears to have been used the longest and Moscow Domodedevo Airport the most recent. And even when they do decide to randomly change the airport name in English, they don't seem to bother to annouce it nor do they bother to update parts of their site which should be updated (i.e. not news releases or other things which are a snapshot) Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of the term.[61] USchick (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a particularly American thing. Many airports in Asia and elsewhere use the word international to show that they provide immigration facilities, meaning that they accept international flights as opposed to purely domestic flights. If you do a check of airports in Asia, you will find many of them named this way. – SMasters (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, even Norwich Airport is known as Norwich International Airport, to distinguish it from being a domestic location. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Airport, which I had the (ahem) pleasure of visiting just a few weeks ago, was known as "Bristol International Airport" for thirteen years as well...GiantSnowman 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you also have to walk across the landing strip to get to the plane? Agathoclea (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been to several international airports where before you walk across the landing strip, you have to wait for the farm animals to move out of the way. For incoming planes, they move pretty quickly, for pedestrians, not so much. :) USchick (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Not resolved, but resolved for ANI purposes as there is a RM discussion that I see. Thank you. There is enough excuse to use international because of past usage by the airport. Therefore, the usual naming discussion can take place. If it were an obvious error, then it should be corrected right way. For example, the Irish Green Party is on the main page (top right). If it said, the Irish Groen Party, then it should immediately be corrected. If it said the Irish Green Alliance, that's an old name so not so laughable, just a goof. Nesteoil (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen501

I previously brought up Fifteen501 (talk · contribs) last month, but that got taken off topic by another editor.

Fifteen501 has been disrupting List of Pokémon (494–545) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of Pokémon (546–598) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and List of Pokémon (599–649) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by removing reliably sourced content, removing reliably sourced translations, inserting his own opinions onto the pages, and claiming his unsourced additions are verifiable. He has been told to stop by Bws2cool and myself but it is clear that he does not know that he is wrong.

As Fifteen501 continues to assert that everyone is wrong and he is right, despite myself and Blake requesting that he stop, I believe it is blatantly clear that he does not have the maturity or competency to continue contributing to this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I am aware that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Fifteen501 reported by User:Bws2cool (Result: ). I simply do not think that AN3 is the proper venue because the edit warring is stretched across too many days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a personal attack against User:Becritical, from my point of view, considering that you not only didn't notify him of this discussion, but you seem to think that the requirement for reliable sources is somehow in opposition to "the actual rules of this project". How quaint. Corvus cornix_talk 20:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, this thread is not about Becritical so he need not be notified. This thread is about Fifteen501. However, my first sentence was a little inapprorpiate and I have refactored it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified the person you are claiming doesn't know the rules? And considering that the link you provided was a discussion between you and Becritical, what else are we supposed to think? Corvus cornix_talk 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did notify Fifteen501, and the thread in the archives and this one is about Fifteen501, not anyone else. Just because I inappropriately referred to the other user in my original statement which has since been redacted does not mean this thread is in any way about him, so I would appreciate if you did not continue to take this thread off topic and instead focus on the inappropriate behavior of User:Fifteen501 and how it can be dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that my comments refer to Ryulong's original post, which he has redacted, so my comments no longer make a whole lot of sense. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So stop talking about it and instead talk about Fifteen501.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen501 has since been blocked for 72 hours, however more discussion on his actions may be necessary as he is unlikely to even edit during this 72 hour period.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a rampage

Resolved

 – IP has been blocked for one month. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

24.99.96.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has gone on a bit of a misinformation rampage in the last few days. Was blocked for 24 hours on the 21st, not yet blocked today. I gave final warning as soon as I noticed, but they stopped about 20 minutes before that. They have left a lot of vandalism in their wake and I'm just about to go offwiki. Apologies if this report is in the wrong place, but it's more that his prolific edits need to be reverted rather than a simple vandalism block matter. Siawase (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to request a bit of clarification, a lot of his edits have not been reverted, and I don't know enough about the articles he is editing to know how they are vandalism. Could you, perhaps, describe the problem with a diff or two so admins can act on it? --Jayron32 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Got one here on the Berenstain Bears claiming it will air in the future, and the usual false film vandalism on Nickelodeon Movies. The problem is they heavily edit multiple times so that only a rollbacker has an easier time getting them reined in; a regular user has no shot to clean them up. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the rushed report. I am not familiar with the articles either, so it's going to take a while to research. Where I ran into them was on Weeble where they added a supposed 2011 film.[62] for which imdb came up with nothing so I reverted. They then come back a few minutes later and adds a 2013 movie instead.[63] This is when a red flag goes up, and again, no relevant google hits, so go to revert and warn them. I notice the previous ban and that they have racked up several hundred edits in the last few days (over 400 if I'm counting correctly.) A quick spot checking of their contribs show suspicious WP:CRYSTAL type material which is why I filed the above report.

Looking through their contribs from the top, a lot seem to have been reverted by now. [64] reverted[65] as "unreferenced-may be subtle vandalism" and [66] reverted as vandalism[67] and [68] reverted as unreferenced[69] and [70] reverted as vandalism.[71] These are just the last few edits that happened after I left the final warning. If needed I can dig further into their contribs.

In the history of Warner Bros. Television Distribution[72] I see earlier reverted edits from nearby IP 24.99.97.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which looks like it could be the same editor. That IP was banned for a month on the 14th for similar hoaxing behavior, look at User talk:24.99.97.181. Siawase (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Caught a lot of stuff about a fake 2001: A Space Odyssey sequel from this IP this afternoon - gave it away by claiming it was a co-production from several major movie studios, which is extremely unlikely... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the IP one month, on the assumption that it's the same person as the nearby 24.99.97.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was previously blocked for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please protect User talk:Kgrave?

Resolved

 – Taken care of by Materialscientist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Kgrave (talk · contribs) is making unproductive edits to their Talk page. Could somebody please protect it? Corvus cornix_talk 03:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the Talk page's edit history says that it's been protected. Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the blocklog again, it says "cannot edit own talkpage". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 03:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Kgrave (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• KelseyAlexandro (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moomanly (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Todaypitch2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Suchtruth2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Leftshook (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Some IPs are now hardblocked. This person has an infatuation with Nazis, Jews, and everyone's favorite white supremacist David Duke.

Also, if nobody objects, I am going to outright delete Kgrave's talk page (as opposed to RevDeleting the offensive edits as there would be nothing really left after a bunch of RevDeletions). –MuZemike 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea; I saw the myriad abuse of the unblock template, and it definitely seems RD3able. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed, after blocking Donpcnvv (talk · contribs), who attacked again:

• Donpcnvv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Likepanel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Armedtime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Courtmaybe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lastunits (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tendstruth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Planhabit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sêmîazâz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JarlaxleArtemis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This is JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) again. –MuZemike 05:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the talk page didn't work; an IP just came back and re-opened it. Can you salt user pages? Or just fully protect it? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we semiprotect ANI for awhile? It's getting hit pretty hard right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've filed the request already.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User making threats

Can someone please take a look at User_talk:Francis_E_Williams/Archive_3#Edit_warring_and_vandalism?. This user is making direct threats against me and exhibiting the worst example of WP:OWN that I have seen in a long time. An independent 3rd party may see things differently. I don't want to get dragged down to his level, but agressive responses like this to perfectly civil questions are out of order. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've informed Francis_E_Williams (talk · contribs) of this discussion.

This does seem to be a WP:ABF and WP:OWN issue. FEW, creation of an article on Wikipedia does not give you the final say on what goes in and what is kept out. Per the notice shown when editing, If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Although some editors are vandals, the vast majority of editors do edit with the intent of improvement. Please assume good faith if an editor works on an article you have created. If there are any issues, raise them either with the editor in question, or on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis is also disrupting the Talk page at Radio with random thoughts and musings, such as this which seems to be a diary or editorial, these confusing headers e.g. "Plea" and "Adjudication", and bizarre "lists" that contain strange remarks like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the above well meaning comments. The Transport in Somerset article has been the subject of WP:PROTECT on my part. I am conversent with WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:AGF, this has not been reciprocated on multiple occasions. (See the current article revision and the talk page.) In mitigation of my contributions and perceived "threats" as commented above. Nobody has taken the trouble to "research" this situation. I have been the subject of attention by some individuals who perceive my broad knowlegde base, and my willingness to improve Wikipedia, using that knowledge, as a threat to their own contributions. I have made many mistakes in assuming a similar level of knowledge among other contributers. I cannot forget 51 years of accumulated professional knowledge, nor can I revert to being an unqualified individual. My record is plain to see, as is my name.

With regard to Radio, I have attempted to clarify and add factual information to a paragraph which concerns a subject that I have trained in for 51 years. I have been examined and certified as a full license holder in my country. I have many commercial practical and training experiences in many subjects. Every edit attempt was reverted. Check out the hoistory. The talk oage was disrupted by LuckyLouie (talk), it may have been done with good intention, but it resulted in this:-[73] which resulted in a bot signing all my now disjointed contributions. I have since corrected these errors and have re-assembled the page back to its chronlogical order, see here:-[74].

There is a situation of WP:OWN with LuckyLouie (talk) and other contributors. Their perception that anything non ameraican is not acceptable under any circumstances for inclusion. This "judgement" for "suitability" section was added to highlight the "absurdity" of "interrogating" every contributor on the talk page before new edits are allowed. The "drop off point" was added to allow "owners" of the article opportunity to confirm "validity" and "suitability" for inclusion. I had already made it clear at the outset that no harm was intended by my contributions. See here:-[75].

The act of constant reversions was observed by another "editor" and he included a new sub-section entitled "globalise", see here:-[76]. He also tagged the article page accordingly. I still find the behaviour of the article "owners" inappropriate, and added clarification (using my "wacky" British humour) to enlighten the "owners" of the article that there are more english speaking countries out there who would also like to contribute.See here:-[77]. Since this "debacle" started there have now been further "revesions" to other contributors "edits". Can somebody monitor this situation more closly pleasee? It is becoming really annoying.

The act of contributing to Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience for all, it should not be subjected to "playground" mentality, nor should users try to highlight their differnces in discussuions such as this. I realise, that as in all difference of opinion, polarisation occurs, territorial rights are felt to be threatened. It is a human charteristic to protect and defend your own. If you wish to use me as a "scapegoat", to show others with intelligence that they are not welocome, it will be Wikipedias loss. The quality will suffer, the view that prevails that it caanot be used for serious research will continue. Ten years of very hard work by Jimmy Wales and those who support his ideas are continualy being wasted by "debacles" such as this. I have an opinon, I respect yours, and your knowledge. It`s about time somebody understood that my contributions are both meaningfull and factual, if at times a bit protracted. Another chapter is over. Thank you for your patience. Francis E Williams (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Beginning your Talk page posts with accusations that other editors are "a police force" and "a group of censors" and ending your posts with ultimatums such as, "The whole world is watching what you do. End of lesson one" isn't humorous in the least, and I think most will agree it's very rude and aggressive. Implying that your edits should be accepted without discussion when editors question them, e.g. "I`m trying not to take this seemingly un-neccesary process seriously" makes me wonder if your disruption of the Talk page is intentional. In any case, I feel this kind of behavior needs to be modified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In response, how else would you describe the actions that took place?. It was a declaration of perceived fact. The whole world is also watching this "scenario" unfold right now, fact. It may be observed that my "wry" comment was followed by one of these, :) a smily face, was intended to assure readers that I was not "teaching granny how to suck eggs", and that I was not try to be a "teacher". Sounds to me that "lighten up" should be advised. You are obviously not conversant with our wierd sense of humour in Britain, nor is the person who is currently removing all trace of "inapproriate humour" on talk pages. I think it`s time to step back, take a review of what has ben said. I notice that humour exists in other U.S. pages, but not on radio. I am being "supervised" by this same user now "user:SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)" from Radio pages, to articles I have contributed to. This will only result in more disruption. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but what did you mean by these edits (and in particular, the edit summaries)? [78], [79]

• Do you really think User:SarekOfVulcan's edit (that you reverted in the first diff) was vandalism? Your edit summary says you reverted it as such.
• Your second edit summary says "(this may be considered light hearted): p), but the addition to the Talk page is not useful, particularly in that light. Article talk pages are for improving the article, not for use as a forum for general discussion nor for kidding about. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have top keep stopping editing one page to attend to yet another request, from another user. I have been typing non- stop now to answer all these questions for about 9 hours, so you will excuse me for a while while I have some food with my wife. I will look again at you comment in more detail tommorow. I can only assume that the practise of removing both my contributions and my comments on talk pages is what you refer to. Having now had 95% of my contributions removed on Radio. I can see that others do share humour with each other (kidding a bout) on some talk pages. I am not here to promote myself, I have no need for such vanity. This page is doing a better job that I ever could. I am a private person really, I've never been listed in the phone book, I don't advertise. Heaven forbid I should ever have to suffer the indignity of being written about. I am becoming even more dismayed at the process I am having to endure. I can assure you all that this is not something you should be doing to someone who suffers with Macular degeneration. Perhaps you might take yet another look at the Radio talk page. Francis E Williams (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis, don't get discouraged! I'm sure you've got a lot of useful stuff to contribute to Wikipedia. We've all been there - had our edits mangled by other editors who think they know better. Hopefully there are things to learn from this episode - and there are some things which will provoke a reaction and are best avoided. --Mhockey (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to see in all of this that Williams is not apologising for making threats, instead he is just trying to defend the indefensible. I find such behaviour very sad as it brings the rest of Wikipedia into disrerpute. If you get it wrong you should be man enough to apologise and then move on. Writing " If you want to initate an "edit war" with me, I have plenty of time on my hands at the moment, I`ll try my best keep you busy for a very long time." is both threatening and distruptive. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I have made a good case, you initiated all this, but are not willing to assume any responsibility. Your reverse psycology about "disrepute" won`t work either. I will not stoop to you level by posting warnings to others here, it is now no longer neccessary. Posting my private comment to you has already achieved that. It`s the action of a desperate man trying to exonerate himself from responsibilty. Please explain our "history" in previous editing encounters. Please explain the contraversy caused by your actions with others so we all may understand what is driving the complaint forward. That may remove the bias that this discussion is currently suffering from. let the evidence speak for itself. I have , can, and will continually suffer from edits to my contributions. In two years I have encountered many. I am not taking any of this to heart, its a neccesary process. Can we now hear from the users who assisted Louie in the multiple reversions on [Radio]]? It`s only cyberspace after all, I have lived 61 years without Wikipedia, but I refuse to be bullied by Bob or anyone else into giving up my useful and informatice contributions. Let's get to the point and decide who will not apologise shall we? Francis E Williams (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and good morning, I didn't have time last night to thank Mhockey (talk) and JoeSperrazza (talk) for their information, encouragement, and understanding. To simplify this procedure for all concerned, and to enable those who have commented about his discussion on my talk page I add this "two way" link for all to use [80], it has content which should have been more appropriatly placed here. I will not add it in its entirity in this edit.. Francis E Williams (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this minor's userpage?

Resolved

 – done by Alison. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Storiatedscimitar (talk · contribs) - no talk page, user page very detailed with name, email address, birthdate (in 1997), says has been on Wikipedia over two years although contribution history for this account starts this month, and on their user page the 'click here to leave a message' goes to a new section at User talk:Qyd. I am off to be so could someone notify them as appropriate? ThanksDougweller (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I either smell a troll or someone looking to win a bet for a Qyd. (I know, bad joke) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for oversight is right around the corner; posting here is not always the best idea (although I have RevDel'd). Email sent to OS. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just too tired to think straight. Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the user boxes are pretty nasty/soapboxy too. Just sayin --Errant ^(chat!) 08:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some humour in a userbox saying "This user dislikes narrow-minded behaviour" right alongside others that say "This user is highly against casinos and any other form of gambling" and that the user supports the state of Israel being destroyed by a "combined Muslim offensive" ? Actually I think I'll boldly edit out that last statement, it isn't appropriate for a userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:SeekerAfterTruth

I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look at this edit to my talk page - [81]. Out of nowhere, User:SeekerAfterTruth has accused me of being sectarian and bigoted. I find these insults deeply offensive, and a clear personal attack. SeekerAfterTruth is a single-issue editor, whose agenda seems to be limited to removing reliably-sourced material about sectarian aspects of Rangers Football Club. I fail to see what he is contributing to the encyclopedia, besides conflict. --hippo43 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Notified user. --hippo43 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have warned SeekerAfterTruth to tone it done. Haven't found anything in Hippo's edits requiring any action. I note there is some kind of longer term thing between them going on. Also, both stopped editing in July 2010 and both reappeared on January 24/5 2011. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a history of disagreement between us on this issue. I had mostly stopped editing, but have reuglarly been checking my talk page for updates, so saw his latest attack today. --hippo43 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

SeekerAfterTruth continued the personal attacks even after warning and has been given a 24 hour block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've engaged him on his talkpage, and I think he's at least somewhat calmed down. I think he needs a calm dialogue; I've got to go in just a second, but it'd be great if someone picks up the discussion where I left off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Images of children

Do the images of children at NYChildren require releases? Corvus cornix_talk 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of these images are missing proper permissions. I have tagged them for deletion db-f4 --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That whole page should be deleted and reworked from scratch; it's blatant spam, and there's a pretty obvious username issue with the creator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Page was just deleted by User:Kinu. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation / Primary Topic brick wall

We have hit a brick wall on a disambiguation / primarytopic discussion, where different WP editing guidelines are clashing creating an illogical situation. In summary, there appears to be no logical process by which editors arguing for a new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can ever reach the fair middle ground of WP:D intended to solve such debates, because editors supporting the WP:STATUSQUO WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will always ensure no consensus.

To set out the specifics of our situation:

• Palestine (region) is currently directed straight to Palestine, and has been since the first ever iteration of the page
• A large group of editors believe that State of Palestine should be directed straight to Palestine, as over the last few years the State has become much more widely recognised
• A discussion was held here and the editors supporting Palestine (region) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ensured no consensus
• Disambiguation was proposed a fair middle groud here in light of the guidelines at WP:D
• The editors supporting Palestine (region) unsurprisingly continued to hold their ground, and so again no consensus was reached
• Absurdly, the main opposing argument used was based on WP traffic statistics - this is of course a clear logical fallacy, as the existing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will by definition always have an unfair advantage
• WP:D is intended to "[resolve] the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers", but it can only achieve this if conflicting arguments can actually conclude with disambiguation
• Unfortunately, WP:STATUSQUO / no consensus clashes head on with the ideals of WP:D, as WP:D can never be reached to "[resolve] the conflicts that arise", because if there is a conflict there will always be at least one editor supporting the WP:STATUSQUO WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Can anyone advise on the right next steps here - we seem to have hit up against a brick wall? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm responsible for this thread ending up here. Onceawhile was asking the closing admin how to challenge his close here and I said the only place it could be done was here (although I also advised them that I thought it was a good close). If they did anything, I was expecting them to come here and ask for a review of the RM closure (which is a AN/I issue) not ask a more general question like the above (which isn't really a AN/I issue) which should probably be dealt with by following the dispure resolution process. Dpmuk (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Current edit War at "Simon McKeon"

Today Simon McKeon, "prominent investment banker and world record breaking yachtsman" was declared Australian of the Year for 2011. This has set off an edit war bringing in Climate change denial etc. 15+ reverts(minimum!) since 12:00, 25 January 2011. #RR warnings have been issued to IP editors involved, but edit warring continues. FYI admins! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a while. –Moondyne 13:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moondyne, one of the edit 'warriors' is on a 12 hour wiki-block too. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, and refusing to discuss properly

Ashwinikalantri has made some controversial obsolete edits to the 2011 Cricket World Cup article, he insists on keeping the controversial edits, instead of the previously non-controversial version, until a consensus has been made. I have tried to discuss this issue with him yet he is being childish and is stalling with threats of blockings, repeating the things I say to him back to me, and acting like he is an admin or that he owns the page. He keeps giving the same argument "that each World cup page needs to be consistent" however they are all out of date. Could someone please tell this user to leave it the way it was and to stop reverting and discuss to come to a consensus. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All that I am doing is trying to keep the cricket world cup articles in their original form. Blackknight12 here is trying to change all the world cup article since 1975 and removing the ODI template and adding a plain list. He refuses to discuss the issue and wait for a resolution. I have very politely asked him to discuss what he feels here. Here we can also have other people give their opinion before Blackknight12 disrupts all the World Cup articles. How can a World Cup page be out dated? It is a sporting event. It has to remain static. My multiple warnings and polite requests to discuss and then change have been ignored. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked the here link above so it will jump to the section (at least on some browsers we need the real page title not an alias). --Mirokado (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Block needed

Resolved

 – Uncommunicative IP has been blocked for a year for continued disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 74.68.26.91 is being used solely to add unsourced genealogical information into BLP articles. They continue to do this despite multiple requests to state their sources, a final warning on January 16, and five previous blocks. I would ask the previous blocking admin to help, however they are now retired, so could another admin kindly reblock the address to stop the continued disruption? Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

IP has been notified. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Blocked one year, since the last block was for six months, and the editor is continuing in the same pattern without ever joining in a discussion of his edits. Continues to add random-looking birth and death dates to our articles without ever explaining how they got them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sert033

Stale

Resolved

 –
(X! · talk)  · @967  ·  22:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User of it:wikipedia where s/he was indefinitely blocked for trolling. S/he has only three edits here of, one is in namespace 0 and is a vandalism. --Noieraieri (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't notify the user of the discussion, secondly of the three edits I can see - none of them are vandalism. I don't see an issue with this editor remaining here as long as they abide by our policies. Dusti^*poke* 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that last edit is vandalism[82]. In the hatnote he's calling Naples, Italy "Garbage City". Although Manshiyat naser is nicknamed that, Naples is not to my knowledge.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

However it's a very stale diff. Not sure action is called for unless they start up editing again.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cube is quite correct, the user has done several Naples-hate edits in the Italian edition too. I do not think it is necessary to block him or anything, but as I'm not following the English edition regularly I'm unlikely to spot eventual future vandalism. That's why I'm taking this case to your attention. --Noieraieri (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Afraid it won't help much. Unless he's actively vandalizing, no one will likely remember this post when he does start vandalizing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

S/he's not made an edit for nearly three weeks and this certainly isn't an issue that requires admin intervention at this time. GiantSnowman 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Milkin family reputation enhancement project

Resolved

 – Moved to a more appropriate venue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A sizable effort has been underway for some time to polish the reputation of Michael Milkin (billionaire and major financial crook of the 1980s) and some of his relatives.

Articles:

• Michael Milkin
• Lowell Milken
• Milken Family Foundation

Users: (all WP:SPA accounts which edit only Milkin-related articles.)

• Paragonzen (talk · contribs)
• SwimDude (talk · contribs)
• Skeen4772 (talk · contribs)
• 12.44.44.11 (talk · contribs) (RDNS to "execproinc.com", Milkin's private data center [83])
• Shsueh (talk · contribs) (Uploads flattering photographs of Milkins receiving awards, etc.)
• MrFactChecker (talk · contribs)

The articles are incredibly flattering, and read like press releases. Except for the parts about the criminal convictions, being kicked out of the securities industry, etc., which the flattery operation tries to minimize or remove. I've had some minor edit warring issues with some of the above, but didn't put the whole picture together until today. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an important issue to raise, but the matter should be brought to WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN instead of here. --Jayron32 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether this belongs here, at WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:SPI. It has aspects of all of the above. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Milken family reputation enhancement project. --John Nagle (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The National Archives

Resolved

 – page moved and protected from further moves. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the page The National Archives (currently a redirect) so that The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government) can be moved back there, in accordance with the result of the discussion at Talk:The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government)#Flurry_of_undiscussed_name_changes. TIA. --Harumphy (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You should tag it with {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to do it, but I don't have time to do it right this minute so will leave it for another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though I am not an administrator, I tagged it for speedy deletion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One wonders if selecting a single government's national archive as "The National Archives" is appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, that is why I got cold feet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue was discussed and resolved on the talk page for the article in question. Besides, it had been the name for a long time without any bother.--Harumphy (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be covered by WP:CONLIMITED, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly - but either way it needs to be discussed at Talk:The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government)#Flurry_of_undiscussed_name_changes, not here, otherwise there will be two separate discussions going on.--Harumphy (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One small problem: where's the content? All I see are redirects pointing at one another, where did the actual article go? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Right here, I believe. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still at The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom_Government). --Harumphy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just figured that out. There's been so many moves it is a bit obscure. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was actually server lag, for a second there I couldn't find the content at either name, then it refreshed the page and it came back. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've now opened a requested move discussion on the talk page, due to my sharing several other people's concerns that the present organization of these pages is incorrect. Any comments are welcome. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium

Resolved:page semi-protected; no other issues for admins to deal with

IPs of Likebox (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for legal threats, have posted numerous times on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium, personally attacking the nominator and the commentators. Would an admin protect the MfD page and/or block the block-evading IPs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I do not think it is Likebox (talk · contribs). I think it is Archimedes Plutonium himself. At least one of the IP addresses he is using has been blocked. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the correction. I have stricken out Likebox from my comment. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the page should be protected, but since I have commented there I do not want to do it myself.--Bduke (Discussion) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC) It don't matter who it is. All that badgering needs to stop. Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Also, Likebox should be unblocked. There is no basis for his polically motivated block anymore. An additional problem that sufaces now and then is that the original basis for this whole advocacy nonsense is no longer properly understood which leads to all sorts of problems, like right now for me here. The fact that Likebox is bliocked actually contributes to this problem for me, because people who don't take the time to delve into the details reason like: "Likebox is blocked, so this was something very serious", when in fact it was nothing serious at all, other than ArbCom's credibility. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I agree with Bduke that those IP's are almost certainly not Likebox (not his style). It's plausible that they are Archimedes Plutonium. Anyway, semi-protecting the MFD seems reasonable. Re Likebox: IMHO as a mathematics editor who is glad Likebox is gone, I'm fine with the idea of giving due consideration to an unblock request from him, but he certainly shouldn't be unblocked if he doesn't himself ask to be unblocked. Also: I don't know how good Likebox was at physics, but if he is ever unblocked, I think he should be topic-banned from mathematical logic. Count Iblis really does not appreciate what a terrible and disruptive editor Likebox was in that subject. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC) He was pushing his proof of Godel and that "pushing" was dealt with with a restriction and also a voluntary 1RR restriction. So, his behavior had already changed long before he was blocked for not being able to accept the terms of that stupid advocacy restriction which by now is completely irrelevant. Then, just like we don't (and shouldn't) topic ban global warming sceptics from climate change articles (provided they behave themselves), Likebox should not be topic banned from anything, provided he behaves himself and stays within the restriction that already exist. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Likebox needs to request unblock himself, with a promise to a) stop breaking the Arbcom restriction, b) edit constructively to improve the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Ok., but a) is moot and b) is self evident. He has never edited non-constructively except for not accepting the by now moot ArbCom restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Well if it's 'moot' then they should have no problems promising it. Ultimately of course this whole discussion is moot until and unless Lightbox requests an unblock but from their statements last year, this seemed rather unlikely at the time. P.S. I wouldn't exactly consider [84] [85] constructive... And this wasn't just not accepting something but going to another extreme altogether. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sure that 50% of all regular editors here would have behaved like the two diffs show (i.e. behaved in a way that, taken out of context, looks outrageous). If an editor is restricted by ArbCom without a hearing, i.e. by motion only, and that restriction is completely unjustified but you were not allowed to put your case forward and any appeal would be in violation of the restriction, then typically that editor would leave Wikipedia. Likebox left and in the process he slammed the door shut. That's a 100% normal human reaction. We are deluding ourselves that you can gravely insult productive editors and then expect that such editors will always stay very polite. Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I don't recall the exact details, but Likebox had ample warning that his advocacy for Brews was being very disruptive. He chose to ignore all those warnings. Eventually, Arbcom was forced to make a formal restriction. Then Likebox decided to violate the restriction, thus getting himself blocked. The point is: Likebox decided to start a disruptive crusade for perceived injustices against Brews, and all the later problems were caused by said crusade. It's up to him to stop his disruptive behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Let's not forget Likebox's other gems of wisdom such as "Abrasive opinionated assholes are the only good content contributors. Only these people have something nontrivial to say."[86] and "I do not intend to cite a SINGLE SOURCE for this statement, because it is too obvious to cite. I will unilaterally assert it, again and again, until somebody fixes the problem."[87], both from well before the Brews advocacy restriction. I am glad Likebox has lost interest in editing here. Should he seek to return, I hope it will reflect a rather drastic change in his attitude on many fronts. That there was not the full bureaucratic machinery of a formal arb case for that restriction is irrelevant. Likebox certainly had a hearing with ample opportunity to comment, and he did so. There were simply not any facts in dispute, thus no need for a separate factfinding phase. Likebox of course could have presented any diffs he wanted in his comments anyway (I don't remember if he gave any). 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Likebox, just like many other editors here was a bit abbrasive when provoked. Thing is that few editors are ever provoked in the way Likebox was. So, it is easy to pretend that we are not like him. I'll admit that Likebox was sometimes to blame himself for trouble. However, note that I was also restricted with ArbCom and I know exactly what I did: Nothing whatsoever to have to be restricted. The provocation I'm taling about was that Likebox edits were questioned in an inappropriate way. E.g. when Likebox restored the text on infraparticle that led to a stupid dispute about sourcing, which escalated with Likebox being blocked for many months because someone thought that he was adding false sources. That was not true at all, and the block was reversed (also the current text is Likebox's version). Then this clearly points to a bad climate, in which an expert in quantum field theory like Likebox is not understood to be an expert despite having a long editing history here (I know enough of qft and have interacted enough with Likebox to know that he knows a lot more about this subject than I do) . It is then quite obvious that Likebox will not think highly of Wikipedia, to him it looks like Wikipedia is run by opiniated amateurs who use their authority to get their way over the objections of real experts. This in contrast to the case of mathematical logic where Likebox was the amateur who should have had more respect for the regulars at Wiki project math. Count Iblis (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I disagree that there was disruptive advocacy coming from Likebox or me. The reason we were restricted had nothing to do with disruption at all, it was all just powerplay were some regular editors had to have their way and inconvenient arguments by us had to be shut down. Likebox started an appeal against Brews topic ban on the grounds that while Brews was wrong about one issue on the speed of light and he had dominated discussions there in an inappropriate way, his record in other areas of physics were good. That appeal was rejected, and it was the way it was rejected that was just horrible. None of the arguments were taken serious while vague accusations were taken serious. Likebox went into the appeal case thinking that Wikipedia has a respectable Arbitration system were disputes can be settled on the basis of rational arguments, he came out of it with the opposite point of view. And that point of view is sadly the correct one, I have to say. He then tried to figure out how it can be that some editors are trusted on their words, while hard evidence by others is not even looked at. In that process he become more and more negative about Wikipedia, and he was behaving in provocative ways. So, yes, he did cause some problems here, but putting everything in the proper context, it was mostly about nothing. I really think we should take serious the idea that what happened here was not an ideal functioning of the processes here at Wikipedia. That Likebox also made mistakes should not be used to deny that there are problems here to be addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC) You're attempting to assert WP:CABAL. That's not going to help your cause. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) At the time, I thought that the problems related to Brews was just an anomaly (ArbCom just misjudged that case and following through on that misjudgment lead to more misjudgements). However, after the Climate Change case, I have changed my opinion and I now think that there is a systematic problem with the ArbCom system. In that case two of the only three climate scientists on Wikipedia got topic banned. The one scientist who did not get topic banned had some not so positive comments and facts to report , see here and here and here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC) What's your point, and what does it have to do with ANI? In other words, are you requesting admin intervention somehow? If not, this isn't the place for this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I think the ANI issue here is wound down. I'll put a further response about Likebox and Arbcom on Count Iblis's talk page. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaxdave

NOTE: At the suggestion of User: Drmies, this thread (dealing with User: Jaxdave's conduct) was moved here. It was initially posted at the geopolitical/ethnic/religious conflicts noticeboard, where it attracted little attention. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Original thread

User: Jaxdave is an apparent WP: SPA (or even, arguably, a WP: VOA) who seems to have a major axe to grind against black pastors. His edits generally come in "spurts" about a week to a month apart, the most recent one being January 9 (in which he removed a vandalism warning from his talk page: [88]). Prior to this, on January 2, he rather blatantly vandalized Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King III. See [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. He doesn't seem to have made any constructive contributions to date, so WP: VOA would almost certainly apply. Apart from vandalizing articles, the only other edits he's made appear to be talk page soapboxing such as these: [95][96] (in which he describes in detail his opinion of the aforementioned pastors, including inexplicably blaming them for Jim Crow) [97] [98] [99]. Further back in time is this disturbing little screed on his talk page about "ragheads" and Israel (which was later removed by another editor): [100]. Because of all this, and the fact that he doesn't respect BLP, I think Wikipedia would be better off without him. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified him of this discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Jaxdave hasn't responded in all this time, and in case I didn't make myself clear earlier: I think Jaxdave should be blocked. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a block, but I'm hesitant about doing it myself at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If the person did all these things on the same day, they would have been indef-blocked immediately. I support a block.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

See Talk:Creativity Alliance#Formation - we've seen an account and an IP at least today blocked as socks, and while following this up I noted what might be considered a legal threat (I consider it such) at the bottom of this discussion. There's also been quite a bit of promotion by various accounts of this fringe racist movement. Again I'm off to be but I'll notify the editor of this discussion first. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is, but check and see if his gripes are valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The gripes seem to be internal factional disputes between various sub-splinter-groups of some racist pseudo-religious fringe formation, members of which have been creating a walled garden of articles about their "movement". Just block and ban any and all editors who edit these and are recognisably associated with their ideology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've indefed the two ringleaders, KarlKraft (talk · contribs) and Thoughtcrime69er (talk · contribs). This was going on for a long while, with multiple mutual BLP violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And KarlKraft was a puppet master. This walled garden is a problem. I've been putting the articles on my watch list but some should be merged. They are mainly being used for promotion. Yesterday saw a spate of adding links to other articles by a sock of KarlKraft. More eyes on them would be really useful. Thanks for the help. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned user User:TopoChecker and requested moves

This user has created several different requested moves recently but has now been blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. There is a discussion here about what to do with the requested move. I advocate keeping it open given the number of supports it's got as closing it for process sake seems pointless (I'd immediately start another as I support the move) while two other editors are advocating closing it (coincidently both oppose the move). Could a neutral admin take a look and do what ever they feel is necessary. Other RMs by the same editor are:

1. Talk:Baja California peninsula#Requested move Closed
2. Talk:Nawanagar#Requested move Closed
3. Talk:Bhopal (state)#Requested move
4. Talk:Athgarh#Requested move Closed
5. Talk:Kottayam (Malabar)#Requested move Closed
6. Talk:Jaoli principality#Requested move Closed
7. Talk:Bastar state#Requested move Closed
8. Talk:Pudukkottai state#Requested move Closed
9. Talk:Punjab Hill States agency#Requested move
10. Talk:Kahlur fort#Requested move
11. Talk:Colony of Virginia#Requested_move Closed
12. Talk:Superior (proposed U.S. state)#Requested move Closed
13. Talk:Fürstenberg_(state)#Requested_move
14. Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

Personally I'd advocate closing any that have only had opposes and removing entirely any that haven't had any other comments but I feel too involved now to act. Dpmuk (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the ones I struck above. The Bhopal move has only support comments, so I left it alone, and I don't have time to do the others at this moment. --RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In the discussions that remain open, I suggest striking through any comments by TopoChecker as coming from a banned user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've done that now. Leaving the comments in place preserves the sense and continuity of any discussion, but the strikethrough alerts a closer who might be unaware of this thread that the comments should be given no weight in the closng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, the actual discussion about what to do with the requested move is here. At the moment the discussion has 9 supports and 9 opposes (we obviously shouldn't accept the nomination by a banned user as a valid support) so closing it isn't really the problem that Dpmuk thinks it is. The discussion is really going nowhere, especially as the discussions between the nominator and I have now ended. As I pointed out, edits by banned users in defiance of a ban can be reverted by anyone and pages created by a banned user qualify for speedy deletion so surely that applies to closing discussions created by banned users. By continuing with the discussion we're effectively endorsing edits made by an editor in defiance of a ban and because the editor was banned, the original nomination should never have been made. If the outcome of the discussion is move, those who support the move have helped the banned user achieve what he set out to do, effectively becoming his meatpuppets. This is not something we should be encouraging. We should be providing the banned editor with a clear message that he is not going to be allowed to edit in defiance of a ban, directly or by proxy, even unwitting proxies. There's nothing stopping a new discussion, as another editor has suggested, but we shouldn't give credibility to the present one. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I had linked to that discussion above although it appears to have possibly been missed by some people. These discussion are not a vote and an admin may decide there is a consensus even with an equal number of votes like this (I have reasons for thinking the consensus could be to move but I could be seen as biased so I won't give them). If an admin wants to close it as "no consensus" because it's been listed a week and they really don't think there is a consensus then that's fine. I would object to closing on the grounds "started by banned user" or similar as that would ignore the rest of the useful conversation. By allowing the conversation to stay open we don't alienate users that have commented (by ignoring their comment) and don't make users repeat themselves in a new move discussion. All we do by closing it is waste the existing conversation on the grounds it may discourage this proflic ban-evader - which I guarantee it won't given the number of socks over the years. I also think the meatpuppets argument is assuming bad faith - I would hope every editor that commented made up their own mind based on their own assessment. Dpmuk (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The link you provided was to the move discussion, not the actual discussion about what to do. That might be why people missed it. I've probably made more comments than anyone except the nominator and I wouldn't feel alienated if the discussion was closed. While I'm sure people have made up their own minds, achieving the aims of a banned editor is effectively meatpuppetry, even if it's unintentional, which is probably what the sock was aiming for. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right - my bad I thought I'd linked to the right discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of these were closed by User:KoshVorlon, who I assume wasn't aware of this discussion so I reverted as there appears to be a rough consensus here not to close them if there were support votes. One of the re-open was done by User:Ucucha with the edit summary "Other users also support; no need for bureaucracy" which appears to support the emerging consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, per WP:BAN, all move proposals, good or bad, made by a banned editor should be closed as not moved. If an editor feels that there is consensus for a move, they should open a new proposal. I suggest closing all these proposals (I closed one before I realized that this was under discussion here). --rgpk (comment) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially given who this is (there was an ANI thread in October involving Tobias Conradi, for context) we should really shut them all down and wait for another user to make a request if they desire. As TigreTiger, Tobias Conradi created a gigantic mess with these types of moves, and I'd really rather not go through that again. And as an aside, if you see a new user with initials TC moving pages or requesting moves like that, it's an obvious sock and should be blocked and reverted on sight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's simply process for the sake of process. A good idea is a good idea no matter who it came from and there is common precedent for letting them run, it happens frequently. Which brings us to the cite of WP:BAN, of which I'll just leave it to the standard warnings about policy: It's descriptive of common practice, not proscriptive of what we do, and it can and does lag behind the community practice at times. -- ۩ Mask 17:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree with you; however, take a look at the move logs for User:Schwyz and User:TigreTiger, both of whom were Tobias Conradi socks. It takes a lot of time to clean up after, and the latter of the two socks was so bad that someone had to invent a Twinkle script to clean up after it. The last thing we need is to encourage this; I hear what you're saying, but there's a reason why this user was banned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But if Tobias's aim is to cause disruption surely there's more of that caused by re-opening an identical move request and making every one comment again. Also, especially in the case of a couple of these moves, we'd be inconvenience other editors by making them re-nominate and !vote again. Although I'd normally agree with undoing a banned editors edits in this case I don't because of the inconvenience it would cause many good-faith editors. Certainly on the two most commented on discussion I would immediately start them again if consensus does turn out to be to close the current ones. Dpmuk (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) IMO, the Kahlur fort one shouldn't even require a move discussion; it should just be moved. I suppose it's not a big deal to keep those two open, given that they're already well into the process. But in the future, watch out for what I said above with new users initialed TC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I meant this as a general note; I just realized I didn't make that clear. Sorry Dpmuk. 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this user's MO! Think this one was the third SPI I've started on them. Dpmuk (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was aware of this discussion. It's what prompted me to close the moves. I see a few got re-opened, no problem. I actually belive that per WP:BAN all of those proposals should be closed because a banned user opened them.

I disagree with them being re-opened, but I won't revert it. KoshVorlon _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I can see the case for closing them even if it one I don't support and if consensus here was to close them I wouldn't be too upset. Part of the reason I reverted your closes was that from most (possibly all) you'd failed to removed the {{requested move/dated}} template so they needed editing anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I reverted the close of one discussion started by TopoChecker. I can see why RMs started by him that did not get any support would need to be closed, but the RM I re-opened had been supported by several users (including myself), and it seems more convenient to just let this one go on than to close it, forcing someone else to open another RM where everyone gets to say the same things already said in the current RM. Ucucha 00:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Anthony Appleyard has decided to close the "Chihuahua" rm with the reason "page not moved (closed (by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)) after its originater was banned)" despite the rough consensus here and without feeling it necessary to post here. I have asked them for an explanation on their talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)