Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615

Slovaks in Hungary

Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:BRD?

Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.

(As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.

An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."

In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.

Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".

Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.

Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."

The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.

The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.

The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.

Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't close it?

"The result was Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"

Then someone is impersonating you, and they have the sourgrapes bit perfect. Weakopedia (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy closed the AfD, not the DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, I won't object. I have no real opinion on the merit of the subject, only the content. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

174.140.102.231

Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.

You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([1]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If they do it again, I'd suggest (by which I mean: I will request) semi-protection. If that doesn't work we can try full protection. Hopefully, one or other of those approaches will drive the IP to discuss first. TFOWR^propaganda 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a little concerned about the article and WP:BLP. I've been googling for "Tungtex" and "Yellow river": Tungtex doesn't mention Mr. Mui at all, though he's supposed to be a co-founder. finance.google.com returns nothing relevant for "Yellow river". I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the accuracy of the article. TFOWR^propaganda 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I did find information about that here. I'm guessing that Peter Kan Mui is his full name, as there is also a redirect page here on WP. I'm not sure who are Investor Relations Asia Pacific, or if the information is reliable. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance?

A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWR^propaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.

Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Chance given, chance blown. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this briefly yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to comment. Ever since he's been allowed to his talk page, I haven't seen a slight indication of competence. He maintains that he will make constructive edits, but I have not seen him demonstrate that anywhere in his past accounts. As Mjroots mentioned above, the user is not using this opportunity wisely. I'll keep watch on the further development on his talk page, and if his attitude changes, I may reconsider. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he did that in his request to be unblockled, I think I'm more likely to find pirate gold buried in my garden. Troll account is trolling; wash your hands of him and continue. HalfShadow 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWR^propaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ^ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ^ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is now discussing on the article talk page, so hopefully this will all work out well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come into this discussion from out of the blue, and instead of taking it to talk as I advised him, he reverted and accused me of "edit warring". I advised him to come here and give his side of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit based on a consensus of the talk page. Baseball reverted. I looked to see what his previous edits were, and he seems to revert a lot of edits which were sourced. So I reverted and put a note on the talk page. I don't see how this rises to the need to be discussed here. And this certainly doesn't make me an "edit warrior".LedRush (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (Bugs, would you consider striking or renaming this section?) I reverted LedRush and we've been discussing over at the article's talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Struck part of comment. TFOWR^propaganda 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xeno^talk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

admin responsibility blocking and warning vandals

Resolved

 – Several helpful comments were added. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a few admins weigh in at the discussion at WT:VANDAL#.22Welcome_to_Wikipedia.....22? Someone wrote that they are uncomfortable with admins witnessing vandalism and directly blocking vandals. He or she expects instead a witnessing admin to make an entry at WP:AIV, presumably so another admin will issue the block. If that's true, I've completely misunderstood one of my admin responsibilities (and probably need corrective action). —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and NW state it well. Basically it's a case-by-case situation. When in doubt, be cautious. When certain, be bold. If it's clearly a sock, they don't need any more warnings, as their previous incarnation has already been warned in some way or another. Vandals inherently violate policy, so they have no grounds to be holding admins hostage by demanding a "reset" of their warnings-count. The admins' primary duty is to serve the best interests of wikipedia, not the best interests of a vandal or troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot going haywire.

Resolved

 – Bot operator notified, bot temporarily blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please block WildBot again if possible? It's currently making edits like this on Mariah Carey in which I highly doubt that it is constructive in any way. After the administrator Kww reverted its edit, WildBot came up with the same edit here too. Minimac (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just correcting links to other article section titles that have been vandalized. I'm betting if you undue the vandalism at the target page, WildBot will correct itself. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for WildBot to delay updating section links for half an hour or so, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea which would probably cut the occurrence of this type of mistake down drastically. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• And in this episode of 'Bots Gone Wild...Theeeeeee WildBot!: OH...YEAH...BABY. COME...GET...SOME...OF...THIS. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • HalfShadow is a technosexual - this explains so much. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why they call it a hard drive. HalfShadow 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Why am I having King Missile flashbacks? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot's operator has been notified of this thread. Personally, I would rather keep it unblocked unless it is leaving the vandalized versions up permanently. WP:BAG might be a better place to discuss putting in a time delay. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked and halted the bot before seeing this thread. It was a case of reflected vandalism. I undid the vandalism in the song article and reverted WildBot. It didn't recognize the change in the other article, and continued to edit-war at Mariah Carey to reinsert the vandalism from the other article.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cache refresh issue. Ah well, thanks Kww. I am marking this resolved unless there is anything further. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino block review

G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino), basic for chronic incivility and edit warring. Reviewing his edits since his return, I note edit warring with four editors on five articles, replete with edit summaries describing things as "idiotic" and "stupid". I've blocked him again due to his apparent utter lack of comprehension of the reason he was banned previously, pending an agreement to agree to a 0RR restriction. His edit summaries are a step up from a previous one, but that edit may be construed as "previous involvement", so I'm bringing my block here to be reviewed.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. If a one year arbitral ban wasn't enough to get the point across, nothing short of an indef block can help.  Sandstein  20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. (nb. I was asked for an opinion on this editor at my talkpage in relation of an unblock request they made in respect of an ip address they had previously used; I wondered if such an ip being blocked for over a year would mean it to be a proxy, but the discussion lapsed at that point). It appears they have waited out the year, and then resumed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why he is requesting unblock on his userpage as opposed to his user talk page? Or why he is treating his userpage like his user talk page? –MuZemike 05:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I propose that the ban be indefinitely reinstated. –MuZemike 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request on the user page that he is treating like a talk page is for a block that didn't actually exist. I'll deny that unblock with instructions to do any further unblocking requests on his talk page.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block indef, ban for one year. Let him ask nicely in a year's time and we'll assess whether he's grown up yet. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm about as rouge as they come, but the fact that G. M. Cupertino apparently respected his/her 1-year arbitration ban before coming back was itself a somewhat positive sign. While the new indef was probably inevitable I'd have preferred to see a little more engagement and/or a shorter block before it happened, to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent sock rampage if for no other reason. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• He socked during the ban:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban proposed by MuZemike (enacted by Kww). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by Hittit

User:Hittit has recently been canvassing to a wide number of editors to "participate" in an ADF, as well as a merge, discussion regarding the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922, which now has been merged. He has been very selective on who exactly to inform, presumably believing that they would be more sympathetic to vote his way rather than the opposition's. This is not the first time that he is doing this and not the first time that he was warned to stop. Just last month, he was politely warned by another editor on why canvassing was unacceptable and yet earlier this month, he started doing it again (see his comments on users' talk pages from May 2 onwards). This is now the third time that he is doing this and I feel some stern measure must be taken to discourage some activity. Please note that just last week, he was formally placed under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 restrictions and his actions are highly undesirable in light of the punishments that can be imposed for disruptive behavior. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no sign of disruptive behaviour, people have right to ask for an opinion and thus seek for balanced views. In what miraculous way MarshallBagramyan, Sardur, Aregakn, Davo88 end up editing the same articles like a government agency…something for you to think about Marshal before you go around fishing for admin warning on other editors...cheap shots. --Hittit (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Knock off the bad faith, will you? You only dig a deeper hole when you hurl insults at me and other users. You're not asking people to simply give their opinion - you're selectively choosing who to inform and obviously courting those editors who you think will be sympathetic to your views. You are well aware that that fits the definition of canvassing given the number of warnings that have been issued to you. This is an actionable offense and since you are a repeat offender, I am more than justified to seek intervention from the administrators.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep fishing, you have been topic banned last year it seems, for a reason...please consult WP:FOOTSHOT. Pointless for you to spam my talk page as well. What are you trying to achieve? --Hittit (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nationalist warriors, I recommend one stern warning then escalating blocks, applied without fear or favour. There are few things which have toxic potential greater than ethnic disputes, the lamer they are the more toxic they become. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. At least until things calm down (if they ever do), blocking for those reasons should be on a hair-trigger, and to all parties involved. I haven't done an actual count, but my impression is that at least a quarter of all activity on AN/I at any one time is connected to nationalist or ethnic warring. If that can be cut down on by some preventative (not punitive) blocking, that's a lot of time and energy that can be put to something more productive. I personally think that nationalist or ethnic warring is a lot more of a long-term danger to the project than unsourced BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• 'xcuse me, but have I missed anything? What is reported here are those. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I personally have no problem with canvassing, since if it's not on the open it will probably be backdoor. But replying Nationalist warriors is not very civil and this for a simple canvassing case. There are more conflict than acceptable, you don't need to poor fluel in the fire or presenting it worst than it actually is. A warning against Hittit who possibly did not know canvassing was not allowed will suffice, no need to come up with user bashing by calling them warriors. Ionidasz (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• My appologies, I didn't pay much attention to the report in full. He was already warned to not canvass. Then a restriction to not canvass is probably in order. Ionidasz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, a restriction is definitely warranted, but probably a block for the duration of the AfDs he's canvassed for to ensure there is no further disruption to them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I am really not intersted in having these type of discussions, however it seems some people have found a way to supress other editors by instigating Arbitration Enforcements, Notice Boards what have you...if it works for them, they will resort to it. --Hittit (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, before you deliberate you final decision, please keep in mind that I was seeking a balanced opinion to the proposed AfD. The fact that a third and uninvolved party has used similar arguments to propose the merge of this fork case shows my actions have been in line. Please also deliberate how was the result of the AfD a keeper and with whose votes. I am only trying to achieve a balance of opinion otherwise this becomes a show for “co-ordinated-voters”, there are also certain accounts that come to life when voting is on. I simply do not agree with this type of editing where the same people vote in groups on the same articles and often impose their views on the same articles. There must be a WP rule against this.

That's your idea of a balance of opinion. You deliberately went out and canvassed. If another user did the same that's for another discussion about their behaviour, but doesn't excuse yours.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Use of the word "suppression" to describe legitimate efforts to control behaviour identified by multiple others as problematic, is a red flag. It is not "suppression" to require you to play nice or spend time in the sin bin. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AIVhelperbots missing in action

Resolved

 – AIV Helperbots up and down like the proverbial yo-yo at the moment. Wouldn't worry too much, blocked reportees will eventually be removed manually or when the bot reawakens. Ironically, at busy times trying to clear them down manually can result in more problems with edit conflicts. – B.hotep •talk• 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Working through the backlog at WP:AIV, and I notice that the AIVHelperbots - HBC AIV helperbot7 (talk · contribs) and HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs) - haven't edited in over 30 minute. While this isn't unusual if things are slow, several entries at AIV have been blocked, but not removed. No additional bot-added entries have been posted, either. Since it's multiple bots, and since Wildbot seems to be flipping out as well, do we perhaps have a toolserver issue? Some eyes are requested, both at AIV and on the bot situation. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot 7 is back online and handling business - thanks to everyone who helped keep things moving during the 100 or so minutes of downtime. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Account appears to be used for storing code

Resolved

 – Seems to be dealt with. I suppose it's inevitable that some people will try to use Wikipedia as a portable hard drive. You never know, there may be a user page out there with the mathematical formula for time travel... – B.hotep •talk• 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy live1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's only contribs were to place a mass of some kind of programming code on their userpage. Following that, various IPs, who I'm assuming are the same user only logged out, have been updating the code. I recently blanked the page and an IP restored it. I would leave warnings, but as the user doesn't seem to log in anymore, and their IP changes with each edit, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'd delete the page and indef the user; they can always post an unblock request if they really want to edit. Leaving it up to you guys. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe clear the page and fully protect it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 appears to have deleted and protected the userpage. I would've blocked too, since it seems clear the user isn't here to collaborate on the encyclopedia, rather than wait for more trouble. But, whatever. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not fully protect it and let admins make random changes when they have an idle moment? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That'd be an innovative approach. I like it :) Equazcion ^(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a devilish thing to do. Just be careful your change to the program doesn't trigger Global Thermonuclear War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

Resolved

 – no Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is what GeorgeNotaras (talk · contribs) said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyIDS about me incivil? From his phrasing, I can't tell if it or not and if it's worth a warning. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to let it pass. It's not particularly egregious, and he was obviously a bit emotional when he wrote the thing. I think leaving a warning would most likely inflame matters further. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if an uninvolved party left one, but I see he's already been asked to calm down and assume good faith, so I doubt there's anything to be gained. Better to focus on the issue at hand, I think. Shimeru (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the message that the other user left did well. Thanks for your advice. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if you're not certain whether someone was trying to insult you, you're better off not pushing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good rule of thumb, but I liked the way you phrased it the first time better. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I originally said "...knowing for sure" instead of "...pushing it" and I had almost typed "...pursuing it", but it's all the same idea - if you're not sure if you've been insulted, then why would you want to find out? What's the benefit? Why go out of the way to try and get upset about something, when there are plenty of other "opportunities" to get upset. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a classic case of a COI editor being defensive when his/her article is up for deletion. No personal attack, but definitely too close to the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's quite generous of you considering that he also said The user Toddst1 is absolutely clueless about how the internet works and I consider him dangerous for the Wikipedia community. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, questions like this are better raised at WP:WQA. It's unlikely someone will be blocked for saying something like that when even the reporter isn't sure it is a personal attack. Pcap ping 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet soup

I may or may not have the time or patience to sort this out. I only got involved due to participating in this category discussion:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons

I got involved in that due to similar efforts on the Commons to remove commons:Category:Less-lethal weapons. See diff. On the Commons the admins there are less tolerant of such POV games, and the category was replenished after a bot had moved everything out without discussion first.

I followed it all back to Talk:Non-lethal weapon where a few weeks ago a small group of users and sockpuppets outvoted others, and convinced an admin to follow the votes (in my opinion), and move Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons. I believe there are several sockpuppets involved.

Good luck trying to sort it out. It is way too easy on Wikipedia to create sockpuppets.

I went ahead and started this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Varlaam

Two editors have told this editor that using {{italictitle}} on the pagenames of articles about books, plays, etc. is against consensus, but he or she continues to do it, probably a couple of hundred of articles by now (and their own talk page). I've told them the same thing, and he or she has done two titles since then, though that may just be timing. Could someone take a look and have a word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor has now done 15 or 16 articles since I dropped my comment on his talk page, and is clearly ignoring three editors who have point out that the edits go against consensus. An attention-getting block would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention-getting block enacted; user may be unblocked by anyone if they acknowledge the problem. I'm going to work now, but will rollback his edits later if no-one's done it in the meantime. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started, don't know how far I'll get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've gotten almost all of them - I may have missed a few with intermediate edits, but not many. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate edit summary on the revert would have been useful - perhaps pointing to where the consensus against the practice could be found. I'll go back an revert my revert of your revert that I did. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's an option to provide an edit summary other then the default when using Rollback to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but it still would be useful to have an edit summary! (John User:Jwy talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Knight

The Catholic Knight (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly making huge reverts with no discussion. Could we have some admin attention on his contributions? It might be block time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Started it up again at Catholic Church. Three hour block to prevent disruption and edit warring as a first measure. Watch out for 93.172.31.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) from which he block-evaded last time. SGGH ^ping! 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just left a comment on your talk page, I was still reviewing this situation when you blocked. I don't think a three hour block is particularly likely to send the intended message. This user clearly refuses to discuss anything, as they have never edited an article talk page in the nine months they have been editing here, and have never responded to messages on their own talk page except to blank them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion by 93.172.121.164 (talk · contribs).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I answered there, it's not to dissuade him, it's to prevent disruption while we gather another admin's thoughts here. I could have just as well indef'd him and unblocked him if consensus dictated, but still. SGGH ^ping! 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I get you. We should be trying to dissuade him from continuing in this manner. Repeatedly reverting to one's preferred version of an article and utterly refusing to discuss anything are attitudes that are directly contrary to Wikipedia,s fundamental model of consensus based editing and decision making. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor on the Catholic Church page. The version that The Catholic Knight likes was presented at an RfC held from March 26 through April 9 on the article [16]; this version was overwhelmingly rejected. The Catholic Knight did not participate in the RfC. He has never participated on the article talk page. In the last three months, he's edited on 7 different days; on 4 of these days he has reverted this article to his preferred version. In the last three months he has made a total of 53 edits. 6 (11%) have been revisions of the Catholic Church article to his preferred version

• 11:31, 20 May 2010 [17]
• 11:21, 20 May 2010 [18]
• 20:25, 17 May 2010 [19]
• 12:49, 26 Mar 2010 [20]
• 09:51, 17 March 2010 as IP 93.172.31.21 [21]
• 09:15, 17 March 2010 [22]
• 08:48, 17 March 2010 [23]

I'm not sure how to get his attention - being blocked previously did not appear to work, and his editing pattern shows that he is generally only on Wikipedia towards the middle of the month, so he may not even notice/care about most short blocks. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial block expired in about ten minutes, and the time it has given other editors to post here has provided evidence illustrating the user's previous for wholesale changes against consensus (and RfC it seems). I have extended the block. SGGH ^ping! 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Emegt

Emegt (talk · contribs) has been adding the word bisexual (he started adding homosexual) as the first definition to the article Marcial Maciel.12345 He has been warned 3 times123. Several user has left several edit summaries.1234567. I also left 2 notes on his talk page: "I noticed that you still adding "Bisexual" to the lead of Marcial Maciel- Please stop, see WP:MOSBIO, also WP:LEAD, everything that is on the lead text have to be on the article, not only in the lead. Also, "bisexual" is not proper for the first definition of the subject. As I said please stop" and "You are not reading. Please stop or you will be reported", and one on the article note. His last edit summary this was for me like "OMG! I'M GIVING SEVERAL REASONS and you are not listening". I'm reporting him, he's not listen that are rules (WP:MOSBIO WP:LEAD) here. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that you and he need to talk about this on the article talk page; based on what the article says, there seem to be substantiated allegations of that conduct. Whether it belongs in the intro or not is probably best worked out cooperatively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem it's that he is not cooperating. He still adding it. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning. If necessary I'll block for edit warring. I agree with GWH that discussion would be preferable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do agree that them adding it repeatedly and not cooperating or talking about it is a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, was warned and if he re-add it again (high probably due he still adding it throughout the month) I'll ask him discussion on the talkpage, if he refuse, I'll be back. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be an SPA as well. No other edits since he started earlier this month. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LordGorval's conduct in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names

I am not sure how to handle this. I nominated List of Biblical names for deletion because it is merely a copy of a public domain list, which has been noted in numerous talk page discussions to be unreliable, and because User:LordGorval reverted the removal of the unreliable definitions. Apparently because I have continued editing the article while awaiting the outcome of the deletion debate, User:LordGorval has repeatedly falsely stated in the discussion and the edit summaries of the discussion that I (the nominator) have withdrawn the deletion nomination. He persists in this conduct despite my clearly stating in response that I have not withdrawn my nomination, and despite my having asked him not to continue making this false assertion. I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to take action, as it would at least appear to be related to our obvious disagreement over the inclusion of the article under discussion. The diffs for the edit summaries are here, here, here, and here. bd2412 T 21:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a copy of a public domain source supposed to be re-written with original content, rather than deleted. I didn't realise that was a valid criteria for deletion... SGGH ^ping! 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

However I should not speak before looking at your other reasons for opening the AfD. SGGH ^ping! 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I readily concede that a good-faith argument could be made for keeping the page; however, repeatedly making false claims that the nomination for deletion has been withdrawn is not such an argument. bd2412 T 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While the editor is obviously mischaracterising your arguments, this isn't really something which requires administrative intervention. Were the closing admin to suggest that your having "withdrawn" were a reason for the close then there would be a problem. You can ask the user not to mischaracterise your arguments yourself; despite having registered some time ago, the account has only really become active this month, so might as well treat it as a new user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

6056slusser sockpupperty admission in RL

Resolved

 – WFWW? has been socking still, after speaking to a admin on IRC, all socks blocked and tagged. Placing summary at User:Sk8er5000/WFWW. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know how to deal with this. WFWW? was blocked a few months ago as vandal-only. I know this person in RL. However, yesterday the person who edited as WFWW? came up to me, stating he vandalised Iron Man 2 as 6056slusser, which contains part of his real name. Should I just tag him as a sock as usual or is there other steps I need to take, given that this evidence is from RL? -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would take it to WP:SPI, and present your evidence for consideration from a checkuser, seeing as it can't be verified by any other evidence other than your testimony. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as both accounts have been blocked there's no need for either CU or SPI. Just leave them as is. We don't have to tag every single sock. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats posted by anon

For the past few days an anon in the 95.79.0.0/18 range has been adding libelous information against an Israeli Prof.[24][25] The anon has now escalated the disruption with legal threats: "the editors of the Wikipedia are asked not to remove it; if nevertheless they do, special legal procedures will be taken, including international lawsuits"[26][27] I believe blocks or page protections are in order. Rami R 07:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get a response from an admin here, take it to WP:RFPP to ask for semi-protection for a couple of weeks or so, and hopefully that will cool the IPs' jets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protected, ips who made legal threats blocked for one year or until they retract said threats, and I used revision delete for the first time to remove the libelous content they were aggressively reposting. Not yet marking as resolved because I would like other admins to review my use of revision deletion since it's such a new thing. I'm pretty sure I used it correctly here but feedback is always good when you are not used to a new tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it worked. That also explains the acceleration I've seen in rubbing out questionable edits from the visible part of the edit history. Hopefully that will discourage the trolls, as they won't be able to see their "handiwork". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Roll on flagged revisions! Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The revdel looks appropriate to me. Just a comment on the blocks - for the same reason we don't block them indef, there's no sense in blocking dynamic IPs for a year if they've stopped being used and are dynamically reassigned every day. I'll shorten them to something more sensible. You might want to blacklist the link; it's been spammed into quite a few articles for a couple of months[28]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What's an international lawsuit? Would we be tried by the UN? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he means a lawsuit between two people of different nationalities, but he may mean the International Court of Justice or perhaps Nuremberg. SGGH ^ping! 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that court was in Trenton, New Jersey? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that's where my cousin Vito buries the bodies of, shall we say, people who were a disappointment to management. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL is still new to me, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing it ought to be used for. Allegations of defamation and extortion, sourced to arbitrary websites, do not belong here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Not quite "flagged revisions", but a useful step in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he's talking bollocks - for this kind of issue there is no such thing as an "international lawsuit". Why yes, IAAL. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see a legal threat here that had any merit whatsoever but that one was especially weak, more so when you consider that they were the ones posting libelous content. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Ukexpat, for a moment I thought you were sharing with us where we could file an international lawsuit. So if I find myself in Bullocks, Ontario, I can't simply start an international lawsuit against someone on Wikipedia for pain & suffering? Aw shucks, another life-long dream turned to bitter ashes! -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite Personal Attacks and Removing edits from Article Talk Page

Resolved

 – Forum shopping - dealt with on user's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

This editor has made repeated personal attacks against me on my talk page and in edit summaries and has removed my edits from an article talk page.Malke2010 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not forum shopping. This is wrong to mark this resolved. I have done nothing to engender these egregious comments and this behavior must be addressed. Please remove the 'resolved' tag.Malke2010 23:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping task

On new pages patrol, I just noticed this Steve G. Jones (Clinical Hypnotherapist, Writer), where someone's asking that the text be undeleted and userfied for him. Of course clearly what's there now does need to be deleted, but not before someone retrieves the previously deleted text. Can someone handle? Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 22:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert only newly created account

Resolved

This user Vindaloo_Bfast has only made reverts, first to Roland's edits and I reverted one and the account has now continued off reverting my edits. Sock, account appears to be a quacking disruptive sock, please block. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked before you posted here, courtesy of Zzuuzz. Amalthea 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User Kww

Resolved

 – The boomerang came back. –xeno^talk 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Kww is semi-protecting pages such as "List of Italian-Americans", "Kimi Raikkonen", "Fernando Alonso" and "Celebration"? These pages rarely contribute to vandalism, so I don't see why they have to be semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could clear this up. Thanks 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.17.241 (talk • contribs)

Why not ask them? –xeno^talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I semi-protect any pages that they edit. These articles were protected due to CharlieJS13. Given geographic location, there's somewhere around a 99% chance that 86.136.17.241 is also CharlieJS13.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently because someone is IP-Hopping to target articles? [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive] for more. (he put that as the semi-protect reason, that's how I know) Have you brought this up with Kww? (I sense the footgun being used, an IP complaining about someone semi-protecting an article to prevent an IP hopper from disrupting....) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And both the socking IP and the reporting IP here both resolve to British Telecom DSL in London, England. What a shock. — Satori Son 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He certainly has a good gun-sight on his footgun. IP blocked 72 hours, Vogue (Madonna song) semi-protected for a month. It's come to my attention that this is probably Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that CharlieJS13 is just a sock, not a new master. Can't be proven at this point, but seems likely.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the "Plaxico" metaphor is a bit overdone and becoming old news, the "boomerang" metaphor works pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, we really need to put something back at WP:PLAXICO so new people get the reference. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At least make it a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. DONE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I support that, mostly, but wasn't a previous redirect at that location BLPed?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but there's no valid reason to do so. He sits in prison, convicted of illegal usage of a gun. We didn't put him there, the government did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he copped to it. He wasn't tried for it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So he confessed to it. So there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We need to actively discourage the public ridicule of a living person. Deleted and salted. –xeno^talk 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes fun of the poster mostly. I knew awhile back that the article (despite sourcing) had been deleted, but I was unaware that a redirect was also forbidden. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in more detail at my talk page [34], I have not much more to add. –xeno^talk 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all the history of this thing, and it's not important enough to argue over. It's old news, like Dan Quayle and the "potatoe" incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If we had a WP:QUAYLE which pointed to WP:ILLITERACY that would be exactly as inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a bit different- Dan Quayle had a card with the wrong spelling on it, as I remember reading. However, the football player in question was the one who shot his own leg. I personally think there's no BLP violation, but hey, I've only been here for a little while. Let's not beat this to death. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree with that sentiment: there are certain instances where in reciting the simple & verifiable facts of an event cannot avoid showing that someone is undeniably stupid. Like managing to get oneself arrested for shooting herself/himself in the foot. Or telling a child that she/he misspelled a word & insisted that the child add an erroneous "e" at the end. Or being described by an anonymous source to Spy magazine as being so stupid that "You don't expect to encounter guys this dumb pumping gas." (Damn, I gotta add the information from that Spy article about the 10 dumbest congressmen.) If someone doesn't want to be the object of ridicule, don't do something something inexcusably stupid -- which can be verified. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a BLP violation, or not much of one, but when it becomes increasingly necessary to explain the joke, it kind of loses its oomph. Xeno's boomerang metaphor is much more broadly recognizable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that BLP is more than just a set of hard rules. Wikipedia is not Private Eye, and lampooning people is not really in our remit. Where a point can be made perfectly well without having to negatively refer to a living person, it's sensible to do so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why boomerang is a much safer and better understood metaphor. And truth to tell, once Plaxico went to prison the joke wasn't so funny anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player

The {{Infobox ice hockey player}} RfC has just been closed (by a bot). An uninvolved admin is needed, please, to make the necessary change. Code from the last time this was done may be found near the top of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, again

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua to centralize discussion and to save space on this page. Please do not add timestamp until this reaches the top of the page and discussion has concluded. –MuZemike

Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to Barack Obama or Abortion. Ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. - 2/0 (cont.)

I reimposed the topic ban to make it clear this was not done by an involved editor. I also discussed this on his talk page, making sure that he understood that this was due to his behavior, not wanting to work cooperatively with anyone else here, and not his viewpoint. He outright stated he didn't care to work collaboratively with anyone else here anymore and that he intended to leave in some form or another. Shortly afterwards, knowing he would be violating the topic ban, he edited Talk:Barack Obama twice: [35] [36]. I have imposed an indefinite block on him editing, for which he then thanked me [37].

I find it unfortunate that he chose to flame out and burn the bridge behind him in this manner, but I think it was predictable from a couple of days ago given the thread here.

I guess this is resolved now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

His definition of "involved" seems to include anyone who expresses an opinion about his editing. But since he's now indefinitely blocked for a WP:POINTy violation of the restriction and claims he doesn't want to come back I guess there is nothing more to say. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nerve Recordings

I'd like to tell User:NawlinWiki that he shouldn't have deleted that page: there are many of these record labels around the wiki and nobody has complained about them. TylerDurdenn (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it notable? Because if it isn't it gets deleted no matter what else seems to exist on Wikipedia. And why haven't you asked NawlinWiki himself why he deleted it? SGGH ^ping! 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess you missed the big orange box telling you to notify the other user. Anyway, why didn't you just ask him directly? —DoRD (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't ask him because his page is protected. Anyway, there are many other labels like this one, so... TylerDurdenn (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, my apologies, I saw that you have plenty of edits, but haven't been registered long enough. —DoRD (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the argument that "other stuff like this exists" is not a valid one when it comes to article deletion. I have asked the user to comment, seeing as his page is protected. SGGH ^ping! 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm the second person to do so! I suspect the user will answer you here or on your talk. SGGH ^ping! 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangent - is it appropriate for NawlinWiki's talkpage to be semi-protected if he's doing administrative actions that can affect unregistered/unconfirmed users? Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep it un-semi'd as much as I can, but the page has been a pretty heavy target for 4chan /b/ attacks lately. If I leave it unprotected, it causes a lot of unnecessary work for other administrators. As far as Nerve Recordings, the article didn't assert any notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comppro: signature without link

As I'm sure we're all aware, WP:SIGLINK requires a signature to link to at least one part of the editor's userspace. I noticed that Comppro (talk · contribs) was not following this standard, so I politely asked him to change it, and told him that he was free to ask me for help if he wasn't sure how to.

However, he has seemingly ignored my request. Therefore, could an admin give him a final warning, and then block him if he refuses to follow the relevant guideline? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He also seems to have some behavioural problems – but that's a matter for another day... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Warned user. –xeno^talk 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Looks like he's just not getting the four tildes thing and is manually adding a sig. SineBot is adding one for him, hopefully he will read this and the messages from SineBot and Xeno and understand the situation a bit better. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, thanks—though he didn't understand it from me...! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  He probably just flipped the checkbox in his preferences, and Sinebot just doesn't recognize it as a signature due to the missing link. Amalthea 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• He has ignored all the instructions. I therefore request a block? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 06:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Issued final warning [38]. –xeno^talk 12:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alvar1974 using their Talk page as a blog

Resolved

The most recent edits by Alvar1974 (talk · contribs) on their Talk page appear to be BLP violations, as well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

[39] the Queen Fisher has swooped in. SGGH ^ping! 10:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive insertion of picture in AfD

Resolved

 – He's not going to insert it again. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has been attempting to continually insert a picture of a cat in WP:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination) to somehow defend his argument that the picture inserted in Cyprus–Norway relations is valid. As an experienced editor I have never seen a picture being added to a AfD let alone an irrelevant picture. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. There is an ongoing issue of Richard Norton's behaviour at AfDs as reflected in this thread as well Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not disruptive at all. The argument made by Libstar is that images must be of notable individuals to be included in Wikipedia. I need a visual demonstration from another article as a counterargument, an image from an article that demonstrates that he is incorrect. Libstar knows better than to tamper with other people's comments at an AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard thinks a picture of a cat is a compelling and intelligent AfD argument, LibStar feels that the closing administrator is likely to overlook the reasonable delete votes due to being distracted by kittens. I agree Wikipedia is in immediate danger of exploding and/or turning into an unfettered haven of child pornography as a result of this dispute. What do you want done about it, LibStar? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DustFormsWords, I normally respect your comments, but your sarcasm is not constructive here. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably isn't, you're quite right, and I withdraw it. The point is you're both unarguably editors with rational viewpoints who are on average great assets to Wikipedia. You're both capable of dealing with a picture of a kitten without coming to ANI and while I can understand the frustration of both parties it's frankly ridiculous to suggest that this could be a foundation for a block. I think in an ideal world LibStar would stop nominating bilateral relations articles for deletion until there's a centralised community consensus on it, and Richard would stop taking actions that to any reasonable person seem likely to antagonise his opponents, but this isn't an ideal world and you're both within your rights. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have come to an ANI to gain greater community consensus and opinion on actions. simply disrupting bilateral AfDs (which includes Richard adding large text boxes as discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Use_of_template-like_amboxes_in_AfD_discussion and recent canvassing is part of behaviour of Richard that should be examined. It's obvious I can't tell Richard to stop because he won't listen. I am not suggesting a block but certainly a warning from an uninvolved admin is warranted in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't we go through this exercise before? Wasn't there a moritorium on nominating bilateral articles for a month or so? What good came of it? Wasn't there an attempt to come up with some guidelines? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I knew I wasn't imagining things. WP:Notability (bilateral relationships). Niteshift36 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

there was a moratorium about a year ago? but none currently. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with LibStar - that image and caption are indeed disruptive. Richard, please do not re-add the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Richard, it would be better just to link to the picture, instead of actually inserting it in image form into the AfD. It is a bit disruptive, though I can understand your point of trying to do so. Silverseren^C 06:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that, if done properly, a right-justified thumbnail would be disruptive - except that other participants in the debate are taking it as such, and thus it would do more harm than good. I agree that the direct link would be best - and hey, it lets you add several examples where one would have gone, so maybe it makes your point clearer. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Lamest battle I've seen on AN/I for a while. He added a picture on an AfD. Of a cat -certainly nothing akin to adding goatse images. So what? Where is the disruption? Does it bias the debate? Do kittens subliminally bias closing admins? I am going to add this to WP:LAME, for real. --Cyclopia^talk 12:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Typing "nvkwjgngnvvkjnvekn" in the AfD probably wouldn't distract the closing admin either, but since it serves no legitimate purpose in the discussion, it would probably be deleted as either vandalism or nonsense. And if the editor re-added it, it would be removed again and again. We'd end up calling the editor a vandal. But when an editor keeps shoving this pointless pic into the discussion and reverting its removal, you defend it. Hmmmmm. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not gibberish, he was honestly, albeit clumsily, trying to support an argument. It's not vandalism. It's,at best,a mildly amusing comment. An edit war and AN/I about this is pure drama madness. --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Did I call it gibberish? No. Did I call it vandalism? No. Did I use an example of similar disruptive editing? Yes. So, now that we know what I said and not what you want to imply that I said.....what what the relevance of the pic? What did it bring to the discussion that RAN wasn't adequately articulate? Or was it possibly just an attempt to be sarcastic and then simple stubborness after it was removed?Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ehm. Q: Did I call it gibberish? - Your example: Typing "nvkwjgngnvvkjnvekn" in the AfD probably wouldn't distract the closing admin either

Q: Did I call it vandalism? - Your example: it would probably be deleted as either vandalism or nonsense.

Q: Did I use an example of similar disruptive editing? - Since you agree the pic was nor gibberish, nor vandalism, it is not similar at all.

So, now that we stop comparing apples to oranges, the point is not that the pic should stay, or that it should be removed. Is that, if there's anything pointy and disruptive, is the lame edit war on it and then this thread. Both parties should just let go and move on. Please, someone archive this nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 16:27, 21 May 2010 (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.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Resolved

 – The article is now protected

A SPA IP acount has persistently been trying to add a section to this article about commentators comparing the cartoons to the anti-semitic cartoons in the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. Several editors have reversed this addition. As the claim is notable enough, but the lengthy paragraph on Der Stürmer is clearly undue weight for this article, I came up with this compromise.

Yet the IP persists in reverting to the earlier version, and when I once again urged the IP to take it to the talk page, he responded first by spamming the article with Der Stürmer images, then with various accusations of me being a Holocaust denier, anti semite and Nazi sympathizer. Could an admin please step in? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So the nazi-accusations, refusal to discuss the article and general spamming are perfectly acceptable?? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin semi-protected the article, which will lock the IP address riff-raff out of it for the foreseeable future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

True. And of course we always protect the wrong version anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Death threat

This IP made a death threat against Rrburke (talk · contribs), and I feel immediate action is needed. Immunize (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit was revdeleted. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel we need to report this to off-wiki law enforcement officials? Immunize (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to be the guy that says this in one of these situations, as I'd rather be the one that says "we should take no chances", this kind of threat is made fairly frequently, to the point that we now have edit filters in place to stop some of them. I really see this a case of "that guy reverted my edits and now I'm mad" from some immature kid that really can't make due on his threat and probably doesn't even know why it's such a bad idea to say something like that. Unless Rrburke wants to take this further, I'd sooner just enact the "I" in WP:RBI. (I've already revoked his talk page access.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be taken farther, but I will wait for Rrburke (talk · contribs) to comment. Immunize (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I'm not especially worried -- the IP and I are separated by about 15,000 km: that'd be a long way to come to settle a disagreement about Mortadella. I would be interested in the details, though, if someone wanted to email me -- Rrburke (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

emailed as requested. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR Board Backlog

If you or another admin could take a look at the backlog on 3RR, it would be appreciated. I am one of the people "awaiting a verdict" (was reported against) and want to know if I will be editing today or not before I get in the middle of a big project. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleared except one involving homeopathy, where I probably do not meet WP:UNINVOLVED. This was not really a backlog (under two hours is actually a pretty good response time for that board, sadly), but good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a meatpuppet of Mcjakeqcool please indefblock me

Here is evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twyfords-Tri-Shell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloteletalepro (talk • contribs) 09:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me know asap when either someone discuss this case or block my account. Miloteletalepro (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He admits it on this edit using what i guess is his ip. wiooiw ^(talk) 09:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume it's Jake. There is at least one troll who is famous for creating impostor accounts in order to get the original account in further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care whether he is Jake or not, either way Miloteletalepro is a disruptive editor, and I have accordingly blocked him indefinitely. Fram (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did create a couple of article stubs that haven't been deleted yet. Since he asked to be blocked, it would have served him right to refuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits and edit summaries indicate that it's clearly him. I've deleted both his article creations per WP:CSD#G5. –MuZemike 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter Rudin

Resolved

 – He has died. Article now cites an obit from the Wisconsin State Journal web site.

The Walter Rudin article needs some eyes on it. The subject of the article is a professor of mathematics who may or may not have died yesterday. The assertion that he has died has been repeatedly added without a source. As the subject is far less famous than, say, Ronnie James Dio, this would normally be a minor issue, except that Reddit has taken notice of the article and caused a lot of back-and-forth editing. Needless to say, editors from an external site may not have memorized our entire selection of policies before editing, but nonetheless the fact that his death is disputed means that it should not be added without a source. My thanks to anyone who takes a look at this. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the blog I found it on says 'this evening' and is dated today, so it wouldn't have had time to hit the news. I'll watch it for a couple of hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Stuck an edit notice there. Can be removed if we find RS to say he did or didn't die. SGGH ^ping! 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Contact info is here (wisc.edu math dept). Someone could call and ask. If info is confirmed I'd say leave it in the article even if it hasn't yet hit the press. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've called the Math Department. Calling Walter or Mary Ellen seems inappropriate .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem IP needs banning ASAP

Hi there just wanted to state that 217.80.129.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is causing collateral damage. His/her three edits have been damaging to discog pages, mainly in mass content blanking:

• Britney Spears [40] - collateral damage including the mix up of information.
• Jordin Sparks [41] for some bizarre reason he chose to replace the information with Swedish Pop star Agnes' discography.
• Leona Lewis [42] - removed content with no explaination.

Note that in two of the three occassions i reverted the edits, clue bot reverted the first time round. User has been warned. He/she is obviously not wanting to edit sensibly. Indef block. Possible link to RyanG222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as some sort of vengance? Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this urgent? this seems to be obvious vandalism, why not wait until it trips final warning and then report to WP:AIV? One can't indef an IP address, and if there is something to do with RyanG222 you may have to elaborate. I have given the IP a final warning, but do not understand why this could not be an AIV matter... SGGH ^ping! 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well actually its prob not related to RyanG222 as Ryan edited from Scotland and this appear appears to be German]. Well after already recieving two/three warnings i believed that waiting for the IP to trip the final warning when after three edits its obvious he/she is disruptively editing. Ok if not indef ban then at least block for short while. Three disruptive edits in quick succession despite warnings warrants a block no? Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at it. At first sight it doesn't look like vandalism, but like replacement of sourced outdated information with unsourced updated information. What could one expect? I mean, i.m.o. this kind of volatile (non-)information shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article to begin with. DVdm (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I myself think that a block is premature for three edits, no matter how quick they are, however I don't begrudge the report, nor would I an admin who did block. SGGH ^ping! 21:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair play. if you want to mark this as resolved under the assumption that we'll wait until they trip the final warning now they've been issued one then please go ahead i wont object. the only reason i made the report was the scale of the kind of edits being made but i do understand the whole final warning thing. I wouldn't normally report users until they've recieved a final warning.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dwelling on my previous remark, could the both of you perhaps discuss the possibility of removing this kind of ever-changing information from the article altogether? Just a thought. DVdm (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask which information you referring to and in which particular article? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The information 217.80.129.245 was updating. For instance, look carefully at what is precisely happening in this edit. Obsolete outdated sourced info is replaced with new, updated unsourced info. This is not vandalism. This is updating without proper sources. Just ask the IP where they get their information and let them include it. Or just get rid of this kind of information. It's bound to cause trouble (I.M.O.) DVdm (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator tools by Parsecboy

Today I was looking through the images needing copyright tags. I came across a black and white photo of a Russian World War II tank without copyright tags except for a note stating that it was taken from the Ukraine wikipedia. The Ukraine wikipedia then cited a russian wikipedia file. So tracked down the copyright tags on the russian wikipedia. I then got a note on my talk page that the photo I tagged had incorrect tags. So I looked into why it was considered incorrect, because according to the uploader at the russian wikipedias the photo was taken in cira 1944, the author was a unknown solider, and the file was public domain in russia. I found that Parsecboy disagreed that the picture was out of copyright and was in a argument with another editor. So I again wrote the source of the photo. Parsecboy then deleted the file because he felt that he was right and the other editor was wrong. As the image was from World War II, tracking the person who took the picture would be very hard, if not impossible, so it is not possible to cite the exact author. User talk:Alpha Quadrant#ISU-152-2

I then checked the user's contributions to see if any other events like this have ever happened and found that, in the past seven months, user Parsecboy has repeatably abused administrator right and has been uncivil to users when users disagree with him. When a user disagrees with him he threatens to block or report them. If the user continue to disagree with him he does block them. Here are some examples:

• [43] Temporarly blocked the user for continually disagreed with him
• [44] Reported user who violated the three revert rule despite himself violating the rule
• [45] Threatened the user with a block if he continued to be uncivil. (Occurred four days ago)
• [46] Reported the the user for edit warring after the user stopped editing because he received a warning

Granted two of users were border lining on civility, but he has threatened users for disagreeing with him. When the users repeatably did not agree with him he blocked them or filed for them to be blocked. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so in order, we have:

1. A user who got himself blocked for edit-warring to add incorrect information under false edit summaries
2. A vandalizing IP who apparently refuses to discuss on the article's talk page
3. Parsec appearing to get a little frustrated (but I note that whether by intention or accident, Oblivion's comments on Parsec's talk did come across as condescending)
4. A user edit-warring to add weasel words into Royal Canadian Navy—an action that three different editors disagreed with

Now, where are these abuses of administrator tools? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he discussed the photo in question on your talk page and explained why he didn't think that the uploader's claim of public domain was enough to verify that the photo really was in the public domain, and why he thought it was actually quite likely that it wasn't. Now that I come to think of it, I can't think of a single occasion when a header of 'abuse of administrator tools' has appeared on top of something that was actually an abuse of administrator tools. Strange, that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He did not discussed it on my talk page. He told me he didn't feel like arguing about the image anymore so he simply deleted it. As for the four talk pages did you look at the user contributions? In the edit wars both users were engaged in an edit war and he used his administrator powers and status as a senior editor to gain the upper hand. One of the edit wars he did have three supports, but never the less, he was involved in the edit war and violated the 3RR. The third example is a comment from the World War II image discussion that he deleted today. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur; since Russian copyright extends 70 years from date of disclosure, and the statute is retroactive (removing a number of works from the public domain that had lapsed under the previous 50-year rule), a photo taken in 1944 cannot be public domain until 2014. It is possible that it was public domain when it was first uploaded (if it was uploaded prior to the 2006 ratification of the new copyright law -- I didn't check this), but even if that's true, it currently is not public domain, as I understand it. I also see nothing particularly objectionable about those diffs, in context. Shimeru (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally useless in the file namespace, but I have to say it appears that Parsecboy was procedurally correct (for those who are wondering, the file in question is File:ISU-152-2 self-propelled gun.jpg) though he might have been a little more diplomatic about it. There's no admin abuse here, just possibly a frayed temper resulting from both sides not fully understanding each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to notify people when you report them at ANI. I've just done that. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) My mistake... although, people might want to reconsider the immediate removal of those notices in the future; it might help avoid misunderstandings like this. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty good. The Tomcha block, while I should have let another admin handle it, was deemed to be perfectly fine according to reviewing admins. The IP in fact violated 3RR (which bars more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period); I reverted only 3 times. As for the last case, I filed the report while the user was editing, and an admin at the 3RR noticeboard agreed with the report. Had it been a bad report, it would have been declined.

@Shimeru - the file was uploaded here a week ago, and on the Uk.wiki in 2007.

@Equazcion - S/he did, I had removed the notice from my talk page before you saw it.

I find it a little odd that a user who registered his or her account less than a month ago is so familiar with Wikipedia processes... Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that seems entirely uncontroversial, then. Shimeru (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it took a lot of reading. Everything you need to know is in the subpage [[Help:]], and [[WP:]] and I had edited 4 month prior as an ip address before registering.--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So to answer your hint, Parsecboyno, no, I have never had another wikipedia account and I am not some vandal. Need proof, have WP:Checkuser run a scan, they won't find anything though. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall Pastor Theo saying more or less the exact same thing, and we all know how that turned out... Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to get back to the point, Alpha Quadrant...is there action requested here, and if so, is there any consensus in favor of such action?  Frank  |  talk  03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The other morning at breakfast, over my delicious toaster waffles, parsecboy was regaling me with tales of copyright law and lore. He told me that it doesn't matter whether something was published in the US or Pakistan or Malaysia or anywhere else, we follow US copyright law. Because we're all American like that. So when he was sharing this Russia business last night at bedtime, I realized that the Russia/Soviet discussion was moot since we only ever use US copyright law anyway. I'm sure he would have realized that himself, had I not been nagging him to get off Wikipedia and come to bed. Have a lovely Wednesday everyone. Cranterp (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy, fine don't believe me. Why don't you go to WP:Checkuser then, but I don't know who "Pastor Theo" is. But before that why don't you look at my contributions. I work at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and also at clearing backlogs. That is how I found the World War II picture in the first place. You then left me a rather angry message on my talk page for adding supposedly incorrect copyright tags to an image. I did not know there was an argument over. It was in the articles needing copyright information backlog. So I added the tags. You then deleted it because I quote:

"Frankly, I'm a little tired of going 'round in circles over this image, which I have demonstrated is still in copyright. I've therefore deleted it as an obvious copyright violation. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

Like I said, I investigated your edits to see wether or not this has ever happened before and the above is what I found. After reading the administrator guidelines of what is considered abuse your actions appeared to match. So I posted here because I wanted to know wether or not this was considered abuse. Well it appears it is not considered abuse. So stop trying to make me look like a former blocked user wanting revenge as I am not. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Parsecboy has a history of doing what is obviously right without feeling constrained to use unnecessary process. I join you in congratulating him no his sagacious use of normal administrative discretion. Thank you for bringing this fine admin to our attention, but you are free to award the barnstar of diligence yourself, there is no committee process needed beforehand. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I was trying to do. I said that I felt that he was abusing his administrator power. I did not say that I felt he is doing a great job. And by him accusing me of being a sock puppet (which I am not) for inquiring here he is not assuming good faith. I believe he is following these set of guidelines (or at least 3 and 4) rather than these set of guidelines. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you spend your time if you think what I said on your talk page was "rather angry," but I digress. The image is verifiably still under copyright protection both in the United States and in Russia. My obligation as an administrator was to delete it as soon as possible, which I did. If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No I do not have a problem with copyright enforcement. But because you were involved in the dispute you should have nominated it for deletion and let a neutral administrator decide what to do with it. By the way saying:

"If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do"

you are quoting the fourth wikipedia pillar of evil --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Drop the 5-pillar garbage. Seriously though, if you think we can go around merrily violating copyrights, then you have no business editing a free encyclopedia. If you aren't aware, violating copyright puts the foundation at legal risk. Moreover, there was no editing dispute; I merely went through the process of determining whether the image was a copyright violation or not on your talk page, rather than in my head. Would you prefer I just up deleted it without informing you why? 'Cause I can do that instead, if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have a magic problem-solver: Parsec, next time you have a verifiably copyrighted image that needs deleting but are in a dispute with the user, come get me and I'll delete it. (note: same result, more process, more time, more hassle). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine. I just think that because he was involved in the image dispute on whether it was in or out of copyright he should have requested that someone else who was not involved look it over to decide whether it needed deleting. There was a dispute over whether the copyright was valid. User:Oblivion Lost and I disagreed with you. Because of this it should have gone through the deletion process rather than you deciding that it violated copyright. And parsecboy, I would not have accused you of being a rouge administrator if you had not accused me of being a sockpuppet. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I demonstrated that it clearly violated international copyright law. As I said above, my obligation as an admin is to delete copyright violations on sight. Which is what I did. That you and Oblivion Lost think "well, it's been on the Ukrainian Wiki for 3 years and they claim it's PD" is good enough doesn't matter, because it's flat wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsec, the rouge admin page has a huge humor symbol on it. How many times has someone cracked a joke on-wiki that relates to one of these pages? Countless times. Alpha, acqusitions of rouge adminship might be all fun and games in regards to WP:STOCKS and so forth, but don't act like as if it's really horrible. Fake rougeness and real rougeness are two very different things. Buggie111 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You may have felt that it violated copyright, but because you were involved you should have let someone else who had not already made a opinion about it decide. You already had an opinion when you decided to delete it. This is not about who was right, but about how the situation should have been handled. If you had not been involved in the dispute I would have had no problems with you deleting the file. Because in that case you would have been neutral in your decision. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I could have just as easily speedily deleted the image without commenting on either of your talk pages, because it clearly violated copyright. That I chose to comment on both of your talk pages first does not prevent me from then deleting the image. Moreover, there was no dispute in the "Wikipedia sense." You and Oblivion Lost didn't/still don't possess a proper understanding of copyright law. I repeatedly explained to both of you why the image could not be hosted on en.wiki or Commons. That you have chosen to characterize it as a dispute does not make it so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain it to you. There is a source of the copyright on the Russian wikipedia not the Ukraine wikipedia. The source was also in Russian so I used google translate in order to figure out what it said. It did confirm the public domain. I cannot find the file on the russian wikipedia again and have tried searching for it. But I do remember the source of the file: http://www.battlefield.ru/en/photoalbums/ under this website it permits the use of its photos providing the website is cited. The website, under the copyright and legal policy says it uses public domain russian images and a limited number of copyrighted content. I think it was [47] image but I am not sure, as I cannot see the image anymore because it was deleted. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"With attribution" is not compatible with "public domain". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

thumb|left|45px|File:T34 85 4.jpg cites the same website and also states that it is under public domain. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WAXy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alpha, you are still missing the point. The Russian copyright laws of 1993 and 2007 retroactively reinstated copyrights for images that previously expired, such as the image in question, to a term of 70 years after the death of the author. Even assuming the author died the same day the image was taken, sometime in 1944, the earliest we could use the image is in four years. Unless we know for certain when the author died, we cannot establish the date this image will enter the PD in Russia. Moreover, for an image to be uploaded under a public domain on the English Wikipedia, it has to be public domain in the United States, because that's where the servers are located. The US has the same provisions as the Russian law, that is, life of the author +70 years. I pointed this out on your talk page, but perhaps it bears mention again: the Russian article on the vehicle featured in this photo is a Featured Article, and it has no wartime photos of the subject (which as we can see is not because they don't exist). That is because all of those photographs are still under copyright protection in Russia.

Whatever a private website claims is irrelevant. There are tons of websites out there perpetrating copyfraud by claiming to hold the copyright on images they certainly do not. There are exponentially more hosting images without any copyright information, because they don't care.

Lastly, the image of the T-34 you pointed out needs to be deleted from Commons. If we don't know the author, we don't know that he died before 1951. Therefore, the claim for PD is invalid. If that's not a case of the boomerang, I don't know what is. I will be taking care of that in the morning. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That might not go over well. It has been on commons for 5 years without any problems and is used on 53 pages in 26 projects in various languages. So you might have just created a bigger incident. We will have to see if anyone notices it though before it is deleted. That image is in public domain and so is the other one, this is the same disagreement all over again. (sigh) At least it is on wikimedia common and you don't have administrator tools there to delete it just because you disagree. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All I have done on Commons is initiated a procedure to have an image that has no business being on Commons removed from that project. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of images that have been on Commons for a long time that should be deleted. That it is widely used is also not an indicator of it being in the public domain. Take, for example, this image. It states on the very page that it "might" be in the public domain, and it has no source. But it's used on 19 pages across 13 projects, so it must be public domain, right? And, it was uploaded in 2004, so it must be public domain, right? The problem is, things aren't in the public domain simply because some website says it is, or because a number of people don't give enough of a crap to not use a clearly copyrighted image. Things are only released to the public domain if and only if they meet very strict requirements; in this case, it is that the author of the image has to have died more than 70 years ago. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but this is non-negotiable. If you disagree, fine, but you are wrong. Plain and simple. This is not open to interpretation, this is international copyright law that is plain as day, if you only take the time to read the laws. If you have no intention of familiarizing yourself with international copyright law, then please leave these issues to those of us who have. Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is totally correct that just because a picture has sat on commons for a few years and it is used on multiple articles that it could still be a violation of copyright. Parseboy appears to be quite correct as per policy and guidelines in his comments and actions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok so what about Section 1 Article 22 of the Ukraine copyright law which the image falls under:

"Article 22.

It shall be permissible for libraries and archives, the activities of which are not aimed, directly or indirectly, at generating profit, to reproduce reprographically, without the consent of the author or other copyright holder, one copy of a work, subject to the following:

(1) when a reproduced work is a separately published article and other small works or excerpts from written works (except for computer software and databases), with or without illustrations, and when the reproduction is made upon individuals’ requests, provided that:

(a) a library or archive has sufficient reason to believe that such a copy will be used for the purposes of education, training or private research;

(b) reproduction of the work is a one-off, not a regular, event;

(c) there are no restrictions on the part of collective management organizations concerning the terms and conditions for producing such copies;

(2) when a reproduction is made to preserve or replace a lost, damaged or unusable copy in the library or archive, or to renew a lost, damaged or unusable copy from the collection of a similar library or archive, and it is impossible to obtain such a copy by other means, and when reproduction of the work is a one-off, not a regular, event."

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia aimed at creating articles about everything, so correct me if I am wrong, because apparently I am copyright ignorant [48] , but isn't it a the very least legal to use the image. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

{od}No', it is not legal for us to use the image. Wikipedia's licenses allow for any use of our content, including commercial use. That makes us 100% incompatible with those types of restrictions. Your continued arguments only highlight how little you know about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why are there copyrighted images on wikipedia that are under fair use? They are copyrighted. And accusing me of knowing noting of copyright law is very rude. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Next thing you will be saying is that this image is in copyright. It falls under Polish copyright, cites ten sources, all ten stating the author is unknown but it is public domain. Two of the sources are government sources. If you nominate that for deletion I have one question, is your goal here to purge wikipedia and commons of all historical World War II and World War I photos because the authors are unknown. And what is the chance that the up loader is copyright holder. There would be no source to cite. You would have to delete 3/4 of all the World War photos because most of the existing ones have unknown authors. There is no wikipedia or commons policy regarding this category so you just tag on commons and delete on wikipedia. Wikipedia should come out with a official policy regarding war photos, because it is often impossible to find the original author. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As Carnildo astutely pointed out below, Fair Use is perfectly fine in a limited number of circumstances. I haven't accused you of knowing nothing about copyright law; you've aptly demonstrated as much just by the arguments you've made, here and on Commons. You know the saying along the lines of "people might suspect you're a fool, but if you open your mouth, you remove all doubt" ...

No, the file you linked here is perfectly fine; it complies with the Polish copyright law that was in effect at the relevant time, and the Poles have not written a more restrictive law that is retroactive, the opposite of the case as in the Russian images. And no, I only want to delete images that cannot be proved without a doubt to be of valid use. For example, the vast majority of American wartime images fall under the copyright exemption that because they were taken by employees of the US government. I myself have uploaded many images from the First World War whose author is unknown, but they were published in the US before 1923. Take, for example, this photo or this one. Both lack author information, but are verifiably in the public domain. In some cases, knowing the author is not necessary, but in cases where determining copyright status is based on the life of the author, it cannot be ignored. Parsecboy (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use is a specific set of situations under which it is permissible to ignore the copyright on a work. The use of the image in question meets none of them. (Incidentally, Wikipedia's non-free content policy is similar to fair use, but more restrictive on what the situations are.) --Carnildo (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for community ban of A Nobody?

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.

---

(procedural note) This will be eligible to close 24 hrs after it was opened, per our policy on run durations of discussions of this type. That's about 4 hrs from now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that 24 hrs are over - we have a consensus to community ban A Nobody. In "vote terms" this is 28-9 supporting a community ban. In terms of the comments made - There's a little knee jerk opposition and a little knee jerk support, but a large number of editors have articulated that they feel that the degree of ongoing disruptive socking has exhausted community patience and exhausted assumptions of good faith. The end result here is somewhat symbolic anyways, as Arbcom is still the next appeal step for community bans, but there's significant well articulated support for taking that step. I will log the ban on the community sanctions section and A Nobody's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the latest socking incident reported at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive, I would normally have indefinitely blocked the target editor based on the sockpuppeting alone. It's the fourth confirmed incident of socking (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles as well). Unfortunately, this has all gotten wrapped up in a really questionable Arbcom case and pronouncement (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and Case text).

My opinion is pretty simple: fourth strike for socking, and you're out of here. Even if every edit A Nobody had ever performed had been perfect, I'd argue for a block in this circumstance. As it stands, he's on a weird temporary ban where his current block will be undone once he agrees to face Arbcom. Massive drama festival, and I think it's unnecessary: let's agree to block him indefinitely on a community basis, and be done with this.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: To those that think this is redundant I think of this as more preemptive. With a community ban in place, there's no reason for the Arbcom case to ever move forward: with A Nobody already indefinitely blocked for block evasion and socking, what's the point of determining whether he also needs to stop merging articles during AFDs?—Kww(talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. This is silly. Much as I like the editor, either he agrees to edit under his own username and contribute to the RFAR, or he doesn't contribute at all. This isn't a difficult issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• What Black Kite said. I like A Nobody, but socking to avoid having to face arbcom is just daft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• This seems redundant; Arbcom banned him until/unless he choses to participate in the case filed against him already, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding A Nobody. What would a community ban add? Yes, they're different, but they're equivalent, unless you count hypothetical exit criteria. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Reply: I don't care whether he comes back to face Arbcom on the current case of disruptively using merges to force articles to be kept on licensing technicalities: I'm saying that four-time sockpuppeteers have no place here. If we block indefinitely, there's no reason for the Arbcom case to ever be heard.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  For what it's worth: Arbcom is on the appeal path for community bans. We can't make a new rule taking them entirely out of the loop on this one, should he want to return and chose to appeal whatever's in force at the time. I'm not voting "no" on this proposal; it just seems like somewhat of a waste of time to me given the existing sanctions and situation. If consensus is to put it on the record that much harder then we can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I can respect that, although I disagree. As it stands, the Arbcom case he is facing is on fairly technical grounds, and is unlikely to result in more than a wrist slap if he returns. Socking is a serious offense (virtually unforgiveable, in my view), and not blocks for socking are not generally undone.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I tend to agree w/ GWH. This is largely redundant, but I can understand the motivation and sympathize with some of the reasons for banning him listed here. Hopefully this can be discussed without becoming a total circus. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse There is a long history of poor behavior here as well as off-site shenanigans that clearly show he is unable to edit in a collaborative environment. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  See what you get for your post? A block. Kevin got one, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, the socking behavior can't be tolerated. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Aiken ♫ 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. As I tried to say (perhaps badly) in the case request, he isn't welcome here right now. The community needs to put its foot down now that Arbcom has fumbled the snap (how's that for an analogy)?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, a bit unfair. Either we take steps to ensure he doesn't edit without answering the case, or we hold a case in absentia... not something people would be really happy about, would they? SirFozzie (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Don't mean to be unfair but I think that the feeling here seems to be what ArbCom did didn't answer the need.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I see the arbs as in a 'damned if you do...' situation. I supported banning by motion rather than a case held with the primary participant in absentia, and so did a number of other involved players. If they did accept the case it probably would have turned into a mess, with a great deal of hue and cry about justice and representation. Since they didn't accept the case and took what I saw to be a necessary secondary measure, they face complaints that they left a job undone. If anyone failed to answer a need it was the community for letting the inc/del wound fester as long as it did and for allowing partisans to avoid dispute resolution by hiding under the cover of wiki-philosophical disputes. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Basically per Black Kite, the socking is completely out of line.--SKATER ^Hmm? 03:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the case should be heard. Either we have a fair system or we don't. This snowball escalation is not how people should be banned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  We don't. This is an encyclopedia project not an experiment in fairness. Hope that helps. His activities were disruptive. Your consistently shielding him from facing the music doesn't help matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Fair is everyone getting what they deserve not everyone getting the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support — rather strongly, in fact. Should he ever deign to face the AC concerning the narrowly-focused case-in-abeyance, the considerable other concerns the community has, and any outcome of this proposal, the AC can deal with the whole shebang. The project needs a resolution to all this, and this will help. Thank you, Kevin. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems some correlation between the people who want him banned, and those whose plans for wholesale deletion in fiction and other areas he frequently overcame by finding good sources. I'm not aware of how he could "force" a merge if the community disagreed with him, and anyone who thinks licensing is a mere technicality needs a refresher in copyright. If arb com wants to act, they will. I have given my opinion of their proposed actions elsewhere [49]. To try to supplement their action with a community ban is so unnecessary and redundant that it looks vindictive. The socking was truly trivial compared to the serious cases we customarily deal with--I don't think there was ever anyone involved who was not fully aware of it, and to come down hard for a few utterly noncontroversial edits this time can be seen as an act of animus, or lying in wait for someone to make a mistake.

Now, it's true that his sources were not always good, and his manner--especially his earlier manner--was very annoying to deal with. But the thing to do with such annoyances is to ignore them entirely. That he wanted things kept that the community did not always support is not disruptive, especially since the community was with him at least half the time. That he wanted things merged to preserve content for future rewrites is entirely in accord with WP policy. It is those who tried to prevent the merges who were disruptive: he showed by his actions he was ready to compromise, by merging instead of keeping; his opponents showed the exact opposite, as they still try to do on fiction related pages. They have succeeded in forcing him out of participation here to avoid the nuisance of not always getting their way. Yes, he made it easy for them--he worked in a way that was very susceptible to ridicule. Yes, he did foolish things, and in my experience very rarely took advice. But his net contributions here were positive. We have good articles that we would not have without him.

I'm going to postpone defending him further until he returns, and needs it. There's too much work I need to do in trying to do some of what he would have done in rescuing articles. I perhaps had not realized how extremely effective he was here until I saw the undisguised intensity of some of those trying to keep him away. I thank the author of the comment immediately above for making it so obvious. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

His activities were disruptive. Mixmastering content to try to prevent deletion was really about the last straw as far as I am concerned. Your consistently shielding him from facing the music doesn't help matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The community can act to ban him, it is within our remit. In turn he can ban the entire community, one editor at a time, at his toy wiki. ArbCom is still an appeal path available to him. If he wants to appeal, he can. (by the way, the block of MBisanz is particularly ridiculous, as it seems that Matt was actually helping out at one point...) ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Think those are edits on wikipedia imported into that particular fiefdom. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  OK, good point, sorry for confusion. Those blocks still shows how vindictive and small minded this user can be, despite what some say. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  And here I was worried I might be left out from the block spree... whew!!! ... I guess A Nobody is reading along as we go. Who's next? Skater? Aken? Wehwalt? HJMitchell? ... no worries, being blocked by A Nobody is a badge of honor. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support He ignores all input from the community, socks, engages in ridiculous off-site, and has declared his intent to come back and edit as an IP whenever he deems it necessary. Judging by all the drama surrounding this user, he is not a net positive. AniMate 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Congratulations. You got a badge of honor. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  True, but it's not nearly as nasty as Lar's. AniMate 04:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  John Vandenberg visited list.wikia.com and {{delete}}-tagged the various user pages over there and asked that A Nobody discuss the issue. John was reverted and the del-tagging revs have been deleted and the user pages protected. But not yours; there is an odd discussion about your block and its rationale on AN's talk page there. This is about an allegation of his that you inappropriately edited on wikia:annex (which I have no information on;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Animate, why did you search out A Nobody on another site to post this:
  "Saying you're too sick to edit there while consistently editing here and at other wikia projects makes you look like a liar with absolutely no honor. Perhaps you're fine with that, and if that's the case you are truly a pathetic person."[50][51] Okip 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  • recommended reading. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - feels redundant to the ArbCom motion. If he wants to return, he has to deal with them anyway. If there is no faith in the ArbCom, why were they sought out to deal with him in the first place? BOZ (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A Nobody is consistently disruptive, has abused sock puppets many times, refuses to accept accountability for his own actions and has been a net negative on this project for a long time. Since there is not the slightest prospect of A Nobody changing his ways and not being thoroughly objectionable for a change, it's time he was permanently removed from this project. Reyk _YO! 04:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support If I am reading his contributions on meta correctly he has basically promised to continue socking with IP addresses, despite the ArbCom restrictions. A communtiy ban would ensure that these contributions get reverted immediately when they are discovered, as he would not be welcome here unless he edits under his own name, which he has promised not to do again. By not listening to the constructive criticism at his RFA, not responding to the ArbCom case (making up "I'm sick" excuses to avoid it), and by socking around the ArbCom restrictions, he has brought this upon himself. He obviously is aware of the proceedings here (he has summarily blocked his recent critics from appearing on list.wikia, while uploading articles that are in danger of deletion from this wiki) but he still refuses to engage in a dialog regarding his actions. If this ban goes through I would encourage him to consider making an appeal to ArbCom under the "A Nobody" account if and when he is willing to accept the arbcom case and listen to the criticism leveled against him, but until that happens I think he ought to be banned from editing. ThemFromSpace 06:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support For what its worth. I still think this is basically redundant and I still feel differently from KWW regarding the gravity of AN's past socking, but the core problem is his refusal to engage in DR w/ anyone who disagrees with him. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The ArbCom ban is only provisional. A full ban is needed to put a stop to these ridiculous antics. Fram (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. He can appeal to ArbCom if he wants to, but the recent socking around restrictions is not acceptable. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - A Nobody certainly seems to be deserving of a community ban, but since Arbcom has already indef'ed him, until such time as he aubmits for as Arbcom hearing, which will almost certainly indef him again, I'm not certain what the point of a community ban is. In any event, I support whatever procedure prevents him from editing here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's a logical suggestion, but I can't see it really serving any practical purpose other than adding another layer of un-needed drama to this already overlong saga.   pablo_hablo. 09:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Should A Nobody wish to participate in an arbitration case, he will be able to - accordingly, this does not accomplish anything, theoretically or practically, other than ArbCom's provisional ban, however odd that might have been. In such circumstances, this proposal would not make sense unless (1) a faction of editors are afraid that A Nobody's conduct to date would not otherwise rise to the level that would warrant a severe sanction at the conclusion of arbitration, or (2) that faction don't want the case to ever go ahead in case they themselves end up with sanctions at the conclusion of arbitration. Either way, too late the case, even if paused, is already accepted. This redundant measure does not bring any finality to the matter (even if that's what everyone wants); it just adds more drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [Amended] but the community is reaffirming that socking is unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect in different ways. I'll leave your limited interpretation of reasons why people may support this alone, as that is opinion. You are howver factually incorrect by stating that this ban is not different from the current arbcom ban. The current arbcom ban will be (unconditionally) lifted when A Nobody would agree to participate in the case. The community ban however would not be lifted unconditionally at such a time, although probably a restricted lifting would happen so that AN could edit all case-related pages (but nothing in other namespaces, presumably). Furthermore, from WP:BAN: "Traditionally when a user is banned by the Arbitration Committee as a result of a "normal" Arbitration case, a duration of one year is the most serious level of ban that will be given. The Committee's logic is that if reban or extension becomes necessary because the problem has not ceased, then the community will probably be able to deal with it by consensus." If the consensus already feels that a full ban is necessary, then the possible one-year arbcom ban would become moot, not the other way around. Fram (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Your quotation from policy seems irrelevant because this is not a "normal" arbitration case - that is why I used the word 'odd'. Cases have run without the participation of one or more (otherwise active) participants; that is the norm. What is 'abnormal'/'unusual'/'unique' (or however you want to look at it) is that ArbCom have made it a compulsory requirement that this participant, an editor with no additional privilleges, must be ready to participate in the case in order for the case to be opened. ArbCom sanctions have superseded community sanctions before, particularly those that seem to intend on interfering with the arbitration process - so unless the community imposes a conditional ban that states that A Nobody is permitted to participate in pages relating to the ArbCom case (in which case, this would resemble a mere editing restriction as opposed to an outright site ban), ArbCom would effectively remove the effect of this ban and impose a different remedy. In practice, ArbCom might not let A Nobody edit the namespace as a result of this measure, but I'm not sure what a community would hope to achieve by reacting to an announcement and merely imposing an extra layer of drama for an unopened (but accepted) case. As for the other part, my opinion/interpretation is strictly limited to certain users who are actually involved in this and (simultaneously) have given all appearances of being a faction; it is not really in regard to any other users who are commenting, regardless of if they support/oppose, or if they have been erroneously considered as involved. Each person knows who they are, as well their level of involvement - probably the only thing those users might dispute is how they appear. Anyway, that's enough clarification for my single comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Amended at 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose A community ban would be disproportionately harsh. In the strong sense of the word ANobody doesnt seem to have committed recent socking – he merely edited as an IP, he hasnt created new undeclared accounts. Since Arbcom clarified that AN isnt allowed to edit even as an IP, he emailed me and I guess others saying he doesnt intend to edit here at all in the near future, if at all. A full ban would be needlessly punitive and may impact ANobody elsewhere as uses the same handle on Wikia. It would be demoralising to constructive editors for whom Anobody is an inspiration due to his long track record of saving and improving articles, as well as his helpful and friendly nature demonstrated by his extensive otterly work welcoming and helping newcomers. The arbcom ruling and courtesy blanking of his page was an acceptable compromise – why stir up drama by pushing for total victory for one side? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Talk of "sides" and "victory" also increases the drama levels.   pablo_hablo. 12:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Not always. An accurate and measured discussion is often helpful in resolving conflicting views. In this case its pointless to pretend there's not a factional element to the dispute. This is not to say that many here expressing a view here arent impartial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support disruptive time-eating editor. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per KWW's clarification. Arbcoms motion should be enforced. However I don't support a premption of a possible arbcom case should he chose to account for matters in the proper forum.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CommentConsidering a couple of the points made, I could probably support an action that didn't predjudice the opening of an arbcom case, but restricted him even on return from making edits Outside of dealing with that case. Socking certainly shouldn't be tolerated. On principle the act of preventing his dealing with arbcom doesn't sit well.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support and not seeing as duplication of ArbCom's request (even though the net result is the same). The ArbCom request is to prevent him evading the pending case. This is in action to his sockpuppetry that he's been affirmed of doing several times over, now (this is not an element of the ArbCom case, though their action to indef block him is to prevent him using socks in place). Should Nobody want to come back, he needs to appeal to the community that he would not sock again, and then participate in the ArbCom case, to remove both. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Bingo.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Had this proposal made it here prior to ArbCom's motion, this would've been a no-brainer and I would've agreed with you 100% without questions at all due to the socking. I find myself concerned by this though. The community asked ArbCom to do something, ArbCom did it in a manner that would not interfere with the case (should it go forward), and now you want the community to interfere because you don't want the case to open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  The community wants ArbCom to discuss the behavior of Nobody that in no way was connected to socking. Nobody seemed to disappear when the case opened, so ArbCom puts the case on hold pending Nobody's return. Nobody (as Nobody, not socking) comes back a few times an edits but does not consider himself "back" in full means to open the ArbCom case. Thus, ARbCom is saying, either you are back and ready to participate in this case, or you aren't editing WP. Now we've got evidence of Nobody using socks - for the 4th time - to evade action tied to his username. That's the community's actions, as it's well established that repeated sock users are not tolerated and requires no ArbCom intervention. So right now, Nobody has two actions to account for: the actions that lead to the ArbCom case, and socking, and while ArbCom indef block and the community ban equat to the same technical result, those are two checkboxes that must be met that Nobody needs to acknowledge and resolve before he starts editing again. Take, for instance, that he wants to come back only in the manner to discuss his arbcom case. That lifts the indef block but leaves the commmunity ban until he's ready to address the socking issue with the community, which may never happen even if he does do the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  That makes sense; cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'd have been fine with the arbcom motion, but AN has already stated his intent to continue occasionally editing as an IP without acknowledging a return, and so the motion is useless to stop his socking and the ensuing wikidrama. I'd like this matter to be settled once and for all, and a community ban seems to accomplish this with fewer loop holes for him. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I would normally be inclined to agree with the opposers, except for the fact that A Nobody is openly flouting an order from ArbCom (issued in March and enforced with a block since April) not to return until he is willing to face the case against him. That can't be tolerated. Blueboy96 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban per HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – this sort of sockpuppetry, and these sorts of behavioural issues, would be completely unacceptable even if they weren't coupled with the absurd motivation of not participating in an ArbCom case. Cameron Scott (talk · contribs) also puts it pretty well! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. Extremely disruptive, deceitful, vindictive user who has repeately demonstrated his utter contempt for Wikipedia community. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'll support this, the user must surely know by now that continued socking is not going to have any other outcome. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support; technically ArbCom should also look into sockpuppetry if/when the case is opened, but that is no reason to change community norms when responding to repeated socking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support It was clear that engagement was expected and that socking was the last thing that A Nobody should be doing. I'm sorry that he chose this path, but that was his choice so here we are... Someoneanother 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Switching to Oppose AN knew damn well what was going to happen if he continued his antics and yet persisted anyway. That said, having spent the majority of my evening reading and mulling I can't balance taking part in applying what at least one person in the world thinks is "stigma that he's unsuitable as a volunteer for a collaborative project" with a ban that isn't strictly necessary. Because AN has complained of sustained harassment, having an Arbcom process in his absence seems wrong, or at least it did. It should be made clear, if the ban does not happen, that any further editing of WP will activate the Arbcom process, whether he intends to participate in it or not. He can't have it both ways. Someoneanother 01:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Just people upset from arguing with him in the past, or that he blocked them from posting on the List Wikia because stating he didn't want them harassing him. He also said he retired from Wikipedia, do to constant harassment from others, and is focused on list.wikia.com Also, I don't believe he sockpuppeted at all, that just ridiculous. Dream Focus 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• strong oppose on its face this appears like a vindictive way to punish someone, from a group of bullies who have opposed A Nobody's attempts to improve editors good faith contributions for years. The IP is blocked, A Nobody is blocked, yet Kww (who has gotten in countless arguments with A Nobody in the past) still is not satisfied. What is Kww trying to accomplish here? How does this community ban block A Nobody anymore than he already is? Kww, now that you have finely become an admin on your fourth try after A Nobody so strongly opposed your third adminiship (I am so proud that I was a decisive factor in your third RFA failing, and you are lucky I just learned of the fourth RFA), is it time to settle old scores? is this the type of administrator and leadership wikipedia is going to have to deal with, yet another bully? Okip 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  And what motives to the other 19 editors, admins and no, who have supported the ban, have? I don't think I've had any run ins with A Nobody, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support shown time and again only here to play games. Enough socking, lying, and refusal to take on board anyone's concerns about behavioral issues. Really, the wikia behavior is outside of our jurisdiction, but rather illustrative about his actual attitude towards others, rather than his feigned one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Regretful support. On a personal level I've had no problems with AN in his various incarnations and generally found him to be pleasant and constructive despite our disagreement over his meta-inclusionist philosophy. However, his ducking of responsibility in the Arbcom case coupled with the bizarre pre-emptive blocking on his wiki is very concerning; I think the socking demonstrates that he has no regard for our communal standards and no intention of taking anyone's concerns seriously. EyeSerene^talk 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's not "his wiki" ;) Wikia.com is a private company owned by User:Jimbo Wales and User:Angela. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support community ban on the grounds that this user has consistently shown a lack of respect for community norms. The socking to get around the ArbCom case is the last straw. I believe I also had !voted in the past to ban him as his previous username; he retired saying he was done and when he returned under the current username the disruptive behavior gradually began again. I feel no confidence that this current breaking of ties with WP will last and would be unsurprised to see him back with a new username in a few months' time. It's time to cut the knot for good on this user. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• This seems as good a time as any to mention that either Dream Focus or A Nobody or both is spouting nonsense about the block, their disappearance, and so on. Read User talk:Dream Focus, section User:A Nobody, to get the full picture. What it boils down to is this: A Nobody claims to have no longer the access to his account (password scrambled). The central point is made near the end: "He replied to my email saying "I have scrambled my password for A Nobody. I thus cannot log back in and ever come back on that account." He works exclusively at wikia now, doing a lot of work on the list wikia. Anyway he doesn't want to get emails every time something is posted on his talk page. Dream Focus 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)" As I replied there, either he still has his email-account, and then he can just request a new password, or he doesn't have email anymore, and then he can't be receiving emails anytime something is posted to his talk page. Assuming that Dream Focus is faithfully and correctly reporting whatever A Nobody said, this means that he was once again being disruptive with edit requests to his talk page which were either completely unnecessary (if he didn't have email anymore), or untruthful. Coupled with the problems during the past years, this just reinforces my opinion that we are better off here without him... Fram (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Kww is quite correct, even if we ignore everything else and put aside our "wiki-philosophies", AN is four time sockpuppeteer and has explicitly stated that he intends to continue using ip socks. A full ban is more than appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This vindictive witchhunt seems to be the work of serial sock puppeteer User:Jack Merridew and so lacks credibility. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Then don't make it one. Jack Merridew 22:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Colonel, what about the repeated sockpuppetry and the declared intention to continue? Are we to ignore that forever just because AN is a symbol in some philosophical struggle related to inclusion criteria? Try to see the forest through the trees here. This is a separate matter from the pending ArbCom case, it's about the socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's really about a lot of things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  I see no battleground mentality except for your comment: "vindictive witchhunt" and calling a someone a '"serial sock puppeteer". Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Sockpuppetry, however minor, was the last straw for an editor with a pending ArbCom case against them. And his vindictive blocking of accounts on the Wikia Lists Wiki in response to arguments made here shows that he holds grudges and treats Wikipedia as a battleground. This is a serial sockpuppeteer and disruptive editor who needs to be shown the door. He now claims to not wish to edit Wikipedia any more, so the feeling is apparently mutual. Fences&Windows 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Lar. Aditya Ex Machina 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any way to have a tally for easy convenience? By my count, 31 editors are in support of a community ban on A Nobody, 7 have opposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I think we are seeking consensus rather than counting noses. But by my evaluation, at this time, there is a very strong consensus present for a community ban of A Nobody. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Certainly. Still helpful to have a summary of where we are.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oh. Well in that case I think your numbers are about right. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support: this is a ban-worthy offence, end of, even without AN's history. And it's humorous to see that the usual suspects have opposed the ban as well, and doubly humorous that the only person with a cogent argument is who I've previously referred to as "the Olympia Snowe of inclusionism". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The last time I checked, sockpuppets weren't allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2010 (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.

Where is the evidence for this socking?

In 2010, there only seems to be 6 trivial edits to a list article from an Ip, and the latest was in April. WP:Sock is entirely about not using alternative accounts except in very special circumstances - something AN hasnt done since the policy was strengthened back in 2009, it used to be much more permissive. Calling ANs 6 trivial IP edits socking seems almost desperately strained. Saying AN is defying the will of Arbcom is only slightly more credible, especially as the last edit was back in April. The claim he's socking round a ban would only carry weight if he did so after the ban. Back in April all he had was a block that was explicitly described as a mere technical measure to ensure that Arbcom was notified of his return. Do folk here bother to check the facts before rushing to judgment? Or is the socking accusation just a feeble and manipulative pretext for a witch-hunt? I exempt KWW as he seems to be consistent with his hardline stance, others here voting to ban on grounds of socking do not impress. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He was well aware that using a new account or editing while signed out would be unacceptable with an Arbcom proceeding waiting for his input. Whether it's six or sixty, he knew better. The amount of vitriol you're spraying around is less than helpful. Someoneanother 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If your feelings are so sensitive that my restrained defence of ANobody comes across as vitriolic, I suggest in future you dont step up to support our ultimate sanction against a kind hearted and constructive editor such as ANobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody has had an opportunity to discuss, calmly and at length, the issues (or even non-issues if you're so inclined) surrounding his editing on WP at the Arbcom hearing. Instead of doing so, he states that he's sick and vanishes, only to return yet again. If he refuses to help himself then there's nothing that can be done for him. Bitching about everybody's motives is not restrained. Someoneanother 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And as far as it being the ultimate sanction, it wouldn't slam the door shut, only reinforce that he cannot continue to side-step the community indefinitely. If he actually involved himself in discussion this ANI wouldn't even be here. Someoneanother 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you dont want to bolt the door, this seems all the more redundant. The conditional arbom indef ban was reasonable, and if AN wont show up for Arbcom its functionally equivalent to a community ban. No need to impose the stigma that hes unsuitable as a volunteer for a collaborative project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the difs show him ignoring that block, so if not now then at some point the ban is going to happen because he won't engage with the Arbcom process. I wish he would, but right now he's choosing to repeat the same avoidance tactic which contributed to the opening of the Arbcom hearing in the first place. Someoneanother 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are neglecting to mention the edits to WP:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas, which were made after the block was imposed.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ive been advised that only 24.154.173.243 was AN, the other IPs dont seem to geolocate to the same region and werent confirmned as socks. But yeah, one of them does look like his style, so ive struck my most vitriolic points and will now withdraw. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply one edit is enough to establish sockpuppetry; I got blocked for socking about two years back for four edits while logged out. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor ignoring WP:MOSCAPS in religious articles

Resolved

 – Bookworm747 (talk · contribs) is blocked for 24 hours. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've twice asked Bookworm747 (talk · contribs) to stop but to no avail, no response. Some of his changes are ok, most are not. Can someone else take a look please and help him? I reverted him once but he didn't notice and just continued [52]. His latest is [53] - not a big deal but I think it needs to be dealt with hopefully with no casualties. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he seems to be write-only, he seems problematic to me. AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits have continued past your warnings so I've issued a short "wake up" block. Hopefully they'll take some notice. EyeSerene^talk 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just discovered the block when I realised I'd forgotten to notify him. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Ahmed shahi

I'm abusing my adminship, again!

Can I get a block review please: I blocked Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier today with an expiry of 1 week for "Disruptive editing: Forum shopping, edit warring, incivility, baiting etc)". This is part of an ongoing dispute between Ahmed shahi and Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked at the start of the week for edit warring with Ahmed shahi and later unblocked on condition that the agree to an interaction ban that I drafted in my userspace. While Ahmed shahi has not agreed to those conditions, he seems to have developed an obsession with Tajik, having complained to anybody he thinks will listen, accusing Tajik of sock puppetry (without evidence) and, after being blocked has attacked me, accusing me of being biased, of favouring Tajik (interestingly enough, Tajik thinks the exact opposite) and of displaying "prejudice toward Muslims" (his words). So, block review, please! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that each occurrence of "self abuse" will be assessed a 25 cent fine on Judgment Day. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done so at some length, and agree with User:HJ Mitchell -- whom I feel has actually been very restrained here in the face of considerable provocation -- but others are welcome to form an opinion on the evidence. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. A case of anyone who disagrees with the user being part of X hating group or Y secret organisation. SGGH ^ping! 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On review of the editor's most recent contributions, I'd have to say "Good block." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon Ahmed shahi's talk page to leave a 3RR warning and found this thread. Good block. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A week seems about right. I wouldn't count on the guy improving his attitude by next Friday, though. This appears to be just another manifestation of the ancient enmity between Arabs and Persians. I doubt wikipedia is going to be able to solve that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all comments above. Claiming that an administrator has been prejudice against a muslim seems like a silly weasel argument. HJ Mitchell is a credible administrator who has in the past dealt with situations more than appropriately and almost always displays objective judgement. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Anytime both parties in a dispute are accusing you of being biased against them it's a sure sign you have done your job properly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I say good block. If Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) agrees to the interaction ban, we can unblock him. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) – an editor who seems to have had copyright problems stretching back years – is currently insisting that he be allowed to use the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on an image which is not currently nominated for speedy deletion with the accompanying {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag.

I have tried to explain to him several times that they go as a pair, that the "disputed" tag is not for standalone use, and that if he wants to air his views on this particular image correctly and somewhere where others are likely to see them, he needs to do it at WP:FFD where the discussion is taking place, but he is having none of it.

Would someone mind clarifying the situation, please? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, although you're technically right, I'd just leave it there. It makes no odds since there's no way in hell the image will be kept at FFD anyway. CIreland (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it doesn't do to encourage him, and it's only fair that his (admittedly ludicrous) views get aired in the right place anyway. Incidentally, there are two other images with identical problems: File:Iceland-Mexico 2008.png and File:Brabados 2009 trade.jpg. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, just leave the di-replaceable fair use tags alone. It's not like they're hurting anyone or going to make the difference anywhere. At the rate Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is going, he's going to get himself blocked. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I second Fastily on this. I had some unpleasant interactions on bilateral relations articles, after the previous enormous canvassing issue. I saw no evidence of canvassing on the later AfD, but as soon as that bilateral relations sort was added there was a flood of keep votes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Long term factual vandalism from IP

Special:Contributions/99.151.12.171 has a long history of making small changes to the heights of various individuals, athletes and models mostly. Most of this has slipped under the radar. Here are a few obvious examples (many were undone by regular editors of those articles but never warned or reported wider): [54] (compare to [55]) [56] [57] (shoe size change ?) [58] (date changes, undone by another editor) [59] [60] [61] [62] and others. Also, I'm not picking these at random out of a huge contribution history. I'm going down the list of articles edited and this is pretty much that list. Clear case. Looking for collateral damage, but this sort of unnoticed vandalism is hard to clean up.

Some admin action would be appreciated; I don't think AIV is appropriate for this due to the low-intensity but persistence of the problem. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman book self-promotion

Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.158.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.157.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.159.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

OK, so we've got this guy Arnold Reisman, who has apparently written a book about World War II with some admittedly "little known" ideas, and he is now posting that info in various articles, despite being told it's unacceptable for a number of reasons. Since he won't listen to us peons, perhaps an admin could 'splain a few things to him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to revert his first edit to world war 2 but, since the page is one of the longest pages ever (surpassed by, say, the rfc for blp's?) I didn't get there in time. I sugesst giving him a 24 hour block or somthing to that extent. (plz, drama pplz, advz mi. i iz newb). Of course, if another ref can be found to back it up, not published by himself, than I think I could reword it so as it sounds more NPOV. Buggie111 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's also added refs to a lot of other articles, all to books by "Arnold Reisman" and all apparently self-published (New Academic Publishers and BookSurge). I haven't found a single edit which isn't OR, based on self-published books or (worse) a forthcoming self-published books. I'm removing his edits, but wouldn't mind some help. He also edited as 69.212.157.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, another IP to add to the list (see top of this section). OK, if consensus is to zap his material, I'll try and help out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his article, I'm not sure he's notable enough to have an article. He and the IP are the main contributors, and the article was created by Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Altogether, this person has breached WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SP, WP:COI. I think a warning, at least, might be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not jumping on Arnold too hard right off the bat. He, like a lot of other folks around the world is not really sure what wikipedia is (and is not) and I thnk it would be in everyone's best interest to assume good intentions, to view his use of his own work not as self-promotion but as a misunderstanding of what goes on around here. He appears to be/have been an educator, let's see if he is educable. Carptrash (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, that's why I wasn't advocating a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given the editor a welcome, and a link to WP:NOT. Hopefully he'll read that, and if he has any questions about how to incorporate the material into articles he will ask about it. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this isn't like every other self-promoter out there. This guy should be indeffed as an advertising/spam only account. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly not a newbie. He's been here, between his registered user and his IP's, for almost four years now. He was just lucky enough to have flown under the radar for the most part, until yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He is clearly socking, even creating an IP user page, that's not accidentally editing logged out. Does anyone have a good reason not to block his IPs? It seems extremely unlikely he doesn't know that he shouldn't be doing that, given his ability to find places to post his complaints. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why he's posting complaints in all sorts of odd places, but has so far not come here, when he's been pointed here a number of times. He hasn't edited since Xeno's and Binksternet's most recent pointers, so we'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether Reisman is educable or not should be evident in the next few days, certainly weeks. If he continues to spam his fringe theory about FDR and Henry Morgenthau Jr. being responsible for the destruction of Europe and the killing of millions of civilians and soldiers, he should be blocked. His contributions about sculpture do not have the taint of his WWII fringe ideas. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not acting his age, either. Buggie111 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Overzealousness on the part of some Wiliki editors

Very recently two or three editors ganged up and zapped all of my contributions to Wiki articles. Their creativity seems to be limited to finding reasons ex post facto for having done so. The most recent one is that the books I cite are self-published. Unabashedly they are. However if the editors had taken a few microseconds to look into the matter they would have found that all of these "self-published" books have beeen highly reviewed by historians worlwide. Among them were none other than Sir Willim Gillbert, Andrew Mango and others. Another few microseconds of Googling would have turned up some great reviews of these books in say Nature, Isis, Technolgy and Culture, The Historian, Midwest Book Review, The British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.,Migration Lettersamong many others. One of the reasons I have written these books in the forst place was that the area was virgin. It was a historians blind spot. For a biliograpic survey see Reisman, A. “Turkey’s Invitations to Nazi Persecuted Intellectuals Circa 1933: A Bibliographic Essay on History’s Blind Spot” Available on http://ssrn.com/abstract=993310 Covenant, The Global Jewish Magazine. Vol. 2, No. 2 (Summer 2009). www.covenant.idc.ac.il/en/vol3/issue1/Reisman-Turkeys-AM-PDF.pdf.

Through their systematic zapping these editors have deprived Wikipedia users of much relevant and significant historical information and have alienated a prolyphic and constructive contributor.

Will someone listen?

Is there any recourse?

Please advise.

Respectfully submittedArnold Reisman (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term "historian's blind spot" translates to me as WP:FRINGE. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment Binksternet's comment above;

All Wikipedia information which is at all controversial needs to be sourced to reliable sources which we can verify exist and review independently, by any editor. Self-published materials do not have an external editorial process, they have not been vetted by editors or legal departments of publishers, etc. Forthcoming self-published materials aren't verifiable (yet, at least).

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research - we have a specific, core policy about that - WP:OR. We reflect what others have published, in other venues.

Independent reviews, in reliable source venues such as well established journals or magazines, help overcome those issues to some extent.

However, your personal participation also is somewhat problematic. You have a conflict of interest regarding the significance and context of your own research, and we again have policies against people editing with conflicts of interest WP:COI and not remaining neutral.

Going back to Binksternet, we have policies about research which is not yet accepted in the mainstream of a field ( WP:FRINGE which he listed) or which is unduly emphasized despite being a relatively small or controversial legitimate part of a field (WP:UNDUE).

All of these policies are here because Wikipedia is not made up of experts and able to necessarily judge a particular contribution's accuracy or validity from an expert's standpoint. A journal, a book publisher in a specific field, these people are experts and can filter out grossly wrong information easily. We can't necessarily do that. We also have no way of independently verifying who you are and what your experience and professional standing are; that applies to everyone here.

We push the basic editorial credibility issue off onto other publications and venues.

This necessarily makes self-publishing not an acceptable source content for Wikipedia information, barring secondary sources then covering (replying to, reviewing, etc) what you wrote.

In some ways this is unfortunate, as we are somewhat of necessity not able to use some sources which are ultimately probably correct information. But we can't assume that our filters here for good vs bad information are terribly valid.

That's how Wikipedia works. It's probably how it has to work, given that it's a volunteer project on the Internet.

To the degree that this is making it hard to use your material, that is unfortunate. To the degree that your material has been covered in secondary sources which meet WP:RS, our reliable sources policy, then it's not a total bar on inclusion. But you do need to keep in mind our conflict of interest, fringe, and undue weight policies as well.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

GWH, your synopsis of the policies relevant to this situation is excellent. I do want to add one other point, and that is that Arnold Reisman's area of expertise is in engineering (operations research, according to his self-written Wikipedia article). If his self-published material was in this area, there might be an argument for accepting it on the authority of being his expert opinion (although undue weight and fringe might still be concerns). However, the subject matter of the reverted edits and the self-published books which were cited to support them are not in that area at all, they concern the arts and history, areas in which there is not indication whatsoever that Arnold Reisman had any particular accreditation. In this situation -- an academic opining about subjects outside their expertise -- there should be no more presumption of special knowledge than is given to any other non-expert Wikipedia editor who is required to cite reliable sources for controversial information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, sometimes that's just the way it is on Wilikipedia. HalfShadow 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD & sockpuppetry

A note that the article Arnold Reisman has been nominated for deletion.[63]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reisman has edited to the Arnold Reisman article using a third IP address, User:69.212.159.248, despite having been warned that doing so was against Wikipedia policy. I have filed an SPI report here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting the essay "Self Marketing of Books: The Epidemic Theory Model and the WWW" by Arnold Reisman, in which two methods for self-promotion of books are listed for "Wikipedia, etc.": "Creating articles" and "Editing into existing articles". The essay was published on "Book Marketing DeMystified", which appears to be a blog based on a book of the same name by Bruce Batchelor. Reisman gives as the epigram for the essay a quote by Batchelo: "The more publicity you stir up, the more books will be sold." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That casts a rather different light on the "newbie editor not understanding how Wikipedia works" theory. I also note he lists Amazon reviews - presumably written by himself for his own books. This is not someone we want operating here; I've reinstated Todd's indefblock and semi-protected the bio article while it's at AfD to prevent any more self-promotional edits. EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could another admin deal with this?

[64] was left on my talk page. For the reason I stated in my reply, I feel better having someone else deal with it, and as the individual claims to be a sock (though one requesting help), it is perhaps best all around if I just refer it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. The account should make unblock requests, at the talk page of the master account. -- Cirt (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW Cirt, the user this one claims to be had talk page access revoked (I think). It might be worth pointing them towards whatever the email for requesting an unblock is? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The master account, User talk:RevAntonio, still has talk page access. -- Cirt (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/User456246478845 indicated last year that he wanted to RTV, but that never happened. I don't know what is going on, but he should be able to edit either with only one account or with zero accounts (i.e. blocked). –MuZemike 08:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Slovaks in Hungary

There's no particular drama here, just a procedural question on which Spartaz and I are disagreeing. (For the avoidance of doubt I quite like Spartaz and I often agree with him, just not in this case. Spartaz advised me to raise the matter here, so I'm doing it with his full knowledge.)

The situation is that following Guy's early closure of the AfD for Slovaks in Hungary, about which there's a long drama above, Dpmuk wanted to raise a deletion review to examine whether the process had been correctly followed. He did this here. Spartaz pre-emptively closed the DRV on the grounds that the article has been userfied. Spartaz's view is that because the article has been userfied, no deletion has taken place, which means that DRV has no jurisdiction. Spartaz thinks the correct venue for Dpmuk's request is WP:RM.

My view is that DRV is the correct place for challenging a deletion decision, and that RM has no jurisdiction to decide whether Guy followed the procedure correctly. I therefore think Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was inappropriate.

Please could uninvolved people decide which of us is correct?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall: if an article has been deleted at AfD and then userfied, DRV is the correct forum for deciding whether it should be allowed back into the main space, relisted for AfD, or stay out. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It has never been deleted. It has been moved to user space. A move is not an admin action and does not have the effect of an admin enforcing a consensus with tools. Its an editorial outcome that can be changed by any new consensus. As such a deletion review is nugatory and this can either ne resolved at RM or by gaining a new consensus on the article talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A move isn't an admin action, but deleting the resulting redirect is. But the main point is that a fresh consensus about what's to be done with the article does an end run around what is undoubtedly a DRV function:- to oversee whether Guy followed the process correctly. Admins are empowered to make emergency decisions and judgment calls, but if they do, they aren't above scrutiny of their actions at DRV afterwards.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also brought the matter up at Spartaz's talk page. Userfication is basically the same as deletion (in fact it normally happens after deletion) and has never been a reason to stop a DrV in the past. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• My view on this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Here we have an article which, after significant discussion, everybody agrees is seriously noncompliant with core policy. It fails WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and is also in very poor English. The creating user has since been indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing due to POV-pushing in precisely the area covered by the article's contents. So we have now spent a significant amount of time and energy arguing about whether this should sit in article space for a week before its inevitable deletion, or whether it is somehow a terrible abuse of process to move it to user space where someone has expressed an interest in fixing it. I am utterly bemused by the determination of some people to keep what is by common consent a terrible article in mainspace, rather than userspace, while we decide to nuke it. That is plain silly. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Slovaks in Hungary is a redlink. Clicking on it gives me the option to view or restore 7 deleted edits. Typing "Slovaks in Hungary" into the search box does not find it. This is exactly the same situation as if the article had been deleted and userfied: Article gone from WP / article present in userspace / no way for a regular user to find it. I don't think it's a very good argument to say that "it hasn't been deleted" because effectively - very effectively - it has. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, DRV would be the right venue if you disagreed with Guy's closure. Technically Guy did close it as delete, but userfied the article in the same action. No, DRV is not necessary if someone is going to work on the article in their userspace and move it to the mainspace once it's suitable. At that point, it would go to another AFD. Whether Guy's early closure was suitable invocation of IAR is an exercise left to the reader. –xeno^talk 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I feel that Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was correct given that the drv was clearly process wonkery. I don't feel that Spartaz' reason for closing the drv was good, since reversing any decision made by AfD is presisely what drv is for. So I think the closure should be "closed as beeing a call for procedure for procedures sake", or WP:SNOW. Taemyr (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• That, at least, is a fair point. Perhaps Spartaz would like to change the closure summary. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen no comment in the AfD or DRV that states the current content should be in the mainspace; at best, some think there is something to salvage with heavy work needed. Frankly, I see both the AfD and the DRV as process for process sake. All that should matter is that the content be sourced and updated to maximize its encyclopedic value so that it can be evaluated in the mainspace. Who cares if the TPS reports were properly filled out in the interim? The optimal outcome—a properly-sourced and relevant article in the mainspace—is still achieveable and another discussion about the intracacies of proper i-dotting and t-crossing will not help with that. Move on, everyone. These efforts would be better spent at the userified article. — Scientizzle 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What's the point of process, Scientizzle? It's a serious question:- Why do we bother to have AfD discussions? And why do we bother to have a DRV process for reviewing whether they're closed properly?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a balance thing - enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness, not so much process that we're all spending our time filling out forms in quadruplicate. What WP:IAR basically means is that the right result is to be more highly valued than which pathway is used to achieve it, so if the procedural niceties are getting in the way, it's OK to jump the line. It answers, for Wikipedia, the age-old question of whether the end justifies the means: here, at least, it does, when the end is important enough. Certainly improving the encyclopedia is important enough, and I've yet to see an argument in all this silliness that the article in question, in the state it is in, improves the encyclopedia. The correct result (or some version of the correct result - perhaps Dougweller is right and it should have gone to the incubator) was achieved, and nothing got broken in the bargain, except maybe the desire to elevate process for its own sake to a more important status than advancing the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this thread is about Spartaz' early close of the DRV, and not about Guy's deletion of the article, is it your position that enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness took place?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz' decision seems to me to be exactly right: there was no deletion, therefore nothing to be reviewed at DRV. A controversial action with no specific forum designated for discussion is therefore dealt with at a place for general discussions of controversial actions, i.e. AN or AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of process? The Wikipedia processes exist to serve the needs of creating a better encyclopdia only. Processes like AfD are for gathering feedback towards that end, which may be best acheived by eliminating content or spurring the relocation and/or improvement of that content. Speedy deletion exists for when the content is unlikely to ever meet reasonable inclusion criteria. DRV exists because AfDs are not always clean and easy to close, speedies may be overzealous, conditions may change in the real world that may reasonably alter the fate of a deletion discussion given a second look, and admins are human and prone to make mistakes.

It seems abundantly clear that reasonable, knowledgable editors don't think the current content of the Slovaks in Hungary article is ready for Prime Time, therefore it should not be in the mainspace. It's also clear that some reasonable, knowledgable editors think there is some work that can be done to possibly shape it into an appropriate article, which is recommended to be done in userspace. Therefore the optimal transitional state has currently been acheived: the content is now in userspace to be worked upon by those interested and capable, thus increasing the liklihood of creating an encyclopedic article. I've seen no indication of a reasonably-likely process outcome that would be clearly superior to this. If someone can provide one, I'd like to know. Process can get in the way when sensible actions (such as userifying marginal content for improvement) are inhibited or actively opposed.

And to head off any concern over ends justify the means extremism: this only applies to reasonably sensible outcomes acheived through reasonably sensible—if out of the ordinary—actions. Naturally, any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation, but my view is that the means should be optimized to meet the ends, that the means should never be an end unto themselves, and that the optimal approach is sometimes out-of-process. — Scientizzle 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I came back to make exactly that point, that process is most important with marginal cases, where it helps determine what consensus is. In this case, at all points along the way, the consensus concerning the result was never in doubt: no one has disputed Guy's litany of the things wrong with the article, and everyone seems to agree (in broad terms) with the outcome. This is not a marginal case, and it is exactly those situations in which WP:IAR encourages us to "just do it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• And that's exactly my view as well, Scientizzle. Would you agree with me that when you say, "any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation", the correct venue for critical evaluation of a deletion is DRV?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The entire point of that DRV, it seems to me, was placing the process ahead of the outcome. Dpmuk even stated in the AfD "I would have no problem with a userfy close", which, incidentally, was the close. Your comments in the DRV, S Marshall, were similarly concerned with process over outcome: "follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion." If deletion/userification is a reasonable outcome, and that outcome has been acheieved, what is the point of further process? What do you want out of this, S Marshall? What is there to gain at this point? — Scientizzle 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  
  To expand upon my thoughts here...DRV should be used iff the outcome and process were both questionable. To expand upon BMK's points above, the processes exist to expand the liklihood of a useful outcome in those gray areas of editing and to provide a sort of quasi-anarchic checks and balances-type control against actual abuses. I have yet to see a strong, clear objection to the actual outcome of all of this, or that some aspect of editing process was damaged, thus I see no need to worry much about whether the outcome was acheived by-the-book. — Scientizzle 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What do I want to see? Well, there's a main point and a subsidiary one. The main point isn't specific to this case. I would like to see it established that in principle, an AfD close as "userfy" can be challenged at DRV. Spartaz' close states that it cannot. In other words, to take Spartaz' close literally, there are no circumstances in which a "userfy" outcome is subject to DRV—and that's not okay.

  The subsidiary point is in sympathy with Dpmuk, and it's about FairProcess. And before we all start being snide about processes again, the word "fair" is the important one. Dpmuk hasn't been treated fairly here. He's effectively been told that even though he objects to Guy's out-of-process close, it can't be challenged in any venue. That's not collaborative; it's kafkaesque.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it can't be challenged in any venue - This is the community discussion on those actions. An unnecessary discussion, IMO, but a discussion nonetheless. Dpmuk hasn't been treated badly, his actions, although in good faith, were ill-advised, and the result commensurate with their (lack of) usefullness to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Amen. There is no harm in letting the DrV go forward, and the reason given for the close is a horrible precedent to let go forward. By closing this early we spend more time on this, not less, so it's self-defeating on top of everything else. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • How's that, then? –xeno^talk 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I personally don't see the reason for not allowing the discussion to go forward. Let the day in court happen. I realize it's bounced all around, but frankly there were serious problems, in my opinion, with the AfD close. I've not followed the whole case in detail, but a speedy closure by what appears to be an involved admin is never a good idea. I may be missing something, but I think it's better to have that discussion rather than sweep it under a rug. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Xeno, that improves the outcome considerably.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are all here, supposedly, to build an encyclopedia. The administrative and logistical "tail" that is necessary to support those "front line" activities should be as large as necessary, and not a whit larger. Any energy which goes into these kinds of conversations is energy that is not being applied to editing the encyclopedia, and is therefore to some extent counterproductive. The actions that were unnecessary in this case were (1) undoing the initial userfication, (2) tagging the article with a "procedural" AfD, (3) bringing the AfD result to DRV and (4) asking for review of the DRV result. These actions sapped energy to the detriment of the project. The other actions (i.e. my initial userfication, Guy's closing of the AfD and Spartaz' closing of the DRV) were all geared towards the most minimal possible action to achieve the obviously desirable result. To say that they provoked all this palaver is ridiculous: at each point along the way, it was the objections to those actions which caused additional discussion – this is yet another example of why the focus on process over result is detrimental, and why we have IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this breakdown of the situation and Floquenbeam's take. We're not arguing against process, we're arguing against the repeated use of progress for no perceived gain to the project. — Scientizzle 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody comes to AN/I to build an encyclopaedia, BMK. People come to AN/I to talk about how a collaborative encyclopaedia ought to be built. Which, I'm afraid, involves processes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been deliberately quiet on this whole issue (apart from asking for comments on my user page) for quite some time so as to reflect on everything. I have two points I wish to make:

• I'm happier with xeno's close of the DRV but still not completely happy. JgZ's close of the original AfD was, in my opinion, an atrocious very bad abuse of process. I take on board the comments above about the end result being correct but we have to draw the line somewhere as to what abuses of process we allow to get the right result. In my opinion this clearly crossed the line as he was not even close to independent. This was my reason for taking it to DRV in the first place. I would still like to see JgZ's closure of the AfD vacated even if it is then immediately closed by a neutral admin with the same outcome.
• Several people above have accused me of going through a pointless process with no gain to the project. Respectively I disagree. I will admit to the amount of drama this has generated being excessive but I don't think the whole process had no gain. As I state on my user page where I give my reasoning I think that ensuring process is followed is important and has a gain to the project - that of not alienating editors. Yes this is less tangible than making sure we have good articles but the two go hand in hand, without any editors we would have no articles, be they good, bad or indifferent. It is obvious that peoples views differ on the importance of this but I'd ask that people stop making it sound like my actions had 'no perceived gain to the project' is a given and instead acknowledge that it is just their view and that other's may differ. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stop using hyperbole. Atrocious? Is moving aside a biased article in bad English by a now-banned user really an atrocity? If you genuinely think it's an atrocity then God help you if you ever visit Rwanda or Zimbabwe. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that in common usage "atrocious" and "atrocity" have come to mean different things, the first (at least from my point of view) meaning "very bad" whereas atrocity has come to have a more specific meaning of murdering / killing as you describe (which is my book is much worse than "very bad"). I know that's not technically how things should work, but in my opinion that's how the two terms are commonly used, and I definitely meant it in the "very bad" sense and in no way meant to link it the the atrocities you mention. With hindsight it was probably a bad choice of word, due to the connection between the words, but it didn't occur to me at the time that people would make the connection as you did. Have refactored. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And I think you're missing the point. Fie on process, get badly written polemic out of mainspace as soon as possible. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed to differ over this. I respect and understand your opinion although I can't agree with it. I hope you can do the same about my opinion. I don't think there's any point in discussing our opinions as it's obvious we hold very opposed views and I don't think discussion between the two of us is going to change either of our views. Dpmuk (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That rather invites the question of why you've come back to have another go at getting the last word in, and notified me on my talk page that you'd done so. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I was trying to get consensus whether you closing the AfD was right. When two editors disagree about something I believe it is normal on wikipedia to get other editor's view and seek consensus. It was also offered as, what I thought was, an easy compromise to tidy this all up to the satisfaction of everyone. I see no further point in discussing this with you as we are obviously going to disagree so I wanted to get some other views. Consensus here was that the result of the close was correct but to date there has been little comment on whether you should have closed this as an 'involved admin'. What I meant when I'd said "we agreed to differ" was that we'd agreed that our views differ and that we respect each others and that there was no point in trying to change each other's views. That didn't mean I accepted your actions as correct, only that I understood them and so I'd still like them reviewed.

I was also more than a little surprised by your complaint about the use of the word "atrocity" above given that when I told you on your talk page what I had said you replied with "It's all good", so I naturally thought my wording was not an issue and then you decided to complain about it here. It seems you say one thing on your talk page and then another at ANI which I am a little surprised about although it's possible I've misunderstood something. Dpmuk (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of the article itself and the surrounding controversy, i'm very concerned about two points trying to be made here by the closing admins: that userification is not deletion and that, when it gets in your way, you should ignore process. Neither of these is wanted on Wikipedia.

For the first point, removing anything from the mainspace should be seen as Deletion. Userspace is not saving or keeping the article in any sense, as users generally userify things after they get deleted as it is. In this way, userification is an afterthought and is deletion regardless, because it is removal from mainspace.

The second is the one that worries me most, as most IAR abuse worries me. As has been explained by some well-worded explanations above, Ignore All Rules is only to be used in specific cases, where it benefits the community, not to be used as a method of getting what you want. Guy's description of his actions makes it seem as if he is saying that he will use IAR whenever he feels like it and no one can argue against him, per IAR. A circular argument at best. And it holds no water. Personally, for all the trouble it seems to cause, I feel that IAR should be severely restricted, if not done away with and replaced with something that explains what such a policy is meant to be for.

The last thing that worries me is that Guy, as has been stated and shown, was clearly an involved user with the article. And, as such, should not have closed the AfD. Involved admins are never supposed to be the ones to close an AfD or DRV. They are biased and, thus, cannot have any say in the closing, because they will close in the way they desire, not in the way that the community desires. I would say that even if the community agrees with the involved admin, they should still not be the one to close, as they would be doing it for the wrong reasons. And a right action for the wrong reasons is never right. Silverseren^C 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No I wasn't, I have no interest at all in that topic area, all I was doing was improving the encyclopaedia by removing badly-written polemic from article space - this was done in a way which positively encouraged people to fix the problems with the article if the topic itself was worthy of coverage. There are plenty of admins who have strong opinions in the area of Eastern European politics but I am not one of them. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that at least makes my understanding of your actions even clearer (and I now find your actions somewhat less disturbing as it would appear that instead of involking WP:IAR to close the AfD it seems your intetnion was to close it as an "uninvolved" admin). However I am very worried by your definition of uninvolved - "I have no interest at all in that topic area" is a very narrow definition of uninvolved. I know that previous admin actions are not normally considered as making an admin involved but in my mind expressing an opinion on the quality of an article (as here) does make a person involved as it's not an admin action - any editor could make such a comment. Dpmuk (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Having an opinion does not make you involved. It would be unusual for an admin to take action after a complaint without checking the content. In this case the content was problematic at several levels, which argues for a more robust response than if it was, say, well referenced and neutral but poorly phrased. In my view administrative actions taken with no regard at all to the quality of content are more likely to be a problem. Imagine protecting a WP:BLP on a wrong version with egregious defamation. We are supposed to use our best judgement to further the interests of the project, and yes that is precisely what WP:IAR is about. We are supposed to be a cluocracy not a bureaucracy. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So if that's the case what's to stop an admin commenting in an AfD and then closing it - after all they only have an opinion. If you accept that such an action is not acceptable what's the difference between you commenting here and commenting directly in the AfD. In my view the problem is that you had a pre-existing opinion. An admin going to close an AfD should have no pre-existing view of what the outcome is to be. Of course that's too idealised to be practical but we should try to get as close to it as we can. The WP:IAR bit all comes down to what's best for the project and we've already agreed to differ over that. Dpmuk (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances are different: the article was already under discussion and the AfD was the sole result of the article being moved back to mainspace. That is very different to coming to an AfD, !voting and then closing. The AfD was a sideshow. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism...

It looks as if nothing more needs to be discussed here. Hans Adler 12:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1986 Hvalur sinkings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... and must go to bed now. More eyes needed. It's inconceivable to me how two admins who have been with the project for a long time can believe they can simply ignore the state of the discussion at WP:BLP/N#1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism and edit war the category Category:Terrorism in Ireland (which was created only for the purpose of tagging a single article about an act of sabotage that only damaged two ships, did not endanger anybody and was obviously neither intended nor able to create fear) on the article, with the only pretext being, apparently, that one of them has just (incorrectly, IMO) closed the CfD for the category as keep, then amended to no consensus after my complaint. Hans Adler 01:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) For further context, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_4#Category:Terrorism_in_Iceland and User talk:Vegaswikian#Category:Terrorism in Iceland. No one is "trying to connect two living people with terrorism"; rather, this involves a CFD and a category's pre- and post-discussions. I figured User:Vegaswikian—the closer of the CFD—would be a neutral party to guide is where to go from here following the close of the category discussion, but User:Hans Adler has refused to follow any of that advice, hence his edit warring. (He has reverted 3 times in short order and has claimed immunity from 3RR via WP:GRAPEVINE: [65], [66], [67].) I was trying to implement what User:Vegaswikian suggested on his talk page: [68] and reverted once, think that User:Hans Adler hadn't yet viewed User:Vegaswikian's advice: [69]. User:Vegaswikian explicitly said on his talk page that he has read the discussion at BLP/N. Throughout the dispute, User:Hans Adler has steadfastly refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he could possibly not be 100% correct in this dispute, which makes it hard to try to discuss the issue and reach a compromise or a satisfactory solution when he is involved. Having gone to BLP/N, CFD, and now ANI without having received the answer he's looking for, this is starting to look more and more like forum shopping. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Note: Another involved editor just tried to implement what User:Vegaswikian suggested: [70]. User:Hans Adler reverted for the 4th time: [71]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) This is nothing more then forum shopping. I'm not trying to connect anyone to anything. That charge by the nominator flies in the face of assume good faith. I'll await an apology from the nominator. Oh, and how am I edit warring? Closing a CfD discussion is rather hard to construe as an edit war. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Forum shopping indeed. The main discussion is at WP:BLP/N, and you are simply ignoring it. It played an important role in the CfD, so it is absurd that you apparently closed that without reading the discussion. Hans Adler 01:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) (ec) The place to come to a consensus is the discussion at WP:BLP/N where you are in a minority position. Vegaswikian has no authority to override the consensus there. The only editors so far who claim that this is properly categorised are: MatthewVanitas, the creator of the category, who at some point conceded that it might be better to rename it. Cptnono, the major contributor to the article on Sea Shepherd, the organisation behind the crime / act of sabotage. This editor has a strong negative opinion on Sea Shepherd. Good Olfactory, who came to the dispute after I nominated the empty category for deletion at CfD for procedural reasons (potentially contentious) instead of asking for it to be speedied, and who started with the misconception that eco-terrorism is a subclass of terrorism, and in his third comment claimed "that it was inappropriate for you to empty the category prior to discussion" in relation to removing a single category tag from a single article. Vegaswikian, who closed WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 4#Category:Terrorism in Iceland as keep based on their own, faulty reasoning. (Later changed to no consensus, which has basically the same effect but is more likely to survive deletion review.) My experience so far has been that third parties with whom I never had anything to do spontaneously agree that this is not terrorism. The only problem seems to be to get people interested in the situation in the first place; something that you have probably achieved now with your insistence. Hans Adler 01:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Appears to be forum shopping at 3rr as well. It might be considered honest but it could also be interpreted as "HEY LOOK!!! HELP"[72] And he continues to bring up my opinion as if it is coming across in the article (so far I think I have done pretty good). A block for 3rr, forum shopping, and incivility is appropriate. Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC) (ec)Can you kindly stop with the false charges based on your opinion? I changed the closed because I was in error. Weather or not that close would go to deletion review was not a factor. Maybe I'm beginning to see the problem here, and it is not me or my close. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC) To me, this is really starting to look like a shopping spree coupled with some sort of "fight the system" martyrdom complex ... As I said, he refuses to acknowledge that his behaviour may possibly be at least part of the problem behind the dispute, when everyone else who should have admitted that has already done so (me, Cptnono). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I see. The problem is of course not the implication that two named living people are terrorists when they may very well not be. Your personal feelings, vague claims of forum shopping (I have no idea what you believe the proper forum is if not WP:BLP/N, and now ANI since it has become acute) etc. apparently all trump BLP. But it's nice that the three of you have an additional forum where you can continue to agree with each other while everybody else seems to be asleep. Hans Adler 01:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Lol, didn't you start this section? In fact, you've started every section in about 6 different forums. When you don't get quite what you're looking for, you go to another forum. That's what we're talking about when we say "forum shopping". We're just coming to where you take the discussion, and you keep moving it around. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I don't see any need for any block here, just appears that the issue is a bit heated and that more uninvolved editors contributions to the discussion are needed. Involved users should come back with a fresh mind tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC) And the 3rr. I don't see how it could not be viewed as forum shopping. He said he was going to bed so maybe a block of more than a minute wasn't needed but he still seems to be going at it. Chill out for now Hans Alder. Figure it out tomorrow. And consider reverting yourself since you crossed 3rr (bright line rule).Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I am probably not going to get much sleep at 4 am local time after an unfair block with a deceptive edit summary. And your (redundant) report of me at WP:EW/N seems to indicate that I understood your revert of me exactly right: You knew I had already reverted 3 times, that nobody other than your cronies was looking, and that this was your chance to get the BLP violation in or get me blocked. Hans Adler 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) At BLP/N, the first place where I went, I got exactly what I was looking for, with one exception: The post didn't get much attention. About half the people who commented there were involved, which distorted the result. Hans Adler 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Accusing other editors of manipulating the system while calling others "cronies" is again incivility. And I struck out the report after you received your one minute block not realizing that you had submitted one against yourself while I was getting the difs together.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) As usual, there are never any ambiguities in your world, User:Hans Adler! Everyone's either "cronies" with everyone else (and thus "involved" and therefore worthy of being ignored) or completely neutral outsiders. If you could just acknowledge that others may have been neutral and still could legitimately see things differently—it will take you a long way to figuring out why this has unfolded as it has. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) You guys really need to keep in mind that one of the main functions of a noticeboard is to draw uninvolved, outside opinions. If Hans wanted to debate with the people already at the article page, he wouldn't have opened the discussion. At this noticeboard section, there was an extended debate between Hans and Good Olfactory. That should be happening on the article page. The best practice is for each involved person state their position, discloses the extent of their involvement (e.g., added the material), and let some other people weigh in. If you think of something further you can update your post. Thereafter, you can comment on other people's positions, but you shouldn't be cluttering up the noticeboards with huge debates, and you certainly shouldn't be commenting without disclosing your prior involvement. The way that the thread is laid out makes it very difficult to gauge people's positions, but it is notable that the only apparently uninvolved commentators, Wikidemon (talk · contribs) and Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), seemed to agree with Hans that the category was misleading. I'll admit that guidelines on the noticeboards are lacking and that we should work on that, so the people involved are not entirely to blame. II | (t - c) 03:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) That might be more of a realistic expectation if Hans himself didn't respond to every comment that was made. By responding to each of our initial comments—and in his responses he has included several inflammatory accusations—Hans makes it appear as if he is looking for more discussion from the same users, so we naturally provide that. In other words, it also requires some restraint for Hans not to reply to a user's initial post for the outside input to be given a chance. This is in addition to the restraint required from others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Hans Adler blocked for 1 minute for enforcing BLP against 2 admins As it says. By Black Kite, for "disruptive editing", after a (weak) consensus at WP:BLP/N that the category doesn't belong on the article and after I made it clear that I was making use of WP:GRAPEVINE. I expect that this will have consequences. Editors must be able to rely on the 3RR exception for BLP violations and must be able to rely on not getting a block for "disruptive editing" that doesn't even mention BLP. Hans Adler 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Well, since you were aware that the issue of whether or not adding the category was a BLP violation in the first place was an unresolved issue in hot dispute, I think you should perhaps have put two and two together and not been so reliant on WP:GRAPEVINE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC) User reported himself, one minute, good block. On a positive note, there are some users that comment, never trust an editor with a clean block log. Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I'm slightly ambivalent about the underlying issue; I can see both sides. But I think it's been established fairly well that (a)in a BLP issue, the contentious info is not included until there is a consensus, and (b) 3RR doesn't apply to BLP. Playing the BLP card in bad faith is a personal irritation of mine, but that does not appear to be the case here; it is fairly clear that Hans is doing this in good faith, and it is fairly clear there is no consensus to keep the category at the BLP/N (which I believe is a better place to have BLP discussions than CFD). So, if Hans would like to keep his 1 minute block as a badge of honor, that's fine. If he'd like me to block for 1 second to note the previous block was mistaken, I'll do that (I believe such a block is against some policy somewhere, but I'm not too fussed about that). Just let me know, Hans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the offer. There are two important aspects for me: I am editing under my real name, which means that people who take part in a decision about employing me are likely to find my block log and see that I edit Wikipedia "disruptively". They might not be able or motivated to make the more tricky further research to find out what I actually did and what it means in the context of Wikipedia. This scenario is not particularly likely, but if it happens it can have dramatic consequences for me. There is also a matter of principle. A 1-second block for "Disruptive editing: Self-reported" is not preventative, it is an entry in the personnel records, handed out as a punishment. Editors often enforce BLP as a matter of principle rather than for a strong personal motivation. Therefore a precedent that it's OK to punish an editor for enforcing BLP is dangerous. There is no harm in keeping problematic content out of an article while it is under discussion, but keeping it in an article can be harmful. I don't know why, but discussions concerning the underlying problem are not drawing much attention. MatthewVanitas and Good Olfactory (and now also Cptnono and Vegaswikian) have tried to turn this to their advantage by making inclusion of the material the status quo and therefore the default outcome. That's an obvious violation of the spirit of BLP. They simply claim that there is no BLP problem here. This claim doesn't seem to have much more foundation than the often heard erroneous claim that something can't be a BLP problem because it doesn't occur at a BLP article, or that WP:SYN is not valid policy. Surely "I don't believe it's a BLP problem but I can't convincingly explain why" can't be a "get your opponent into gaol" card. I was thinking about giving up my account, having it anonymised and starting with a new account to solve the first problem. But what you propose is better because to some extent it also addresses the second problem. I think what you are proposing is explicitly allowed by WP:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log. Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating. [...] Very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block [...] However, given that Black Kite made a type of block explicitly forbidden by the blocking policy in order to punish me for preventing a BLP violation, it seems more appropriate that Black Kite enter an apology in my block log in this way. Hans Adler 10:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Then we'll wait to see if he does. Let me know on my talk page if you need me as a backup plan; I'm probably not going to watch this thread anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Except that it wasn't a record of a warning or punitive. As explained at WP:AN3, it was a 24 hour edit-warring block which I just happened to reduce by 23 hours and 59 minutes. I have offered Hans that I could further block for 1 second to insert a block summary explaining it more clearly, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC) A one-minute block made just to establish the record of a block does look rather punitive. What other explanation can there be for the purpose of that block? A one-minute pause in disruption? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Could Hans actually trust you make make an honest and unbiased statement in that one-second block though? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Regardles of your motivations and spin this is exactly that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log is written to prohibit.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Hiya, coming in as an uninvolved opinion on this. I'm not familiar with the entire background of the dispute, and have just kind of skimmed the related threads for a few minutes. Based on this, I have to admit that I am very concerned about the block, and think that it's reasonable for Hans to request a clarification note. As it is, to someone uninvolved (such as myself), I see a block on an established user, who had no history of previous blocks. There's also no clear rationale for the block. There's no link to any related thread in the block log, and further, there's no notice from the blocking admin on the blocked user's talkpage. Those are problems in and of themselves. Even an experienced admin familiar with the situation, coming in a year from now, might have considerable trouble untangling things to figure out exactly what happened. So my recommendation is that Hans Adler and Black Kite work together to choose mutually agreeable wording for a new block summary, and that Black Kite then post it in the block log, preferably with a link to a location that has more information if anyone wants some. --Elonka 14:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Hammurabi had it right - I say a one minute block on User:Black_Kite by User:Hans_Adler should be about right. Ronnotel (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Interesting idea. Just tell me your password. :) Hans Adler 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) A one minute block? I don't see the point. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I guess my snark was a little subtle - I'll use tags next time. Ronnotel (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I have protected the article for a week. Given the recent history and trends with BLP, it is very difficult to understand how established editors could believe it is appropriate to repeatedly insert a category entitled "terrorism" while the matter is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. I am also concerned about the one-minute block. The proper response to the AN3 warning would have been to protect the page (which was not done until now). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Bad Questionable block, awful block summary, unacceptable response by Black Kite. I agree that Hans' suggested "The previous block was not justified." note should be entered into his log, preferably by Black Kite, but I will do so if they refuse. –xenotalk 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I don't think a sweeping statement like "the previous block was not justified" is very accurate. What was clear was that 3RR was violated and that it was self-reported. What was unclear was whether it was excusible as a BLP, and whether a different approach would be adopted instead of revert. Suggesting that a desysop would have occurred if the block was for 24 hours seems silly; chances are that an unblock would have been issued in good faith, and something too unequivocal would have led to more drama of its own. At present, the log appears like a joke entry rather than a blemished record. That isn't to say I don't appreciate Hans frustration...I just don't see why admins should be treated differently to editors when they encounter this sort of thing - neither do they receive an apology, nor do the blocking admins receive admonishments...or so I've found. I think the moral of the story is that you should let others investigate and only respond when they have questions for you and so on; don't invite drama on yourself by reporting yourself. I'm pretty sure a block would not have been contemplated by Black Kite had another user reported Hans. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The point here is that WP:GRAPEVINE is a fucking joke if admins are free to ignore it. Until long after the block Black Kite did not make a single comment that even admits that GRAPEVINE or BLP might have anything to do with this. He is simply hiding behind 3RR. The very least we can expect when an admin 3RR-blocks an editor who has invoked GRAPEVINE in good faith, is that the admin makes a credible effort to argue that GRAPEVINE doesn't apply in this case. Not that he completely avoids the issue, even after being asked directly. (No further comment by Black Kite in the 3RR thread after I asked: "What is your rationale for blocking a user who was merely preventing a BLP violation?") The only thing that suggests that he even noticed that BLP has been mentioned is the following from his talk page: "[...] the time of 1 minute reflects the fact that you believed you were defending BLP concerns." That's the first and so far only time that he acknowledged I was claiming BLP-related special circumstances, and it still doesn't even explicitly deny that it was BLP-related, let alone explains why not. The second point is that Black Kite has violated an explicit prohibition of blocks that are only for negative logging purposes and is denying the violation. I have witnessed desysoppings for such minor reasons in the past. The problem is not making a mistake, the problem is when an admin afterwards insists they were right when it is obvious they were not. At that point it becomes clear that they are unreliable. The third point is that I, too, am a living person, and am editing under my own name. I have a right not to have my account associated with dubious claims about "disruptive editing" that cannot be erased. If it happens anyway, the record needs to be corrected. Your last sentence is naive. Cptnono, who provoked my fourth revert, immediately proceeded to report me without mentioning BLP at all. This all happened around 3:30 AM of my local time. I fully expected to be reported by Cptnono, but wanted to go to bed without having to wait for his report so that I could respond. (In the end I stayed up longer.) Hans Adler 16:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that it is a joke if admins ignore GRAPEVINE. That said, Black Kite made a comment at 06:59 implicitly saying that it was clear why you received a 1 second block. That was the next contribution that was made since acting on the 3RR report. You responded a couple of hours later and Black Kite responded 3 hours later explicitly mentioning that it was because of your belief that you were defending BLP that the block was for 1 second. Black Kite acknowledged that the block log did not explicitly mentioned this and offered to write this in for you. You wanted a statement that the block was invalid, but Black Kite disagreed about invalidity. Black Kite seems to have logged out since then (as will I after this comment). Perhaps instead of asking why you were blocked for enforcing BLP, there would be no harm in directly asking why Black Kite came to the conclusion, as an uninvolved admin, that this was not a BLP issue? It might have been an incorrect assessment - I don't know as I still think it's unclear, but asking the right questions might help. Right...except we're not at the point where it is clear that Black Kite is unreliable, if at all. Yes, but you should consider renaming your account in any event, unless there is a real need to edit under your real name. Was there a reason why you didn't raise the matter here so that your peers could take care of the problem, if there was one? Why did you try to deal with it alone, via repeated reverts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Many editors here edit under their real names. It should be encouraged, in my opinion. Certainly, it is not discouraged. There's a famous theory that anonymity brings out the bad side of many people ([73] - NSFW) — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Seems like victim-blaming to suggest they should rename to avoid situations like this. –xenotalk 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Agree, I think there are some good reasons to remain anonymous. Remaining anonymous so admins don't have to be accountable for misusing their tools is not one of them.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Like many others here have commented, I think that a correction has to be made in Hans' block log. If someone checks his block log, it should be clear that the one minute block was mistaken and also that what Hans did that led to that block was justified (good editing, not bad editing). The later is necessary, because in almost all cases where a block is not justified, the editor in question will still have gone over the edge in some sense. Admins who read block logs still look at an overturned block thinking that the editor was not editing in an examplary way. Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Black Kite's justification on this is completely bizarre. If she really doesn't like the blocking policy (Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log, which says "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log"), then she should start a discussion about it. I do think desysop is a reasonable response if Black Kite refuses to fix the situation because common sense and honesty is a basic requirement for admins, and I think Black Kite's explanation either lacks common sense or honesty. II | (t - c) 17:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I think so too, but we both know it'll never happen. You can see the ranks closing already. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC) It's not clear to me whether Black Kite was serious about this block or if it was a poor attempt at humor, but it was a bad block either way. I strongly suggest to BK that a corrective note be placed in Hans's block ASAP. —DoRD (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Seems to be a recurring theme here. When an administrator fucks up, let's pretend it was a joke. When a non-administrator steps even slightly out of line, block him. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that blocking a regular contributor with a clean block record as a joke is inappropriate. And per WP:BLP, 3RR or edit warring does not apply when removing derogatory BLP material, unless it is well sourced by high quality reliable sources and there is a clear consensus to restore that material. Crum375 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Gosh, although the block was wonky, the editing that lead to the block isn't clearly appropriate. I don't approve of the edit warring part. The 3RR exception is for clear cases, it's not a smooth way to win a policy argument about whether something is a BLP violation or not. There was consensus against including it, or at least no consensus to include, but that's not a 3RR exception. Nevertheless, when an editor - particularly an established editor - breaks 3RR on a BLP claim they at least deserve a credible warning that they're on thin ice, before being blocked. Plus, it's a shame to block the "good guy" in a dispute, the one who is upholding policy and consensus, just because there's a technical process violation. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I think you are missing a vital part of BLP, which is when in doubt, do no harm. This means that you need a clear consensus and excellent reliable sources to add derogatory BLP material, otherwise it stays out, and 3RR/edit-warring do not apply. There is no harm for the derogatory material to be mistakenly left out for a while, but there can be definite harm when it mistakenly goes in even for a short time, and our goal is not to harm any living person unnecessarily. That is the essence of BLP. Crum375 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Not really. Having considered the matter, I do not believe it does harm, nor do I think the policy fairly applies to events or groups. I do not see this as a "when in doubt" issue, I don't have doubts about my viewpoint. But I do see, clearly and unequivocally, that this is a matter close to some boundary where reasonable people can differ. Does this mean anyone who feels otherwise is free to edit war to their heart's content? Surely that's a recipe for unprincipled editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) There is no "recipe for unprincipled editing" if everyone understands the simple "do no harm" BLP principle: You need wide consensus and high quality sourcing to add derogatory BLP material. "When in doubt, leave it out." Crum375 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I am unimpressed by the response of administrator Black Kite (talk · contribs). Consensus here at ANI appears clear that the block and block summary were inappropriate, but rather than acknowledging the error, Black Kite is responding with comments such as "I frankly couldn't give a shit."[74] This is not the way that an administrator should respond, when their actions are challenged. Administrators aren't expected to be perfect -- they are, however, expected to acknowledge when they've made a mistake, and improve their behavior moving forward. If Black Kite is unwilling to acknowledge the consensus of uninvolved admins, I have to wonder if BK should continue to maintain the bit. --Elonka 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) What happens next is down to Black Kite I guess. It does though display a seriously unimpressive knowledge of current thinking on BLPs to block an editor because of a putative 3RR violation when that editor was attempting to prevent a libel. And the reduction of the standard 3RR block by 23 hours and 59 minutes because of that "mitigating circumstance" displays exceedingly poor judgement. Black Kite is clearly in the wrong and should now be big enough to try and sort this mess out, before it escalates even further. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I have had negative interactions with Black Kite in the past, so I am recusing myself from any discussions of consequences. At the same time, my understanding is congruent with those commenting above that 1) BLP is an absolute exception to 3RR, unless it is objectively unreasonable to assert that BLP applies. 2) Edit warring over a terrorist category is not objectively unreasonable. 3) Blocks should be only placed as necessary to reduce harm to the encyclopedia. How a trivially short block serves to protect the encyclopedia or prevent anything is not obvious to me. 4) Hans Adler chose to edit under his real name, as I have mine, and has no special standing for complaining about his block log on that basis. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Terrible block, genuinely one of the worst I've ever seen. Totally ignored the BLP exemption on 3RR and was in direct contradiction of the blocking policy. If Black Kite refuses to apologise and make a note in Han's block log that this was an incorrect block, then his position as an admin should be in question. I see no support for this block. Fences&Windows 01:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I am a little surprised at all painting Hans as some sort of victim. The blocking policy clearly states: "Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior, by making it more difficult to edit.", "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated." and "Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." He was being disruptive. He was being uncivil. He was forum shopping. He created a 3rr against himself not actually believing he was in violation but to make a WP:POINT (From "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point"). And it was not a clear BLP violation. Have editors here actually read the article or is this a knee-jerk reaction to the term "terrorist"? The incident involved leaving a factory inoperable and two boats under water. I personally don't know if it is terrorism but sources in Iceland, the U.S., and Canada all discuss it. The article is actually pretty careful with the term. For example: It isn't used in the infobox. Since sources about the incident did discuss it as terrorism it makes some sense to have the navigational category. One of the perpetrators was later convicted and sent to prison for arson in another incident. We are not tarnishing his reputation by using a category in an article about an incident was involved in. Even if it turns out to not be appropriate, it not being a clear BLP violation means he shouldn't have been edit warring. He basically says I goaded him into making a fourth revert. He is responsible for his own actions. I assumed he would not make a fourth revert since three editors (two of which appear to have a decent enough reputation to be granted admin tools) thought it was acceptable. It has cooled down enough that any further action should not be necessary but editors here should not be encouraging him to continue such behavior. Even if his block log is amended, it needs to be made clear that his actions were not entirely appropriate. Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) To quote from WP:CLN: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC) As Black Kite clearly doesn't understand the gravity of his error, why hasn't he already been desysopped, in case he does something similar again? Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Since Black Kite appears to have lost interest in correcting this, I've made a notation in Hans' block log: [75]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) You do know that the link you used in your block's edit summary will be useless when this discussion gets archived right? Feedback ☎ 03:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know. But the text box for the log summary was too short to include a permalink to this thread. I figure the thread title makes it fairly obvious what was going on. More annoyingly, the summary got cut off anyway, even when not a permalink, so the link doesn't even work now. While we're desysopping BK for being obstinate, we should consider desysopping me for incompetence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) "Clear consensus" was mentioned. I'm not trying to attack anyone here but I would like to know if the editors supporting Hans Alder truly looked at this complete picture. The behavior minus the edit warring seems to me to be inappropriate. Regarding BLP, have people honestly read the article and the multiple discussion pages or did they base their reasoning off of Hans Alder's opening statement and section headings here at ANI? I guess I am basically accusing some editors here of not fully understanding the situation. If editors can say that Hans Alder was clearly blocked for poor reasoning based off of analyzing it in full then maybe I am wrong.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I looked at more than this thread. The CFD discussion, the BLP/N discussion, and the talk page discussion. There might be more I didn't look at, but I think I got the gist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Then I guess you're missing the point. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) How so?Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I actually had more of an issue with the block summary than the block itself. "Disruptive editing: self reported" - with no where to go for further information. The annotation by Floquenbeam should alleviate this concern as the keywords can be entered into the ANI search box and the thread may be found easily enough. –xenotalk 11:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) OK, it appears that I screwed up To be honest, I still don't think this was an appalling error; I was trying to find some way of making a balance between the obvious fact that Hans was edit-warring inappropriately - something even he admitted - and the fact that there were mitigating circumstances due to BLP. However, consensus - though not absolute - appears to be that such a block was wrong. OK, in that case I hold my hands up. Sorry, Hans. Now, can we get back to doing something useful? Black Kite (t) (c) 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Could you please give a diff for the astonishing claim that I "admitted" edit-warring "inappropriately"? Thanks in advance. I went to the edit warring noticeboard to get quick help (and explain the circumstances behind the predictable report by Cptnono), and instead got a punitive block. Hans Adler 11:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC) You reported yourself to the AN3 board as edit-warring - your exact words were "I am edit warring against two admins and now also one editor (Cptnono)". And indeed, you did revert four times. That's effectively admitting to edit-warring, is it not? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) That's admitting to edit warring, but not necessarily "inappropriate" edit warring. I believe Hans felt he had shelter under WP:3RR#Exceptions: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." –xenotalk 11:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the problem here is that there was not any consensus that the material was libellous. In the same way as the WP:NFCC exemption to 3RR - which I have used myself in the past - I would say that one should only be using it in extremely clear-cut situations. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I am speaking only to your claim that Hans admitted to inappropriate editing. Clearly Hans felt he was editing appropriately. –xenotalk 11:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC) OK, I see your point and I've struck the "inappropriately" since it's unclear. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC) There is a qualitative difference between NFCC and BLP. It is very clear from many recent events that BLP in particular is a special issue, and that certain types of edits are OK in BLP situations that would not be OK otherwise. In particular, it is not necessary to have consensus that material is libelous before that material can be removed; that idea would turn WP:BLP on its head. Instead, we have been explicitly asking people to remove questionable material from BLPs until discussion makes it patently clear that the material should be included. In theory, a similar principle could apply to NFCC; in practice it does not, because there is not a string of arbcom cases all related to NFCC as there is with BLP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Whichever way, if Hans is happy with Black Kite's apology, and/or wishes for Black Kite to put a one second block on the block log to apologise or explain the block away, then surely this can be the end of the matter? SGGH ping! 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) A different admin has already annotated the log. I think this ANI thread has probably reached a point of diminishing returns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I agree. I admit that when I opened the edit warring report I could have communicated more clearly, which might have prevented the problem. I am tentatively marking this thread as resolved. Hans Adler 12:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)}}

Furtive admirer

Resolved

 – Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) is currently causing disruption on a number of Barack Obama-related articles, posting long "birther" screeds and unsourced/unreliably sourced allegations in direct breach of WP:BLP and the existing article probation on Obama-related articles (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation), as well as repeatedly posting personal attacks against other editors (" TAKE IT TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE; YOU ARE A SABOTEUR AND A BIASED WRITER. FACTUAL REPORTING OF A NEWS EVENT SEE PRESS CONFERENCE LINK" [76], "NPOV ONLY HERE BIASED WRITERS ON THIS PAGE SHOULD BE BLOCKED FOREVERMORE" [77], etc) and edit-warring. His talk page indicates that he has a long history of this kind of behaviour. I recommend an indefinite block. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(added) He's now posting personal attacks to user talk pages [78], [79]. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also reported him at 3rr: here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have imposed an indefinite block. There are no signs he intends to cease this behaviour and he's been blocked before for similar actions. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Peter. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified a few people who received the hectoring treatment that F.A. is now blocked. I also checked through the edit history of the past couple months, and note that any damage seems to have been undone already. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review, please

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

This editor has turned up onlyrecently, and tried to insert what might be seen as undue material into articles, particularly Liberal Democrats (UK). Discussion, debate and consensus seem to be alien concepts to her as do the normal ways of communicating via Talk pages. I gauge the general mood of other editors to be that s/he will not edit constructively here. I suggest a review of history of her Talk page, parts of which have been blanked, and although she may be entitled to do that, the good-natured advice (other from my own) seems to have been ignored. She persists in accusing Wikipedia of being non-neutral and practising censorship. Her latest rant on Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK) must be the last straw after a final warning, in my book, and I invite independent review of my block. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Initially i would have suggested a topic ban personally. But then looking at the last comments by her on the talk page she seems to display WP:IDHT. when it comes to politics the media is shaky place and news paper sources should be used with extreme care and caution, especially since the Expenses Scandal which involved British Newspapers. But yes i agree a ban was probably right because making large claims of corruptions based on media reports and that too of recent issues is not encyclopedic. She can appeal the block if she wants but would have to have a major promise to tone it down and would probably need mentoring. (Note this is a non-administator independent comment from a user who does not edit political articles at all and did not vote in the recent election). –Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "As soon as anyone adds any unwelcome facts about corruption in a liberal party the Wiki-police expunges it anonymously, with providing any records, or explanation. Just plain crude CENSORSHIP. Wikipedia is biassed. You are not neutral. You are deeply prejudiced and resort to the most despicable censorship tactics to impose your bias on other people. CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP. Just what socialists and left-wingers from Stalin to Hitler have always practised!!!!!!!!!!!". Quite apart from that, the editor appears to be utterly clueless about UK politics anyway. Good block. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The impression I get is that "it's her way or the highway", and I have little confidence so far that a topic ban or mentoring would be likely to be successful. However, if she is prepared to move towards the way we work here, that's OK. Meanwhile, it is disruptive, and I have pointed her at this discussion. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Again like we can conclude taking everything into account good call. Also your probably right, it might be too much of an ask to expect the user to understand protocol. (Note this is a non-administator independent comment from a user who does not edit political articles at all and did not vote in the recent election). – Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly good block. AniMate 00:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Block is in order, users edits seemed to deteriorate in quality, as in from bad to worse. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Solid block; raving and SHOUTING and phrases like "socialists and left-wingers from Stalin to Hitler" have no place here, and her theory that the LibDems are left-wing seems particularly laughable in the wake of Clegg's deal with the Tories. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. I tried to calmly engage with this editor and only received ranting in response. They are not interested in adhering to community norms and they are not willing to learn how to contribute collaboratively, instead treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone who isn't a crackpot can edit. Fences&Windows 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. I am uninvolved, not an admin, and seldom come to this page of late. Blockee can be summed up as utterly lacking WP:CLUE. Jusdafax 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jajouka/Joujouka topic ban, redux

FYI I have reverted a series of edits to Bachir Attar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that were made by a new user, Bachir Attar (talk · contribs). I have warned the latter about WP:COI. For more background, see User:FayssalF/JK, User:FayssalF/JK/Archive, and AN/I archives (e.g. this thread). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: In addition to the previous COI notice, I have given User:Bachir Attar a single and final warning. We can also add 151.205.181.91 (talk) to the mix. I think "Bachir Attar" adding material to an article about "Bachir Attar" is a pretty clear indication of a conflict of interest. If we want, we can get into the existing morass that FayssalFK has been trying to moderate for several years (!), and the topic ban that came out of it, and run this up the WP:SPI flagpole. But I think the single warning (and the follow-up action, if necessary) is sufficient. Furthermore the overlap of edits to both the Bachir Attar (diffs, diffs, and diffs) and Cherie Nutting (diff, diff) articles strongly suggests we are not dealing with a newcomer to this subject area. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gyrofrog's messages and warning to Bachir Attar clearly did not have the desired effect. A topic ban is probably in order here, if only to head off the possibility of the existing morass being reopened. I have all the relevant articles on my watchlist, and am keeping track of changes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close this AfD?

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackforums is ready to be closed. Joe Chill (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The outcome seems in no doubt, but there are some keep !votes - it would be best to allow it the full 7 x 24 hours. Still 9 hours to go. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that it was ready to be closed because when I clicked on What Links Here, it appeared under In Closing. Joe Chill (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just closed it. Sorry, I neglected to see the ten hour difference, though I believe the discussion was slowing down significantly either way. JamieS93^❤ 13:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has a problem with it, it can be easily undone. Even though the only editors that I think would complain are members of the forum (the only keep !votes). Joe Chill (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:110.137.33.20

Every edit by this IP seems to be a hoax + vandalism. They all need reverting and he needs blocking. All are unreferenced and unverifiable. He comes from Indonesia and adds articles referring to RPCE, a company which allegedly belonged to Raam Punjabi. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. If the disruption from this IP continues, make a report at WP:AIV. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New bad image request

Resolved

 – Added

Rodhullandemu 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we add [[:File:Male's buttocks.JPG]] to the bad image list? It has been recently used by a vandalism-only account, such as: (caution!) this edit. Thanks, Tommy2010 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Tommy2010 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:KinGin22 creating apparent hoax articles

Resolved

 – Pages zapped, hoaxer blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This user has created four articles about supposed professional wrestlers and championships: Mar-Ian, HSW World-W Championship, ESW-W Championship, and Kiniro Kodomo. None of the information can be verified, since the references go to sites that do not support the information. The wrestling promotions discussed do not appear to exist, as there is no record of them anywhere on the internet. References about the people discussed contain no information about them working for these promotions or holding these titles. The Kodomo article indicates that the subject became a professional wrestler at the age of 10. Some of the information is just blatantly false (eg. Pro Wrestling Illustrated ranked Mar-Ian the #1 wrestler in the world, although there is no information about Mar-Ian outside of this Wikipedia article). If the articles could be speedily deleted and the user account closed, I would appreciate the help in ridding Wikipedia of these hoaxes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upon further investigation, this user appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked User:Exequel, who created several hoax articles. KinGin22 has continued Exequel's work by expanding the (hoax) article on Exequel's user page and then moving it to the mainspace. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting. The articles appear just sufficient (enough to fool all but the most diligent new page patroller), but one look at the sources and they're obviously total crap. I've deleted one and intend to do the rest after I've blocked him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • All gone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha Quadrant

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.

---

_{Issue sorted, positive feeling all round. SGGH ^ping! 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)}

This editor keeps blanking User talk:99.34.109.238‎'s talk page (which is the IP of User:Sholun). He did it the first time with an edit summary of "Welcomed user"[80] so I presumed he didn't realize he blanked it and reverted him with a note.[81] He then reverted the restoration, claiming "You are both in a disagreement so you should not be using the warning templates. Warning templates are for warning about vandalism. Not for demanding they stop" - the page has notes and warnings from FIVE editors (including myself).[82] I again restored, telling him it was not his place to clear those warnings and notes, which were all valid, and leaving him a second note on his talk page, this time warning nhim that he would be reported if he continued.[83] He has now done it a third time, saying " There are only two editors who left warnings. You and another editor who disagrees with this editor. You should not warn a user for disagreeing with you.", which is both an incorrect statement on the editors and the warnings (one was for the IP blanking the AfD on one of his articles)[84], and the then proceeded to leave a wholly inappropriate warning on MY talk page for "improper using of warning template"[85] and claiming on his talk page that he only removed two warnings[86] (which is obviously wrong from the actual diffs). Some administrative attention to this would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. If the disruptive editing continues, I think a block is in order. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you call the removal of improperly used vandalism templates from another users talk page disruptive. The other two notices were a note from Sinebot about forgetting to sign and the other was a deletion notification notice that had ended. The vandalism warnings were by AnmaFinotera and Everard Proudfoot. They both improperly used the vandalism tag because this user changed a article (that is going through deletion) because both of them want the article deleted. Vandalism tags are not for this purpose, but for warning vandals. (--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if so, you shouldn't be messing with other users' posts on other users' talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can easily see myself using a vandalism tag in response to this edit. Close inspection shows an IP who's a little confused, but I can understand why AnmaFinotera would regard it as vandalism. TFOWR^propaganda 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP himself isn't upset by them, and noted that he was upset at the time because he's basically a guy (likely a younger editor) who loves his big sister, is proud she was in a movie, and wanted to do something nice for her. He has also since apologized for being disruptive and for the errors he has made, and thanks several folks, including myself, for trying to help him. AQ seems to be the only one upset and bothered at this point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I explained the problem to the user with a welcome template. The user then replied [87] and wrote in the deletion discussion that they did not know about the rules. AnmaFinotera wants the article deleted so she warned the user for editing the article during a deletion discussion, which is allowed. She should not have used a vandal warning because of the edit. Everard Proudfoot is the nominator of the article for deletion. He too wants it deleted and the use of a level 3 and level 4 warning template at the same time for the users edit was most inappropriate. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)In future, if AQ has a similar concern, he should consult a trusted admin rather than taking it upon himself to be doing this kind of thing, which as can be seen, tended to mushroom, which I assume was not his intent, but these things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Whether we have voiced an opinion or not in the AfD is not a reason to let him edit war, blank the AfD, or otherwise act in inappropriate ways. Warning templates are not all vandalism templates. And, again, please note the IP is the confirmed IP of Sholun, who was welcomed already, and has a long talk page of warnings and notes. So EP's going up to level 3 when the editor has already received several warnings is acceptable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

this user comment by the user doesn't sound upset to you? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A comment 3 days ago does not excuse your actions today, and before he noted he was upset then, and before several of those warnings were left. Nor do we not warn people for bad behavior just because they might "get upset". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Time to wrap this up? Alpha Quadrant was trying to be welcoming (good). AnmaFinotera was trying to educate a possible vandal (good). Mushrooming occurred (bad). We're all on the same page now, lets shake hands and move on. TFOWR^propaganda 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree here is a handshake and a big smile. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2010 (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.

Repeated copyright violations

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely for a username violation and nonresponsiveness to discussions thereof

Yid (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created articles about pharmaceuticals by copying directly from textbooks/reference books. He has been repeatedly warned about this on his talk page, but he has never responded and the copyright violations continue. What is the proper course of action? ChemNerd (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Isn't that username usually considered offensive? Guy (Help!) 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd have thought so. However, the editor just seems to be editing chemistry articles, so I'd assume there's some non-racist reason for their username, and that any request for them to change it should be diplomatic ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 15:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, considering the infobox on the userpage I suspected the same. {{username concern}} would do nicely here. SGGH ^ping! 15:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not an admin... I'd have thought an attention-getting block would be appropriate if they're not responding to talk page posts. Particularly for an issue like copyright. TFOWR^propaganda 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Getting away from the possibility of blocking for a second, have all of his copyright issues been cleaned up or do we need to open a larger scale investigation to be sure we got them all? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the article creations and found several more that were obviously copied from a text book. I removed the text or replaced it with one-sentence descriptions. There is one I am unsure about, Amustaline, which reads like it was copy-and-pasted from somewhere, but a quick Google search doesn't turn up a source. I think the all the copyvios have been either deleted or stubbed at this point. ChemNerd (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't look far enough back into the contribution history. I keep finding more. Perhaps the suggestion of a "larger scale investigation" would be a good idea if all the copyrighted text needs to be found and removed. ChemNerd (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It does, so I'm going to go ahead and start the process. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just ben using some of Dan Lednicers books to add synthesis details into some of the drug molecule articles. I feel that I am simply adding to and enriching the information available. I do not consider myself to be copyright violating because I am proof reading his articles (ie correcting mistakes) and am not actually copying on a word for word basis. Not to mention the fact that I am not charging money which is where copyright becomes a much more serious issue. Please do not block me as I have nearly finished extracting most of the important information from his ebook/s.--Yid (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The money issue is irrelevant, copying from a copyright work, or even close paraphrase, is something we simply do not allow here. Have you read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PARAPHRASE? You will be blocked if you don't follow our policy here. Please make it clear that you will stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also requested on the editor's talk page that they change their username for the sake of collegiality and civility. I find it offensive and disruptive. I AGF that this effect is not intentional, but it is real nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a master of chemistry degree certificate from a top university in the UK. My point is that chemists are going to be visiting these pages and are also going to be enquisitive about how these molecules are actually being made in the laboratory. Therefore synthesis details are going to be quite beneficial and useful to have. If you are a non-chemist, then it is easy just to sweep such considerations under the carpet and they will most likely not receive their due merit.--Yid (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor in question doesn't seem to be interested in responding to concerns about his username, and also doesn't seems to want to deal with the copyright violation questions, I'd suggest that an indef block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I think indef block is patently absurd. I know Dan Lednicer since he i a friend on facebook and has actually sent me a signed copy of one of his books by mail. Regarding the Yid isue, my father was jewish and that makes me a half jew. I can confirm that it is not insulting in and of itself. More, it depends on the context in whiuch it is being applied as to whether or not his is an offensive moniker to have chosen. --Yid (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yid, just because Dan Lednicer has friended you on Facebook and sent you a copy of his book, DOES NOT give you authorisation to copypaste chunks of said book into a Wikipedia article - even if you are 'correcting mistakes' (what mistakes??). You can quote his work, or you can rewrite the concepts in your own words, but you cannot do what you are doing. This may require a WP:CCI to investigate all of your contributions and fix the copyvios, as you seem not to have understood this important distinction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have already requested a CCI in order to be thorough. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block him already—he either cannot or will not understand our copyright policy. He's taking up too much time. Not being helpful. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Picking up on your username, I appreciate that you don't intend any offence, and that the term "yid" is fine in context. Despite this, however, other users may very well take offence - context most often not being clear. Consider Pakistan for example, where the term "paki" is apparently regarded as a perfectly benign term. In Britain, however, the term is associated with racism and hatred. Pakistani editors are often surprised by this, but are still asked to consider possible offence when choosing usernames. On the internet it's usually impossible to determine whether a user comes from Lahore or Barking. TFOWR^propaganda 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Yid MER-C 03:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The user has posted here, but has not responded at all on his user page regarding his name. He has not edited otherwise, but if there's no response soon, I think a block on that basis is justified.
2. If not, a block for the copyvios seems more than justified.
3. Is anyone familiar with the editing of User:Meodipt? I ask because their edits look similar to me, but I'm not really qualified to judge them. If I'm accusing an innocent editor, I apologize in advance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Struck, with apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as this discussion has been brought to my attention I suppose I should comment. I suspect Yid may be the same person as User:Nuklear who was banned for copyvio some time previously. If this is the case then I have talked to the individual concerned on several occasions, I think they may have mental health issues that cause them genuine difficulties in understanding wikipedia editing rules and copyright policy and it is perhaps unfair to take an overly punitive approach. My personal feeling is that this editor does add a lot of valuable content and shouldn't be banned out of hand, the synthesis route drawings at least are well produced, useful and unambiguously not copyvio, as from my understanding of copyright law, manually redrawing chemical structures and synthetic routes is considered original creative work even when copied fairly closely from a copyrighted source due to the need to closely mirror the original to ensure scientific accuracy. The direct copying of chunks of text on the other hand is definitely not allowed by either wikipedia rules or copyright law, and I've been trying to follow Yid's contributions and reword or remove any text that violates copyright, but unfortunately I don't have time to fix them all by myself! Meodipt (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"I suspect Yid may be the same person as Nuklear". Bingo. Alniditan, Elzasonan, Monasterol and Alvameline (admin only links, but deletion log tells everything) were copyvios from, you guessed it, a Daniel Lednicer book. MER-C 12:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking aloud: Leaving aside username concerns, which would, I imagine, be just as real at *.wiki as at en.wiki, it sounds like this editor could be a valuable contributor at commons. I take your point about the editor's valuable content additions, however I'm not convinced (either way) as to whether this makes them a net-positive or net-negative at en.wiki. If they were to be indef'd here (and I certainly wouldn't oppose an indef block for socking or copyvios), a possible return could be offered contingent on good behaviour at commons. Whether the editor would be happy to edit at commons in the first place might be a good indicator as to their ability to cooperate with other editors and the wider community. TFOWR^propaganda 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this account indefinitely for a username violation and his refusal to discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User has requested an unblock on the grounds that the block was "fascism" and that his user name is "not at all offensive". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It was declined as the name is a clear violation of policy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ThaddeusB

Resolved

 – Consensus is that actions were appropriate; reporting user warned for personal attacks. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As a development of a content dispute in the article Talk:Nuclear program of Iran#Disputed sources/edit warring which eventually lead to that article protection after a discussion in the 3RR noticeboard. User ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) is now taking actions that go beyond a simple dispute about content.

He, using his administrator status, edited a protected page, continuing to do further edit the problematic text that he previously started [88][89] before asking for me to blocked from edit the article.

His very next action was to start stalking me making provocative edits in articles I usually edit but he never did. Taking care to edit exactly the same phrase I last edit and templating the article without justification.

He ignored my warnings saying that his hounding behavior, of checking every of my last edits, was normal.

He continued to seek provocative actions in that other unrelated article when I removed such template, since the article is full of references.

He reverted me again, as I answered for the last time to a personal attack on an article talk page.

He lately, maybe recognizing his bad behavior could put him in trouble, said to be open to a solution (at the same time he assumed bad faith) which was basically "to stop hounding me in other articles if I didn't publicize his actions in the noticeboard", in his words: "as long as you don't insist on continuing the attack me across multiple venues, you won't have to listen to me again." which sounds much more like black mail for me, only to attack me later on that same talk page after I proposed a solution.

So I ask for some help to stop this user disruptive behavior.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, calm down. Nothing ThaddeusB has done is disruptive in the least. The edit he made to a protected page was not in any way contentious, nor is he "provoking you". Thaddeus disengaged and made a genuine offer for resolution. You respond by coming to ANI looking for heads to be chopped. If anyone is disruptive here, it's you, so I suggest you tone it down a bit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a series of actions as detailed explained above, he continued to edit from the problematic version of the article instead of the last stable version before the dispute he is involved started, the other problems were as reported, like editing the same phrase I last edit in an unrelated article and templating such other article without a valid justification. He said to "disengage"', in the case: stop hounding me in other articles if I didn't publicize his actions, which sounds much more like black mail for me, just to start making personal attacks minutes later. I thanks your opinion but I don't think my reasoning to bring this issue here to be minor neither his actions to be acceptable.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreal, this is the thanks I get for attempting to disengage? Nutriveg has been highly disruptive throughout this whole thing: edit warring, forum shopping, purposely escalating confrontation and making threats to continue, blind reverting obviously productive edits simply because I made them, attacking me through multiple pages. I have made every possible attempt to be reasonable, explain my actions, and assume good faith. However, at this point there is only one explanation for his behavior: Nutriveg is interested only in playing games.

Incidentally, (or not) he has a history of similar behavior with other editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone really needs to explain WP:OWN, and probably WP:consensus as well, to Nutriveg. He has the belief that only his opinion matters because he is "right" and everyone else is "wrong". I've tried, but obviously he won't listen to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Nutriveg's account of events is highly biased and borderline outright lying. I am confident that anyone examining the history of the dispute will agree, but I will be happy to reply in more detail if any third party deems it necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, I think you need to go read m:The Wrong Version. Of course the "wrong" version of the page got protected; no matter what version is protected, someone will think it was the wrong version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you know very well that you and me had several edit conflicts before, so I really don't know what you're doing here when we have such history.

I'll expect ThaddeusB to stop his disruptive behaviour although he had just reverted me on my own talk page.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you refactoring my comments, as I am sure you are aware. It is very much not acceptable to change my words - even on your own talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg continues to undo edits solely because I made them on "his" article. He has threatened to escalate if "no one takes action". --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He reverted again on my talk page and is not engaging in an edit war in another article he never edited before but I'm a regular editor... sigh.

Don't misuse my words, that was an old commentary, when I said escalate was to bring the discussion of your disruptive behaviors to upper forums like this ANI--Nutriveg (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, changing my conversation with you on your talk page is unacceptable. I am sorry you can't understand that, but I won't stand for you deleting the sentences you don't like to make it look like I said something different than I did. Second, I didn't revert - I deleted the whole thing since you insist on deleting the parts you don't like.

Third, I simply undid your ridiculous revert on B6 that occurred only b/c I made the edit. If any other editor made the edit, you wouldn't have reverted it I'm sure b/c the edit is clearly proper. But if it is that important to you that I not touch "your" precious article, so ahead and revert again. (I won't be reverting you again.) However, doing so will prove once and for all that you care more about playing games and "winning" a personal vendetta than improving the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"(go) ahead and revert again. (...) However, doing so will prove once and for all that you care more about playing games "

That's funny, you ask me to do something (just few minutes you last reverted it) and later say if I do what you ask that would be a wrong doing, which sure it would since it's very much an edit war.

So I'm the one playing games or it's you that is editing an article of a subject you never cared before just to create a conflict?--Nutriveg (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Try reading for comprehension. The act of reverting isn't the problem in and of itself. It is reverting solely because I made the edit. There is no way you would have revertedthe obviously proper edit if anyone else had made it.

And for the final time, I saw the article while looking at your contribs and made an improvement to it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You don't OWN that article or any other. You really, really need to stop acting like you do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg has now falsely accused me of hounding him in a FOURTH venue, and attacked me as "unskilled". Can someone please intervene to stop this - preferably by telling Nutriveg in no uncertain terms that he must adjust his attitude and/or behavior. I have tried to disengage, but he simply won't stop making unfounded accusations against me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your continued behavior of reverting me on my talk page and in that unrelated article, you continuing making personal attacks against me here and elsewhere show very well how you tried to "disengage".--Nutriveg (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on you behavior here, which is perfectly appropriate. You have called me names, questioned my "skill", and made accusations against me on a wide variety of unrelated forums. See the difference? (And yes, I keep responding to your attacks. I suppose in your book I should just let them stand unchallenged since I said I would "disengage if you stop the attacks"?!?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to my request to stop with the personal attacks, he repeats the same exact personal attacks. [90] --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A second request to stop the attacks leads to a him repeating the same attack a third time. [91] --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Making personal attacks is unacceptable, regardless of the situation at hand. If Nutriveg continues making personal attacks, I think a block is in order. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 18:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Where this is a personal attack? I was just discussing how ThaddeusB was skilled in the subject to challenge the whole article of a subject he never edited before, where he explicitly said to have done so because I last edited that article, and he, who had an edit conflict elsewhere, decided to edit the same phrase I edited before. Why is this unbalanced decision of threatening me when he was provocative stalking me on articles he never edited before?--Nutriveg (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move-warring at Battle for the Sun

Resolved

What started as a simple bad page move has escalated into a minor move war. A.R. (talk · contribs) moved the following 2 articles this morning:

• Battle for the Sun moved to Battle For The Sun
• Battle for the Sun (song) moved to Battle For The Sun (song)

Captalizing the preposition for and the article and goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions and WP:ALBUMCAPS. I marked both with {{db-g6}}, and UtherSRG (talk · contribs) performed the necessary deletions and moves. A.R. then promptly moved both articles back to his preferred titles, calling these the "official capitalizations" based on things like the band's website and album art. Of course there is no such thing as "official capitalization" as far as Wikipedia is concerned (if we went by the album art, the title would have be BATTLE FOR THE SUN, in all caps). Wikipedia follows standard English capitalization rules, and there are literally tens of thousands of album and song articles that are titled according to Wikipedia's naming conventions (keeping prepositions, articles, and coordinating conjunctions lower-case) rather than the exact way they appear on the releases (where they are often capitalized or in all-caps). Battle for the Sun does not represent a special case where we would ignore our usual naming conventions. When I marked both articles for speedy moves a second time, UtherSRG called it a "move war" and move-protected both titles. I am therefore requesting that the articles be moved back to their original titles (Battle for the Sun and Battle for the Sun (song), using lower-case for the preposition and article), per Wikipedia's naming conventions and the clear and widespread consensus across the project, and that both articles then be move-protected to prevent further disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• UtherSRG has moved them back to the correct names. Incidentally, is Battle for the Sun (song) even notable? Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the swift reply, and thank you UtherSRG for the swift action. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If the album is notable, the song title should just be a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuos insults from User:LAz17

An already banned user from the Serbian wikipedia for insults, has continuosly insulted me even in a report I have made on him: [92]. Also today, he has just provided me offensive links, as football club official website, see bottom of page [93]. Why is this user being allowed to freely insult me? FkpCascais (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I have blocked User:LAz17 for a week for harrassment and personal attacks, the length of time taking into account the repeated use of attacks at WP:WQA and numerous prior blocks. Fences&Windows 22:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Kww, Tbhotch and Legolas2186

Resolved

 – No details given, so nothing for admins to do. Fences&Windows 22:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

These users have been deleting and reverting numerous articles relating to Lady Gaga which are so severe, a user had their editing privileges blocked indefinitely when they tried to tidy up the associated articles which did not conform vandalism. Why should they continue to act like this? 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.208.79 (talk)

If you want anyone to look into this claim, it helps to provide links to illustrate. For example, the content they are claimed to be reverting or the user who was blocked. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very bold claim to make without providing links and diffs. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to be involved with this? I can only see two edits on your contributions list, and they're both here to ANI. Have you edited previously (e.g. your IP address is dynamic?) TFOWR^propaganda 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This was just CharlieJS13 again. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlieJS13 gives details, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#User Kww is an example of thye last time he complained. Blocked IP 72 hours, reverted edits, semi-protected target articles.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:147.136.249.101

Over the span of several years, 147.136.249.101 (talk · contribs) has blanked their Talk page and changed the sharedip attribution from The Providence Journal, which is what whois says is the owner of the IP, to Belo, which is presumably the provider of the service. This same user, apparently the same person, since they've been doing this for many years, has gotten a large number of vandalism warnings, but, after each warning, blanks the page, leaving the erroneous sharedip behind. Is it time to revert the Talk page to the correct attribution, semi-protect the page, and long-term block this editor? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• The IP is claiming that Belo is actually the correct attribution, although WHOIS does not agree. I am looking into this. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, Belo is the owner of The Providence Journal. The sharedip information is just fine. Blanking the page is allowed; there's no evidence it is a single user, and out of date vandalism warnings will remain in the history even if they aren't on the talk page. Blocking an IP because someone who has used it removes warnings is nonsensical. Many of the edits made from this IP address are just fine. I would suggest that you actually discuss the proposed editing changes that the IP made rather than edit warring with them and treating IP edits as vandalism. Risker (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I actually did semi the page and add a nonprotected transclusion before realising that was a ridiculous amount of faffing about for such a minor issue, so I've put it back. Also, I think the IP is right - a whole /16 CIDR range is unlikely for a local paper. WHOIS has been known to be wrong in the past. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I did try to discuss their edits at The Gambia, and their only response was to blank the Talk page and repeat the edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, geolocate also says it's the Providence Journal. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)\

My apologies, Everard Proudfoot, I see that you did leave a non-templated, personal message on the talk page of the IP. As to the geolocate and Whois links at the bottom of the page, they're not to be construed as the final word on any subject. Geolocate says it's the Providence Journal, but it is part of the Belointeractive.com domain. It's not unusual for domain owners to rearrange their IP assignments to their convenience. The full Whois results show essentially the same thing; the IP was originally registered to the PJ, but is owned by the Belo domain. Risker (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP's name "fw1.belo.com" indicates it's a rather generic shared proxy. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it really makes any difference, and we may as well believe what the IP has to say. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of sections of articles

Mundilfari (talk · contribs) has been deleting the popular culture sections from a wide range of articles, despite being warned on numerous occasions by myself and a number of other editors that wholesale deletion is not really an appropriate way of dealing with popular culture sections.

I agree with Mundilfari to an extent, that there are certainly elements within the sections which do not belong in the article. However, there are also elements in most trivia sections which can usefully be incorporated in the article. Mundilfari has never once attempted to do this. Not only has he not started any discussion on any articles talk page regarding the proposed deletion of such sections, he often include no edit summary whatsoever, making it difficult for other editors to track his edits. He has been asked to start discussions on his proposed deletions by several editors but has refused to do so, or even reply to such requests.

He is also technically wrong in using WP:TRIVIA as a justification for a number of his deletions, as those sections, whilst referencing popular culture, did not, I feel, meet the criteria of being a disorganised, unselective list, they often are focussed into one area, though this should not be taken as indication of the sections inherent quality as is.

His edit history consists almost entirely of removing of pop culture sections, and although on occasion, I would accept he could be considered within the boundaries of WP:BOLD, most often he is not and his actions constitute little more than vandalism. i personally see his actions in deleting sections like this to be little different than the acts of a vandal who comes in and deletes a page. It is clear from his talk page that consensus has not been reached regarding a number of the deletions he has made and several have been reverted by me and other editors. Mundilfari seems unconcerned with consensus or the requests of other users.

I'm not suggesting he is blocked or banned, as I do agree that "popular culture" need to be monitored closely otherwise they become bloated, however, I do not see Mudilfari's actions as being in keeping with guidleines on cleanup and his refusal to consider discussion in spite of clear opposition to his edits means it is becoming difficult to continue to assume good faith. It would be useful if an admin could speak to him and explain that simply going around deleting popular culture sections, which may well have wikifiable material within them, without attempting to wikify any relewvant information, start a discussion on the talk page or add a detailed edit summary / talk page section explaining why the whole section had to go in one without any need for review is not really good practice. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the last six or so edits of this nature and found the following:

• While his removal of some lists of misc. trivial info is in somewhat of an alignment with WP:TRIVIA, in all but one occasions he has removed wholesale sections which include information that would be suitable in the prose.
• His entire edit history includes only a bare handful of article talk and user talk edits, which do not relate to WP:TRIVIA discussions.

I have thus taken the viewpoint that he is taking WP:TRIVIA to its extreme, top the detriment of the articles, because information he is deleting wholesale could be rescued (though there are some removals that I feel are warranted under WP:TRIVIA). I don't believe that his use of this policy is in the interest of the community as a whole, and that he is so far unwilling to engage in discussion in order to establish what the community thinks. He is welcome to debate policy at the relevant policy pages, however I have advised him that the community won't stomach these wholesale removals without discussion, and that he is taking WP:TRIVIA too far.

I do not believe blocking is necessary as yet. His replies to previous warning(s) indicates he is aware of policy, and some of his removals have been perfectly fine. More of a nuance of his interpretations rather than punitive action is a nice, moderated first step. After all, 'steps' can always be racked up. SGGH ^ping! 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have come across this user several times and noted his repeated deletion of pop culture sections from the same articles. He has made veiled threats to me when I sought to discuss this with him, though never carried them out. We are by no means at the stage of considering a block, but I think we are at the stage where an experienced and uninvolved admin needs to fire a shot across his bows. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have tried to do, unless you think it wasn't forceful enough (or you think me inexperienced :P ) SGGH ^ping! 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I posted my thoughts and concerns here before I looked there :). I would appreciate your continuing to monitor this user, the more so since the edits have attracted occasional admirers and IP only editors who follow the same edit pattern. I am not making any accusations of sock puppetry, simply of bandwagon leaping. I see the editor's edits as very much WP:POINT driven, almost to the extent of being a single purpose account that specialises in stripping information from random articles without building consensus and ignoring relevance and citations.

Should you have been more forceful?

As a first salvo I see it as an appropriate level of force. Escalation is easy enough when required. De-escalation is harder. I would be inclined next time, assuming that there is a next time, to spell out the route to any decisions that will be made. If the behaviour persists I would suggest not a topic ban exactly, but a ban from making this style of edit in the future. I have hopes that this editor may make other contributions one day that we will find useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the user has read my comment, so I may simplify it into a simple further/final warning and perhaps a block if it persists. It is disruptive if you know (and have been repeatedly told) that you shouldn't be doing it in this way. SGGH ^ping! 13:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh - the best thing is to note the reversions and try to find sources. Verified info and referencing is assuming greater importance all the time. I will note some diffs myself and see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Threat on IP user talk page

Resolved

 – school prank in January Toddst1 (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Please check this page. No explanation necessary or prudent IMHO. –droll [chat] 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly an incident. Cory should probably watch his ass though...raseaC^{talk to me} 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, threatening to kill someone certainly is an incident worth reporting. However, since it happened way back in January, there really isn't anything to do now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was January of 2009. He had a cluster of four of them, on January 15:[94][95][96][97] The IP has had like 4 edits since then - including 2 just today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad... that just means it is even more likely that the current user of the IP is unrelated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone heard from Cory in the last 16 months? raseaC^{talk to me} 23:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is this "Cory" anyway? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: the diff is here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant was this a user they were referring to, or some unknown "Cory" out in the rest of the world? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he first spelled it "Corey" and then "Cory", it's hard to tell. A good guess would be that it was a junior high classmate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a school IP, now tagged as such. This would be a molehill. Toddst1 (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Iluvrihanna24 doesn't appear to have learnt from previous ANI

Ok some of you might remember this ANI report from April 25 about user Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His/her last comment was "sorry! ... i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused." This follows comments i had about about him/her refusing to listen to the community consensus, take heed of warnings and follow protocol. Since then its been a non-stop uphill battle against the user:

• adding poorly sourced info which breached WP:CRYSTAL. April 30, 2010
• impropper sourcing April 30, 2010
• addition of poor source May 1, 2010
• unsourced synthesis of information May 9, 2010
• trying to use WP:Other stuff exists argument May 15, 2010
• Unsourced information May 17, 2010
• removing sources and changing numbers in a way which breaches MOS:NUM May 19, 2010
• Unsourced addtions May 19, 2010
• 2nd MOS:NUM issue also addition of unsourced information May 21, 2010
• WP:MOS violation, changing number to # May 22, 2010
• Adds rockstar 101 back to infobox even though it has no firm release date (only radio date). May 22, 2010.

From Iluvrihanna24's talkpage there are lots warning from myself and other users. I just dont think he/she will learn. I ask him/her yesterday did i ask him to refrain from MOS:NUM violations and asked him/her to clarify if he/she had a source for this edit and i also reminded him/her of the previous ANI and thought that the way things were going i would notify them that it might be appropriate to open another. He/she has not responded though its obvious from [this edit that they were active after recieving the message. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe its time for administator intervention. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Godwin (singer)

Requesting help at Peter Godwin (singer) page. Myself and other editors have removed unsourced additions by Peter Godwin Nuevo (talk · contribs) and Meltingbluedelicious (talk · contribs) (who appear to have a WP:COI). I've already reverted twice, and do not wish to violate 3rr so am bringing this up here. Myself, and another editor, have mentioned WP guidelines, on their talk pages, which they have chosen to ignore. In fact, I was told they would be editing the page as they saw fit because the information was about them. Akerans (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to a version prior to their COI and will continue to do so. Our policy is clear. If the user continues to be disruptive they will be blocked. β^_command 01:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just gave Meltingblue a 3rr warning. They are repeatedly reverting other editors. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is the issue of legal threats as well [98] Active Banana (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Meltingblue is already way past 3RR. Reverts by user in the past 24 hrs: [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I wanted to make sure all of the t's were dotted and the i's crossed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you it correctly, just putting the facts out there.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The user, Active Banana has a habit of deleting articles without discussion with other editors. I would support blocking the user if necessary. --g8crash3r 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

Without making excuses for the disruptive editing going on, there may be a fair point to be raised in that it's not a terribly good article - it only uses one source, and if that source isn't accurate, then it shouldn't be used. Some effort could be made to corroborate the Allmusic source and establish whether or not it's reliable. There's no justification for the behaviour of some editors there though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's been no discussion about what exactly is disputed, just large unsourced changes. User:Active Banana has just stubbified the article to remove all unsourced stuff, which should take care of any issues.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've just notified the two users of this discussion here and here.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, User:meltingbluedelicious left a message here on my talk page. All I could really discern is that they do indeed have CoI, and that the allmusic reference is apparantly inaccurate. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed both users to WP:BLP/H which is one of the first things anyone concerned about his WP article should be advised to read. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment by User:TreasuryTag over confrontation at an AFD

One thread is enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag and I were on opposite sides of an AFD and now as retaliation he put up over 100 of my images for deletion for having outdated rational templates or missing rationals. A friendly notice on my user page would have been the polite thing to do and the tags would have been updated and missing ones added. Now he is nominating for deletion every subpage in my userspace. It is a textbook case WP:Harassment. User:Torkmann was banned for similar behavior last year when he nominated a dozen of my articles to harass me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC) See the original section further up the page, and the MfD in question. I have nominated around 20% of Richard's userspace pages for deletion (by no means every page, don't just lie) because I have genuine concerns that they violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. I do not expect to be commenting further here, please open an RfC for further discussion of my behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) More comprehensive statement—when I stumble across an user who has one or two images with problematic fair-use issues, I naturally take a look at their upload log. This is perfectly normal behaviour for a lot of editors active in the image-copyright processes around Wikipedia, I would expect. Imagine my surprise when I found hundreds of improperly-tagged images in Richard's log, stretching back several years. Yes, I had a content dispute with him: but surely that doesn't mean I should just ignore so many files with copyright problems? Or does it? Many of these files were only used on his family-history pages in his userspace, which I glanced at, and considered them to be inappropriate, given WP:NOTMEMORIAL and so on. Again, surely I am not supposed to leave things like that solely because I had a run-in with the person in question over a completely different issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 10:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Long term history of issues between the users not withstanding, the content does, IMHO, meet deletion criteria per WP:UP. SGGH ping! 10:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) "Long term" stretches back to Friday afternoon, but I get your drift... :) ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

SkyCable‎ article and User talk:G8crash3r‎ and User:Puppyph‎

The users seem to be under the impression that because "Channel listing" is not specifically mentioned in WP:NOTDIR #4, that the content cannot be removed from articles. see User_talk:G8crash3r#please_read_policies They also appear to be under the impression that unless an admin is telling them something, they do not have to listen. I have gotten no where. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can check your talk page about your claims User_talk:Active_Banana#WHY_DO_YOU_KEEP_EDITING_PHILIPPINE_WIKI_PAGES.3F and quoting œ, Although I don't agree that Wikipedia should have these kinds of articles, it just goes to show that when relentlessly fighting other editors by citing various policies, you would do well to keep in mind the most important: WP:IAR. g8crash3r 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

People who site WP:IAR for some reason generally ignore the important second portion "if it improves the encyclopedia". The editors above have not provided any rationale of how a current channel listing provides an improvement to encyclopedic content. Active Banana (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not ignore that the second part. My apologies if you were just speaking generally, but I really hope you're not insulting my intelligence by assuming I'm one of those 'people'. Maybe I should have mentioned WP:AGF instead, as obviously yours and the other editor's idea of what constitutes 'improvement' differs. He may simply be ignoring WP:NOTDIR because he really believes he's improving the encyclopedia. Instead of quarreling you could assume good faith and do the same, on the other hand, he could also stop his bickering and understand that you're just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Best thing would be to just move on, people. Also, no I did not provide any rationale, because instead I pointed you towards past discussions (at least tried to anyways) that could've done a much better job of that than I could. Besides, I also don't think Wikipedia should have any kind of TV schedule or channel listing content, I just like playing devil's advocate. ;) -- œ^™ 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any misinterpretation, by "editors above" I meant the original discussions by User:G8crash3r‎ and User:Puppyph‎, and particularly User:G8crash3r‎'s using your quote from my talk page pretty much out of context. I did not have any intention of bringing you into the coversation when I stated that. (although I should have made sure you were informed of this discussion when I quoted you below.) Active Banana (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, SkyCable's Wiki page does not have any program schedules. Active banana is claiming that the Channel Line-up article is part of WP:NOTDIR, yet Wikipedia states that EPG or Electronic Program Guide is a form of Directory and is obviously very different from Channel ine-up. Any Wiki Admins, please intervene to this situation and reply to this discussion. --g8crash3r 18:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can quibble all day about whether or not "current channel listing" is 'specifically' identified in WP:NOTDIR, the issue is whether or not a current channel listing actually provides any encyclopedic content. So far the only explanation provided for the inclusion by you or Puppyph‎ is that if we dont include the channel directory in wikipedia, a subscriber would have to go to the providers web page to find the channel listing and "But other articles have channel listings so we shouldnt remove it from here." Neither of which provides a valid explanation of why a channel directory should be included in THIS encyclopedia article. Active Banana (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, quoteing from œ As for Active Banana removing various channel lineups per WP:NOTDIR, he may be interested in some related discussions that tried to establish consensus on certain 'exceptions' to these types of listings. You may find that there's some valid arguments against your removals. See

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Australian network television schedule

There are certain 'exceptions' as what œ said. Another thing is your behavior is somewhat 'racist' since you are only focusing on Philippine wiki pages, try to start editing first your own contries' Wiki pages. Better yet define EPG or Electronic Program Guide to Channel-Lineup. I challenge and dare you, If they are the same, delete the whole Wiki page of SkyCable and if not, stop editing Philippine wikipedia content. Wikipedia Admins, Please Review Our Case. Thank you very much. g8crash3r 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually look at those examples, the people wishing to include the content of historical (not current) show schedules provided arguments and third party sources that showed that encyclpedic content such as the fact that various shows were moved and placed in certain timeslots as competition or moved from competition; so they were basing their arguments on the WHOLE WP:IAR including the "if it improves the encyclopedia". What is improved encyclopedic content by listing current channel listings? Active Banana (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're into editing Pay-TV Companies, why not start here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CATV, almost all of them does not have encyclopedic content. --g8crash3r 20:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. As soon as editors stop inserting masses of inappropriate information into the articles currently on my watchlist, I will consider expanding cleanup efforts in that direction. Or if it really bothers you so much, you can take our friend User:OlEnglish's advice from that same comment that you keep quoting from my talk page: "it just so happens that most Philippine cable articles need cleaning up, so he's working were the job needs to be done. Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, if you're seeing that other countries' articles also need cleaning up then, like he told you, why don't you help improve Wikipedia and go clean them?" Active Banana (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

General Comment: There is a difference between advertising specific products or services (especially prices) on telecom/cable articles and just providing information on the channels offered by the provider. If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic. Pats1 ^T/C 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming! Active Banana (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Pats1 ^T/C has already cleared the confusion. Reverting all pages to original its original state prior to the disruptive edits by Active Banana. --g8crash3r 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You reverted all of my edits to SkyCable‎ including reinserting unsourced content and even removed flags because "the ANI discussion was still on going" and yet at the statement of ONE person WHOM YOU WP:CANVASSED to come here [104] you take as enough basis to return poor unencyclopedic content to a dozen articles. Unbelievable. Active Banana (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are unbelievable as well and let me correct you, I invited an Admin, to get his own opinion on our case because he has edited a similar article. My message, [105] to Pats1 ^T/C, if you read it carefully, does not show any influence to his opinion on this discussion. Your insinuation about me Canvassing the Admin who replied to this discussion is completely false and you might follow what œ^™ said, to take some time to cool off and go edit something else for a change. Regards. --g8crash3r 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for block of User:G8crash3r for continued reinsertion of unsourced content despite numerous warnings

With this edit [106] User:G8crash3r once again reinserted copious unsourced content in violation of WP:V / WP:HOWTO / WP:ADVERT / WP:OR into the article despite numerous warnings. This is separate from the issue of the directory above and also from the personal attacks, but in conjuntion the disruption caused by this editor has really gone too far. Active Banana (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on editors atm, but the SkyCable article seems overly promotional to me. The language is not too bad, but it contains stuff like "an enhanced viewing experience" and "Ray Montinola revealed that the company is also set to launch another new service". The main problem is the excessive detail which appears to be using Wikipedia as a substitute for an official website. The links above to AfD discussions for 2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) do not seem relevant to me. The latter page is a short table showing exactly what the title says, and could be considered as an informative record of programs in that category. By contrast, SkyCable has a five page listing of channels which includes notes like "Analog subscribers may experience interference with the local signal of Q 11 on this channel". I do not see why Wikipedia should host such detail, and G8crash3r does appear to be defending this particular article, and is inserting unsourced material (including "Dream offers a very limited, and continuously shrinking number of channels, at prices far higher than the top packages of the cable providers", where Dream is a competitor to SkyCable). Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's too promotional in tone, but perhaps the bigger problem is the edit warring going on. I'm getting close to just full-protecting the article to give these guys some time to cool off and go edit something else for a change. -- œ^™ 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OE, I think that might be a very good next-and hopefully last- step in this matter. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfolding fiasco on Live Art articles

There seems to be an unfolding fiasco here, where a collaborative effort to improve articles on Live art and Performance art is being trampled all over by shoot-first, ask-questions-later speedy deletions and strange blocks. See User talk:Lisa Mattocks (victim) and User_talk:Blueboy96#Gob_Squad (tagger/blocker). Gob Squad, who, take it from me, are clearly notable, have been tagged twice for speedy deletion, though currently are not tagged. Lone Twin, also pretty clearly notable has been deleted, as has The Live Art Development Agency gbooks search, a UK-government funded agency for supporting this corner of the arts. Can a responsible admin take a look at this mess? This is exactly what we don't need to encourage new users with expertise but not much WP experience. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have tagged the articles Gob Squad and Lone Twin for CSD previously (after they had been recreated after a previous CSD). I'm just going by the judgment of the administrators who granted the CSD previously. Gob Squad does exhibit notability (now that the page has been edited several times since I last nominated for CSD). I can see it's inclusion. I don't know though. I agree with Johnbod. Let's have a "responsible" admin take a look at this. --ANowlin: talk 17:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was awfully WP:BITE-y, hitting them with so many templates, calling them vandals, and all that. And no courtesy notice that we're working on this, while we leave all those poor artists sitting at a bar wondering why they're range-blocked? We're all adults here (and serious-minded youth perhaps), right? Heightened skepticism, and an initial block, is within reason and we can commend Blueboy96 for quick action. But it should be clear now that they're good faith editors. This kind of group project mess happens from time to time, and by now we have some editors who are experienced dealing with it. The closest analog I see is Wikipedia:School and university projects, and what they're doing isn't dissimilar. assuming good faith, if we ask them to mind their p's and q's regarding having individual accounts and watching out for notability and reliable sourcing, I think we can count on them to do their best. And if they say they're not proxy accounts, we have to take them at their word. They're using their real names, etc., and it is highly unlikely that an organization like that is intentionally trying to subvert rules. If not we can easily look at it come Monday and clear up any lingering mess. The harm of blocking an entire group of people who have converged to donate their weekend to improving the encyclopedia is a lot worse, and more likely, than the harm to be avoided if it turns out they're imperfect editors. I've left a message over at User talk:Lisa Mattocks letting them know about this discussion and suggesting that we'll resolve this post haste. If there's any admin with a phone or email who wants to clear this up directly, I think that's a lot better than making a bunch of people wait in real life at an event while we discuss bureaucratic rules. That would totally give some eager volunteers the wrong sense of what we're all about. Good luck. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right - there is a twitter a/c for the project too - link is the first one in my last. Lisa M had also notified the Visual Arts project in advance, which is how I was aware of it all. She is still I think blocked, over this role account issue, which hjas probably not been properly explained to her. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that would lead one to believe that there are multiple editors on a single account, or that anyone is editing under the name of an organization? As far as I can tell she is explicitly claiming otherwise. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! From what she says we may also have blocked the ISP for the Institute of Contemporary Arts, where they are (or more likely were) sitting. There are not that many contributions by User:Lisa Mattocks. I can't see the deleted articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

it'll all be over by Monday so addressing the issue then will be too late. I wonder if this event – http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Backstage_Pass – will be subject to the same zealous article deletion and user blocking?Alchemagenta (talk)

Well over 30 people with a/cs have signed up for that (including me), so with luck no. But can we at least try to see tomorrow goes more smoothly at the ICA [107] ? Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that if they create a bunch of bad articles we can deal with that on Monday. There's not that much chance of serious harm - particularly if they can let us know which ones they created. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The event is supposed to be on tomorrow, & it it's like today there won't be any new articles left by Monday. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I declined unblock on what seemed to me to be a simple issue. This editor has stated, in a perfectly straightforward manner, that it is her intention to host a collaborative edit through her account on sunsay, 23rd May. According to her posting, she has invited all and sundry to turn up with there l,aptops and writing talent and to contribute. While the contributions created may or may not be encyclopedic - they do not yet exist - this seems to me to be a blatant role and/or group account. If the consensus produces a different opinion, then please feel free to unblock.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

See the top - at least 3 new articles were created, all on notable subjects & all speedily deleted, though Gob Squad has been reinstated. What has been going on elsewhere in the forest i don't know. What is the blocked ICA ISP a/c? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think she said that at all - and if inviting others to edit Wikipedia is now blockable, rest assured I shall do all I can to discourage anyone from editing. We can add the ICA to others such as the Encyclopedia of Alabama, Gresham College, the API, as being exactly the sort of educated, knowledgeable, helpful people that many admins won't tolerate on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of what's going on here, at the ICA end, as I'm loosely involved with the project (remotely – 300 miles away, I hasten to add). In short the project consists of this: a bunch of arts professionals and artists who have specialist knowledge and experience of live art and performance art practice have got together at a weekend-long event at the ICA. As part of that event, they have undertaken to contribute to Wikipedia, focusing on creating new articles about artists and arts organisations that are key, internationally–recognised constituents of that practice, yet are sadly missing from Wikipedia. ICA is simply an organisational host to this event and the event participants are availing themselves of the broadband/wi-fi facilities publicly available in the building. Shockingly, and I'm not seeking to attribute specific blame here, in an act of good faith and goodwill, in seeking to legitimately improve Wikipedia's content (and incidentally, promote Wikipedia itself) they have found themselves subject to gung-ho article deletion, over-zealous user-blocking and, it seems the range blocking of the public wi-fi IP of a major, internationally recognised, publicly-funded arts institution with a formidable history in promoting art and digital media. This is an own goal by Wikipedia of unbelievable proportion. Please, if there are any able and sensible admins out there, get this resolved because so far, several new and potentially useful Wikipedia editors with specialist knowledge are rapidly becoming extremely alienated by processes that would be more familiar in some global commercial corporate empire.Alchemagenta (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock this account, or, if no one objects, then I will unblock it. Lisa_Mattocks has specifically stated in an unblock request that this is not a role account: "My account is not shared. We are at the ICA in London all using the same IP address!" There are a number of terminals at the ICA and some contributors to this project will no doubt be using their own laptops on wi-fi, so they will obviously have the same underlying IP. This is nothing unusual: there are often different users with the same IP of a university etc. The block currently prevents the creation of new accounts, thus stopping any potential contributors from meeting wiki requirements to create their own account. WP:BITE is a guideline that mandates consideration and help for new users, especially when they have inadvertently contravened Wikipedia's labyrinthine regulations. Please read the guideline and follow it to give assistance for what can be some worthwhile contributions to the project. Ty 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I can't see deleted edits, but her contributions history now only has about 25 edits on it, all yesterday & today, and well spread out. Nor can I see where cshe says the others will use her account at all. I have to agree with Alchemagenta. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked this account in the light of a clear consensus to do so. Please note that the original block was not mine - Blueboy please accept my apologies if you feel I have stepped on your toes.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but are we still blocking the whole ICA, as we seem to have done? Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Might also be nice to actually tell her she's been unblocked? DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Where's the template for "inviting a bunch of your friends to write articles about each other is a spectacularly bad idea"? Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence of grounds for this statement and its negative implications. Ty 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at the Twitter group I can't spot any overlap with article subjects - I haven't done a full audit. For the nth time, all the deleted article subjects pass notability tests easily. Thank you for your interest; your communication is valuable to us! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm emailng her to inform her of the decision (thanks, Anthony Bradbury) but I too have to ask: is the IP still range blocked? Alchemagenta (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please could an admin look at User talk:Alexeisenberg as he seems to have been caught up in this too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Participation invited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Performing Wikipedia. Ty 23:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have suggested on Blueboy96's talk page that an admin recall process may be best here; this is the second episode of poor judgement in dealing with newcomers that I have seen in two months. Fences&Windows 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, snap! Please don't bite the admins either. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There remains an unresolved aspect of this incident: I've just heard from Lisa Mattocks that the ICA's IPs remain blocked. Can someone please unblock these? The addresses are 192.168.1.89 and 192.168.5.102. Thanks. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Those IP addresses are internal on your network; they aren't the IPs that Wikipedia sees. 192.xxxxx are always internal. Do you know the external one? (whatismyip.com, perhaps?) — Timneu22 · talk 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my ignorance… I've asked her if she can find out. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm told that the external IP is 93.97.42.230. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have unblocked the autoblocked IP using the autoblock tool. [108]. But I am no expert on these sort of things, so make no promises about the result.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's worked, all is well. Thanks. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Good. It is appears I am more technosavvy than I thought :) --Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As this has been a multi-layered incident, I think it's worth summarising where we're all at with it at this point:

- two blocked new users now unblocked;

- blocked IP now unblocked;

- new project page created;

- one deleted article restored;

- two deleted articles now in incubation on project page;

- new users' faith in Wikipedia restored. Probably.

- technical proficiency of admin affirmed.

I think that's all of the aspects of this resolved now. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to those of you who have helped with this project. I am particularly grateful to User:Johnbod for his support of the project and for helping to clear this all up quickly User:Alchemagenta for helping to fix the mess and User:Tyrenius for setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Performing Wikipedia . Thank you very much Lisa Mattocks (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recall poll

I and another editor have signed the recall petition at User talk:Blueboy96#Admin Recall. Blueboy96 has said that "I'm willing to submit in order to clear the air." If four more editors with at least 500 edits and 1 month of editing sign then we will move to a reconfirmation RfA. If they do not then this is water under the bridge. Fences&Windows 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

WP:AIV is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okip

Resolved

 – No need to feed the trolls. NW (Talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okip (talk · contribs) Now that Okip has returned, can we discuss an interaction ban from all deletionists dealing with him? No one should suffer like he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.23.77 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC) O'RLY? How so? ;) Jack Merridew 08:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) It will be too hard to ban every one else. I suggest we let the arguments take place and consensus form. Do you have something more specific in mind? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I was querying the 'suffering' part. The other is ludicrous. I saw a comment from a friend of his that he's 'retired', which would be goodness. The post was before the recent edits. A restriction the other way 'round would be more appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) What about people like AniMate who drive Okip to insults? An interaction ban is needed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.67.23 (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Seems from contributions that Okip has gone to Animate's page and messaged him. Why not ask Okip to avoid these people instead? Anyone with a morsel of self control can not insult someone when "driven". SGGH ping! 09:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed, looking at AniMate's talk page, it appears that the only harrassment going on is of AniMate by Okip and a couple of (surprise) other ARS members. Doesn't look like Okip's "suffering" too much to me. I wonder who the IP above is (they're both the same person). Black Kite (t) (c) 10:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC) and it resulted in the lovely link target: User talk:AniMate#pathetic liar. Happened to me once, too: User talk:Jack Merridew#Fuckwit (now: User talk:Jack Merridew/Archive 5#Fuckwit). Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Probably the same IP who commented here some time back. Reyk YO! 10:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC) And nobody is concerned that the the same person who drove Okip off is now attacking Richard below? First they came for A Nobody and I said nothing. Then they came for Okip and I said nothing. Now they come for Richard. What will you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.127.103 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC) They came for me first? or Godwin's law? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Only saying here, I don't support the you lose corollary of Godwin's law, other than as a clever joke about popular culture. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'll ignore it as warranted, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (ec) Duncan's Second Law - as any internet argument progresses, the probability of Godwin's Law being cited inappropriately approaches one. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC) You know... I think it's true. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC) What "they" is he alluding to? (I linked it;) Off, Jack Merridew 11:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, it's the allegory. In the historical quote, they are the national socialists. When it's wielded, it's meant to mean those who might incrementally shun groups with shared characteristics. Or did I clumsily miss what you were getting at altogether? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC) He's equating deletionists with the Nazis. Really offline, now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I agree it's a bit thick, but they were big deletionists, culturally too. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC) "Yeah but no but yeah but no but..." (Vicky Pollard). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Heh, speaking of that, I've read linguists have been finding there is much more meaning to that kind of syntax than one may think at first blush. However, I'm far too lazy this afternoon to dig up a citation :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (ec)No, he's not equating them, he's drawing a parallel intended to remind editors of the need to look beyond the immediate interests of their own group. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC) nb: this is on WP:AN, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 166.190.23.77, while the idea of banning Okip for his own good from interaction with people he considers deletionists is obviously noble, I think this is premature. We never do that kind of thing without a concrete cause. Hans Adler 12:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) You've got the wrong idea - the IP is suggesting that all "deletionists" (whoever they might be) be banned from interacting with Okip. Meanwhile, it appears to be OK for Okip and his adherents to harrass other people. If it wasn't so pathetic, it'd be funny. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Being a hard core, let's carry it all inclusionist and saying so is ok. Harassing those who edit towards staying within the inclusion standards set forth in the policy at any given time is not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) This is what? The third time someone has proposed that anyone who disagrees with Okip be sanctioned? This might be the first issue involving a specific user to qualify for listing on WP:PEREN. Mr.Z-man 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Srsly, why is time being wasted on a Chris Crocker-ish "LEAVE OKIP ALONE!" griping from a likely logged-out regular? There's no substance to the "complaint", but if anything were to happen this area, an interaction shoe would probably go onto Okip's foot. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:24.35.122.169

24.35.122.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is repeatedly adding an AfD notice to the article despite the AfD being closed. It appears the user has chosen this article as a battleground to make a point. Even though my involvement has been minor, it may be enough to taint any action that may be considered. Any attention that could be brought to bear would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 06:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could be debated whether or not they technically crossed 3RR (as in 3 reverts in one calendar day), but they've done enough reverts to call it edit warring. I blocked for 31 hours. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the issue did not begin with the AfD, but at the article's creation. The user also kept re-adding a speedy tag, a few weeks ago. It then culminated with the user removing {{reflist}}, and the article having an actual deletion.[109][110] I then notified NawlinWiki, who restored it and took care of the AfD. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Epforrester vandalism and disruption only account

Epforrester's first edits were blatant vandalism and attacks. More recent edits are clear violations of WP:NPOV. This user is not here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but to attack a political organization he doesn't like. I took this user to AIV, where I was told "Edits may be questionable, but this isn't blatant vandalism." Plastering the Tea Party at Crazy and White Supremacy isn't vandalism? Peacock also posted there about this user. Since that was fruitless, can someone do something? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

POV warrior, absolutely. Bad first edits. Since then, has been improving. Suggest we get him a mentor. If he starts egregiously violating WP:BATTLEGROUND again after the warning and notice of this discussion, I'd suggest blocking. I normally am not one to give new editors the benefit of the doubt, but the pattern (starting off blockable, then improving) is more subtle than I would expect from many of our returning characters. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question decided to start with a clean slate under new identity. So far no problems, I should shoot them a welcome and the 5 pillars. I would guess that this matter can be closed and the user wants to contribute to wiki. Let's hope it's mostly positive. †TE†Talk 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping task

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary Olaf Davis (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that someone at the talk page of deleted article Jacqueline Hernández is requesting that the deleted info be userfied for him. Can someone please handle? Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the page is a copyright violation (which it was, in this case) then it cannot be restored for an editor to continuing working upon. There's nothing that can be done in this case, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've replied at the article talk page. I think the user's just asking to recreate the article not for it to be undeleted, so they don't need any help. Note that since it was deleted as a copyvio I wouldn't userfy it anyway. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation on a User's Talk page?

Is User_talk:Jessemckay#Is_A_Homosexual_Candidate_Unqualified.3F an acceptable edit on a User's Talk page? It looks like a BLP violation, to me. If others disagree eith me, I will apologize to User:Jessemckay for mischaracterizing their edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a trick question?? It looks like the whole user talk page should be taken to WP:MFD unless an admin would like to enforce WP:BLP by removing the blog. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Actually, I hadn't really looked at it that closely, I just noted that para.  :) Yeah, this needs to be redacted, it's a personal essay, not what a Talk page is for. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and have removed those parts of the user's Talk page which are not there to facilitate intra-Wikipedia communication. I'm hoping they don't go back up. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Everard Proudfoot. I've now deleted the revisions of the page containing the BLP violation - since it was my first use of Revision Deletion I'd appreciate any feedback on whether I used it appropriately. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good job being bold, Everard Proudfoot. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

page: xiao

Resolved

 – Xiao's vandalism is reverted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized/rewritten to promote some online game group. Can an admin please revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.139.248 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Account hacked, help requested

About 20:45 today I discovered someone had hacked into the alternate email account that I use for WP mails (not my main one but email gets routed there). They then proceeded to get in WP by requesting a new temporarily password for my username (which went to this email address which is autoforwarded to my main address), logged in, and performed what appears to be the only action of deleting one page [111]. I managed to get another password request sent, changed it and the email address to something different, but they have just attempted again to get a temporarily password on this account (that, however, is now going to the address I believe is secure).

The IP that is doing this is : 98.149.102.111 who has no edits here, but seems intent on deleting something on Half-Life. I need help in trying to resolve this. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Mesa (video game) restored. These edits: [112] [113] are from IPs recently whose edits match the intent shown by the deletion summary by your account. SGGH ^ping! 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All 3 are geographically different. It does seem like it was a specific attack to that page (at least that) since they did little else. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought something weird was going on. The article talk page was also deleted. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you emptied and deleted that alternate email account? It might be permanently compromised now. Could a checkuser run a check on your account for when those edits were made and those other IPs you mention to find if any registered accounts are connected to this attack? Fences&Windows 21:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The hacked alternate account appears to be deleted now. (it bounces, I can't create it again yet). A checkuser would help, because to hack the account (it was advert'd in my user page ) and to go right to WP and delete a page sounds like very targetd vandalism. They have done nothing else that they could have done (beyond deleting it) with that alt. email account. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) F&W and Masem, do check here for an available Checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking in to this. Masem, please contact me by email ASAP. Risker (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Email sent. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Masem. I've just responded. Risker (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply sent back (just in case). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm Masem's initial statement. There is evidence that a third party managed to access Masem's email address and, from there, change his password and edit inappropriately under his username. Only two edits were made. Masem has been instructed to change all applicable passwords. I note that he had posted his email address on his userpage, and have suggested that he remove that information; while it is rare that someone chooses to take advantage of such personal information, it can be very discouraging when it happens. Whatever personal information you release on your userpage is released under the applicable GDFL/CC license and can wind up in a lot of places you don't expect. Please be cautious. Risker (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• If this a publicly known recent exploit, should we be advising anybody with their WP email address set to a gmail account to change it?. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to suspect that it was anything other than someone guessing Masem's gmail password. The solution is a stronger password, usually. Risker (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, as Risker pointed out, this only started from the hack at the gmail account, and though I thought it was high strength, they got it. Needless to say, I've changed a lot of passwords in the last few hours and took Risker's advice of stripping the email from my userpage. I just find it interesting how intent this user(s) was to getting rid of that page to take that course of action. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider the fact that it had zero chance of staying deleted for any length of time so one might think what's the point. On some webforum somewhere, there's a 14 year old kid showing the deletion log and saying "LuLZ". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a followup but nothing critical but bears in mind some caution. On the new alt email account that had to make after the above, someone has tried to send a password change request. Fortunately, (and something I didn't do with teh above) this account on google mail was added protected with a security question, so the change could not start without me clicking a second link in an email that I could only get; thus no hacks, no account compromise, etc. I recommend that if you have such accounts to make sure you've enabled all the security features (like this added prot to password changes) to make sure they're locked down. The only interesting this to add here is that it happened so close to the previous event and 'roughly' the same time frame (give or take 4 hrs) that makes me think its part of the same group; and given they got the new address (which isn't that far off but not immediately obvious from the compromised one), I think I know which site they got it from but there's little there I can do to protect its visibility due to how that site works, beyond all the other steps I've done. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something in my gmail account: under the inbox there is a "Last account activity" line. Clicking "Details" shows some stuff that may be of minor interest. There is a "learn more" link which advises fixing the password and security question. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Sapporod1965

Resolved

 – Blocked indef

I originally met this user at a RfA which failed per WP:NOTYET. The user had supported the candidate with a claim of "Ultra Srong Support" for awesomeness, with only 55 edits at that time. I'm sure there's a sockpuppet thing going on (User:Flushing258 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bcai388 after retiring (also see all the notices he removed from his talkpage)) and Sappoprod has been following me around ever since. Wanting to help him/her, I posted a newcomer template, asking that the user WP:SIGN their posts and the user replied, saying Please do not ever post on my page again, which has no meaning, btw. At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism_space_(2nd_nomination), Sappoprod turned up with another lousy rationale, a clear sign of WP:STALKing and possibly WP:HARASSment. Also, I was over at User_talk:I_like_pie_it_tastes_good when Sappoprod came along and suggested the user apply for adminship; the goal was to disrupt the RfA process. While he/she was there, he/she added an innappropriate "userbox". Currently there is a MfD for his userpage, as it has been deemed inappropriate. To conclude, the user has been following me, giving disruptive rationales at discussions, and has a possible connection to another user through sockpuppetry.--mono 04:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked indef. Not here to contribute, and not really a tough call in that department. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenya Emergency (1952) / Mau Mau Uprising

Resolved

Background:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:ScottPAnderson
• User talk:TFOWR#apparent POV pushing by User:Julius Sahara and User:Galloping Moses
• Talk:Mau Mau Uprising#Requested move / Talk:Kenya Emergency (1952)#Requested move whichever one works...

Similar issue has recently been discussed here (1st link above) and the editors went back to discuss issues. One editor earlier contacted me (2nd link). I had a look at the current issues and stuck a move request on the articles talk page (3rd link). Despite the opportunity to discuss the article's title afforded by the move request, two editors have moved and re-moved. Neither is at 3 reverts yet.

I'm not an admin and I'm... involved: could someone intervene before people get hurt?

Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've let both editors know about this. If it's inappropriate here, delete it or do with it what you must. I'm going offline for a few hours or so, so probably won't get involved further. TFOWR^propaganda 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article move-protected. A discussion is now underway on the talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the Mau Mau Uprising article has been subject to edit warring recently. Personally I try to avoid such situations. On this case, however, I really feel I had a moral right to protect the page from being renamed. The term "Mau Mau" is so common that leaving it out from the title of the article sounds very strange. I really can't figure out the motives by user:ScottPAnderson for moving the article. Given his edit history, I'd advise him to more careful and avoid controversial edits. Julius Sahara (talk)

He's also (apart from having broken 3RR in the move war), recently edited the header of the page to his preferred version so it doesn't match the title and posted a bizarre request for full protection at WP:RFPP so that it would be locked in "his" version. Meanwhile, at least two admins including myself have looked at the naming issue and agreed with other editors that "his" name doesn't satisfy COMMONNAME at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed his change to the header also - I wasn't too happy about that. I've also reverted some of his edits at Hola massacre with a fairly detailed explanation as to why on the talk page. I probably won't have much access to the Internet for the next 3 days, so it might be a good idea for people to keep an eye out. Thanks.

From Julius Sahara message, I believe I was the first to interviene here. I came to the page from huggle and noticed blanking by Sh33pl0re (talk · contribs). Reverted, but it was then changed back. I saw that the 3RR policy had been serverily broken. I saw attack messages in the edit summaries and was going to rollback the edits by Sh33pl0re as i believed Scott's edits were constructive, i found that it didnt work because of my own revert. I then sort help from the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help but no one did, but then went to another channel (forgot which) and spoke to User:PeterSymonds and he sorted the issue out. Not sure if its relevent but I thought I should say what happend. Sophie ^(Talk) 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I left this post on the talk page of one of the editors involved with the article. And a big "thank you" to everyone who dropped by the article. It all seems much calmer now! TFOWR^propaganda 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Just noticed TFOWR's comment to the user, and the comment here. I'd previously left a comment on the talk-page. Not acceptable behavior, imho. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• I've left a fresh message for two editors: here and here. Slightly different, though tangentially related, issue, so I'm leaving this thread "resolved" and noting this here purely for "the record". TFOWR^propaganda 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Halister24

Resolved

 – Blocked by Black Kite, reverted by MC10. TFOWR^propaganda 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Halister24 has been changing various articles about association football video games to read "soccer" instead of "association football", despite the latter being the agreed-upon term for the sport. I have asked the user twice to stop this activity, but they have ignored by requests both times. – PeeJay 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you both finished edit warring, there's the WP:3RR rule that prevents any editor from making more than three reverts in any 24 hour period, as well as rules regarding edit warring. I would therefore ask that both parties disengage and deal with the matter at hand away from the article. I'd also direct the parties to WP:VNE and I quote "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article names. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English)." which would confirm that Association Football, rather than the American, Soccer, or the British, Football, would be used in the article. Nick (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please stop changing mentions of "association football" or "football" to read "soccer" in non-American articles." That's the only notice you gave Halister, with no explanation whatsoever that association football is the agreed upon term and no directions to the talk page where this was apparently agreed upon. You should both be blocked for being way past 3RR and pointlessly reverting each other.--Atlan (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the user never even attempted to engage in a dialogue from the start. No explanation was made for their edits at any point, and I did ask very nicely for them to desist. – PeeJay 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but however much you know you're in the right, you should've stopped at 3RR and reported them to WP:AN3. Continuing to revert, quite apart from breaking 3RR, just encourages the other party to carry on as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Halister has the excuse of being new here, you don't. Even though your request for them to stop was put nicely, it didn't really tell them why they should stop. Even so, Halister has now continued with another revert after Nick's warning.--Atlan (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Halister24 has continued after Nick's warning, I have blocked them. Someone else should probably now revert the edit again, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademark violation claim

Some poor beleaguered associate at some law firm somewhere got stuck having to spend a Sunday night posting this into The Devil Wears Prada. Apparently, the real-life Runway magazine or someone purporting to be an attorney acting on their behalf has decided, seven years after the book was published and became a bestseller and nearly four years after the movie was released that they want to enforce their trademark. After reviewing MOS:TM, I don't think we need to use the "®" and I have told them so, as well as warning them about legal threats and disruptive editing, on the IP's talk page.

Should I let Mike know? Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP has spent plenty of time editing Runway Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since November, I think it's very possible it's someone representing the magazine in some fashion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have some doubt that it's really a lawyer, or if so not a very good one. A smart lawyer would find out who here to take this to and wouldn't claim in an edit summary to be a lawyer for the Trademark Office as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, at least to the "®" usage, we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I was relying on (see link to MOS:TM).

Apparently there's more to this than first meets the eye. I get the feeling someone better at bullying than law is fighting a losing battle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a case of WP:FOOTBULLET, as by their actions that IP has brought attention to Runway Magazine and I've sent it to AfD. Fences&Windows 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Luca200983

Luca200983 (talk · contribs)

Can an admin have a closer look at this editor, he/she has created a number of articles over the last month that have been nominated under CSD, he/she has recived a number of warning on his/her's talk page but continues to blank the page. It may be nothing but maybe it is. (as he may well remove the ANI notice - I have placed it here) Codf1977 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been victim of a imposter on 23rd May 2010 I take this here because no reply of admin who banned me or Wikipedia coummunity

Resolved

 – IP blocked for block evasion by Tim Song. Also, DFTT. Fences&Windows 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Upon further review by a CheckUser, it was discovered that the socks listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcjakeqcool/Archive#23 May 2010 were socks of banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs). I undeleted the SPI pages with pre-emptive semi-protection and deleted all those userpages per WP:DENY. –MuZemike 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. –MuZemike 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the past 24 or so hours, I have been victim to a imposter, which resulted in me being banned, I can confirm this with these messages sent to me on my hotmail... I'm your sock‏ From: Kenneth Walters (ingolme@googlemail.com) Sent: 23 May 2010 12:56:34 To: Mcjakeqcool (mcjakeqcool@hotmail.co.uk) I'm posing as you on WP. I am a sock of you. -- This e-mail was sent by user "Kenneth Walters" on the English Wikipedia to user "Mcjakeqcool". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. Re: I'm your sock‏ From: Pat Sayers (ingolme@googlemail.com) Sent: 23 May 2010 19:01:14 To: Jacob Quinn (mcjakeqcool@hotmail.co.uk) Just look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcjakeqcool and you will find out. On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jacob Quinn <mcjakeqcool@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: Wait my research suggests you are either ToxicWasteGrounds or : User:GEORGIEGIBBONS, which User are you impersonating me on? I have a feeling you are not at all because it would have been reported by now, or I would have at least found you on wikipeida because I am good at finding sockpuppets trust me. As I am a sockpuppeter myself I understand your postion and will not report you however if you do anything to disrupt my talk page edit expire on November 21st, I will make your eMail public property. If you don't get there in time then check the archive as they are rangeblocking me as I speak. On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Pat Sayers <ingolme@googlemail.com> wrote: Just look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcjakeqcool and you will find out. On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jacob Quinn <mcjakeqcool@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: Wait my research suggests you are either ToxicWasteGrounds or : User:GEORGIEGIBBONS, which User are you impersonating me on? I have a feeling you are not at all because it would have been reported by now, or I would have at least found you on wikipeida because I am good at finding sockpuppets trust me. As I am a sockpuppeter myself I understand your postion and will not report you however if you do anything to disrupt my talk page edit expire on November 21st, I will make your eMail public property. All I am doing is keeping to my 6 month wiki:offer period and that is still what I am doing, I have had a really good weekend and have been looking forward to my birthday tomorrow but now I’m depressed, but that is my fault for having so many enemies on wikipeida, it’s ironic that on the 1 site that the admins offer me not to be banned, I get banned by the community. Also I feel I am not capable of socking to the standard of this imposter as I have used brands of toilets as names for my sockpuppets because I have ran low on ideas. Regardless, I deserve justice and although I have socked, I did not yesterday, these eMails are proof of that this imposter needs to be stopped he is simply posing as sanctioned Users like myself to get them in further trouble which is simply a nuisance to wikipeida. Finally for obvious reasons I have broken my 6 month offer period, please also remember that I have a life outside wikipeida and that I have in real time put my selfout of my way to find a IP address that is not blocked. 86.158.128.243 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Please take into consideration that this set of affairs is causing my mental issues. That is all. 86.158.128.243 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Alright, I have a few things to say. First, I'm just going to point this out to you - this whole situation you're made is quite blatantly 100% bollocks. From what I know (correct me if I'm wrong), Wikipedia email doesn't identify the email of the sender or the reciever, just the username. Even without that bit, this is absolutely ridiculous. Now, mcjakeqcool, I want you to be perfectly honest here - did you fabricate this? If you did, why? Are you seeking a way to be unblocked before the 6 month period is up, or to regain that 6 month deal? If you're completely honest with this, it can only help you. Trust me on that much - I've had my own lesson here in honesty. Somebody else, could you give me the rundown on this guy and the circumstances surrounding his ban? Inferno, Lord of Penguins 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Just to correct you, but receiving email sent through Wikipedia does identify both sender and receiver and uses email addresses of both... At least that's the ones I've received. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I am not capable of fabricate what happen yesterday, but I am phisicaly sick and close to tears. I did not sock yesterday. That 6 month deal is the only chance I get which is why I stick to it. This over guy is just trying to get my banned for good which is what he done. I need justice in the form of a indefblock instead of a ban and to be able to edit my user page on Nov 21st. I just watched Lost and could not enjoy it because of the injustice. So that wikipeida know the real Mcjakeqcool here is a link to my facebok page http://www.facebook.com/home.php? . 86.158.128.243 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I've pinged the CheckUsers who looked at this yesterday again. It is possible, AGFing of course, that one of two things (or both) has happened: GEORGIEGIBBONS has duped us all along. The abovementioned IP is from Georgie and not from Mcjakeqcool. While CheckUser obviously cannot go back to the earliest edits by MC, CU can determine the whether the timing (circumstances) fit the patterns. –MuZemike 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Quite honestly, I have not even seen the archives or the edits that GEORGIEGIBBONS made. 86.158.128.243 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NLT Question

Resolved

 – User has been inactive for about six months, so discussion is moot unless and until they return. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Shazbot85's user page contains a passage which looks to me like it may push the boundaries of WP: NLT.

Specifically, on his user page he has posted the message:

Sifting through anything relating to Reformed theology, Presbyterianism, and/or Calvinism. R. J. Rushdoony is of particular interest as there seems to be an entire section devoted to libel. I watch and wait for reliable sources to support the wild accusations. (emphasis added).

Accusing other users of libel seems violate either WP: NLT or WP: NPA, perhaps both. However, I would like an administrator to have the final say in this matter.

To provide background, there has been a dispute at that article in the past few years as to how much information to add on Rushdoony's well-documented racism and anti-Semitism. Shazbot seems to want to remove any such information due to his own personal biases.

There also appear to be username issues with this user, as well (as he is clearly not a registered bot). I have previously posted a message regarding this on his talk page, and have not received a reply yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You must have been born after the heyday of Mork and Mindy if you don't recognize the username. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Shazbot is also a card (referencing Mork and Mindy of course) in Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot, so even youngsters could have been exposed. As far as the actual issue with the username though, the policy only states that it can't end in bot, so I guess it depends how literally it's taken and the likelihood of confusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was born in 1989, so no I didn't recognize the reference. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't view it as a legal threat - after all, we have specific templates we put on articles to say "looks like this is full of libel" but unless we follow that up with "...and I'm going to have you prosecuted for it" it's not a threat per se. From a briefish look over the article's talk page it looks like there's constructive discussion going on, so I don't think a NLT block would be productive.

Still, I may be wrong on this - certainly don't take my word for it just because I happen to be an admin! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that article content appears libelous is not a legal threat in and of itself, especially if the person making the comment is not the subject of the article, so that he or she would have no standing to bring any lawsuit. However, in some circumstances where references to "libel" or "defamation" are overused, the "Perceived legal threats" section of WP:NLT (which is drawn from a principle I drafted in one of my arbitration decisions) may be relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Added to which Rushdoony is has been deceased for many and long year, and you can't "libel" the dead in most jurisdictions. [114] --Slp1 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c's, it seems like this comment is superfluous now, but I spent the time writing it, so dammit I'll post it)

Re: NLT: I don't see that as a threat; using the word "libel" this way is descriptive (in his opinion) not threatening. And it seems vague enough that it can't really be considered a personal attack on anyone.

Re: Bot: I'm embarrassed to admit that I know what Shazbot! means. I understand your concern, but (a) I'm sure it wasn't untended to confuse, and (b) he's been around since 2006 with no confusion, he may have been grandfathered in anyway. I'll ask him if he'd mind adding a clarification on his user page that he's not a bot.

Re: Rushdoony: If there is an issue with this editor's edits on this article that requires admin attention, please specify them, with diffs. If no admin intervention is needed (i.e. the talk page is working), then ANI isn't really the place for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since December 16, 2009... – B.hotep •talk• 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Sorta wish I'd noticed that before commenting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations in copyright-related articles

LakeT (talk · contribs) is persisting in adding word-for-word and close paraphrase copyrighted text to articles related to copyright, most recently Public domain after being warned not to do so, which he clearly received as he replied. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of working on the article, please see the new section in public domain on derivative works, which I am still working on. I am not using paraphrasing to avoid the Wikipedia copyright policies. It would be good if VernoWhitney would be less ironic and assume good faith. I am not sure why this is escalated so much.--LakeT (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're working on the article or not, you must not put copyrighted material onto Wikipedia. You also might find it worthwhile to read about what "ironic" means.... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

can you please outline how the derivative works section in the public domain article is copyright infringement instead of just reverting any addition i make? Perhaps another administrator can offer his or her opinion. I will add the section back into the article so we can get the opinion of another editor.--LakeT (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Other editors are more than capable of locating your version; there's no need to place the project at risk simply to accommodate a mythical editor who can't read an article's history. TFOWR^propaganda 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For the history-challenged, LakeT's most recent version is here. TFOWR^propaganda 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it - sort out the copyright problems first, then re-add to the article if it's fine not the other-way around. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what I have added now does not constitute copyright infringement. I find it strange that editors can accuse other editors of violating a wikipedia policy, but are not expected to explain how what was done violates the policy. I am contributing to wikipedia since more than two years now and I never had admins deal with possible copyright ifnirngement like it is happening now.--LakeT (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been explained to you above that you need to discuss it on the talk page before inserting what may be a WP:COPYVIO. "What you think" isn't really relevant here. I find it strange that you can ignore the advice of several editors and plough on regardless, particularly as you suggest you have two years' worth of experience of editing in a collaborative environment. I'd recommend you revert yourself and wait until you've discussed the matter and arrived at a consensus. TFOWR^propaganda 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be unavailable for most of the day, but since all of the additions are well sourced including page numbers, they can be pulled up in gbooks and previewed which should reveal some pretty clear similarities between the phrases they're adding and the sources, which should match any reasonable definition of WP:Close paraphrasing or Derivative works or whatever you want to call it. If someone else could look at it (or get someone else who deals with copyvio to look at it) so he doesn't keep readding the material (or you can tell me that I'm completely wrong, if that's the case) it would be much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the policy, which states that "Otherwise, if some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." WP:COPYVIO. Similarities are not automatically copyright infringement, otherwise all sourced material in Wikipedia would be copyright infringement. Close paraphrasing is permitted if attributed and "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. In general, sentences like "Dr. John Smith earned his medical degree at State University" can be rephrased "John Smith earned his M.D. at State University" without copyright problems.""close paraphrase--LakeT (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a single short sentence is hard to rephrase and generally not a copyvio. You are however using entire paragraphs of text ("closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression") and they are can be rephrased. I hadn't noted the sources and text removal on the talk pages because a) you used multiple sources which would take a little bit of time to sort out and b) I was more concerned with checking your other contributions and then with bringing the discussion here when you continued. And now I'm off. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and that's an excellent discussion to have, on the talk page, prior to re-adding anything. Apart from anything else, many people here believe - myself included - that this approach is always to be preferred, but, regardless of that, constantly reverting instead of discussing delays discussion and any solution and brings the editor(s) concerned rapidly to WP:3RR. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page - suggestions welcome Talk:Public domain.--LakeT (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

can an administrator please intervene? I put the text which I do not believe to be copyright infringement on the public domain talk page, so that editors can have a look at it and suggest changes, if needed, and it was removed, under the pretext that I am not allowed to place what another editor, without giving reasons, thinks could be copyright infringement anywhere on Wikipedia. I would really like to have the opinion of an administrator if what I have written is copyright infringement as per wikipedia policy, i think it would be helpful, then I would know how to change it so that it can be part of the article.--LakeT (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not an administrator. You don't need the text - we can all find it for ourselves. TreasuryTag even provided a link to the article's history so we can find it. TFOWR^propaganda 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm an administrator, not that that part matters, but looking at your paragraph, I would agree that you are skating far too closely to the line. Simply removing or changing the odd word while retaining near identical structure and style of the works you are referencing is still a copyright violation. Specifically from your version, you've paraphrased references 17 and 19 far too closely, and 18 remains fairly similar as well. I never looked at 20. I think your intentions are good, and it would be a useful addition to the article, but you need to reword the passage such as to use your own words rather than that of your sources. Resolute 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Have reworded and rearranged 18 and 19 (actually it was not a good structure, as its said some works had been widely used for derivatives once they had fallen into the public domain and then went on about the mona lisa which was never copyrighted). Re 17, its a definition, I don’t really know how to reword it further from the original, as I can’t use different words for translation etc, which have a legal meaning. 20 should be good as it takes numerous bits from two pages, and combines them for a string of examples. Hope that resolves the copyright issue.--LakeT (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

17 is probably fine (albeit U.S.-centric) as it's based on the wording of U.S. Copyright Act. But please stop assuming you've fixed problems and replacing the material without asking someone else first. You didn't think there was an issue in the first place, so you're hardly objective. At this point if you reword some more I doubt I'm objective either since I'm now expecting to find those similarities. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

dispute is ongoing as VernoWhitney is of the opinion that my three sentence summary of nearly two pages in a book is still too close of a paraphrase. See Talk:Public domain--LakeT (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What I noticed the last time you was that your second paragraph was still a problem, I had not looked at in detail at the version of your first paragraph that you recently posted on the talk page. And the issue is because you weren't summarizing two pages down to three sentences, you were picking three sentences out of the two pages and closely paraphrasing those three sentences. Your latest version first paragraph looks better, but as I said above, neither of us are objective on the matter any more. None of the three admins who are really active in the copyvio area have been edited in the last few days, or I'd ask them for another opinion. I can ask Theleftorium to stop by again if that's ok with you, but he's not an admin either, in case that point still bothers you.

To anyone else, is this something that WP:3O handles, or can someone else here who is at least familiar with close paraphrasing take a look at it? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets forget what went before for a minute. What the dispute is about is that you have reverted my addition of the following text to the public domain article, because you claim that it is close paraphrasing:

Some famous artistic works, like the Mona Lisa, or La Gioconda, by Leonardo da Vinci, which was completed in 1506, are in the public domain because they were created before copyright law was established. The Monda Lisa continues to be used as the basis for derivative works such as cartoons. Owned by the French Government the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre Museum, Paris, which permits photography of its public domain paintings and the Mona Lisa can be freely used for derivative works such as the L.H.O.O.Q..

On the Talk:Public domain you outline why you think it is too closely paraphrasing the original source, and I outline why I think it is not, based on the original source. I would like an admin to have a look at this. You claim that I violate Wikipedia policy on copyright and paraphrasing, it would be good to have that settled, as I would like to make further edits to Wikipedia articles, without them being reverted by you claiming that they infringe copyright or are too close a paraphrase. If improvement can be made that can be discussed. I would really like an admin to have a look at this. Thanks.--LakeT (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Daniel Christensen

If you look at User:Daniel Christensen's User page, you'll see he has a list of a huge number of articles that he has in his User subspace. Every one of those articles has article space categories included in it. I mentioned on his Talk page that those categories should not be there, since they're linking his User space to article space categories. He has edited since I made the post on his Talk page, but has not replied, and has made no effort to address the situation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to get going in a few minutes, but perhaps it would be of an advantage to move some of the userfied pages to the Article incubator, especially if they haven't been touched in a long while. –MuZemike 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor appraised of the colon trick. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm aware of those. If you look all the more recent ones are not like that; I used to categorize them before I knew what I was doing. And I know of the : thing too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog has been cleared. Thanks all! ElKevbo (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a bit of a backlog. Can an admin take a look? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Roseleena Blair

Resolved

 – Now at AFD

Earlier today, without discussion or notice, User:Mayumashu redirected this page to Expulsion of Roseleena Blair from the University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team and created a redirect, making it impossible to reverse the page move. The move/redirect is grossly inappropriate; the new page title is itself a BLP violation, since the article subject was never expelled from anything (despite the unsourced claims in the wretched article, which should probably be deleted, although that's a discrete issue). The longer the newly title articled stands, the more likely that the inaccurate title will be picked up and mirror/perpetuated elsewhere, to the potential detriment of a living person. Reversal of the move and summary deletion of the inappropriately titled page should be expedited. Admin Pedro declined my request for speedy deletion of the newly created redirect and has not yet responded to my followup (response now pending). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly commenting on my response time on this volunteer project (admitedly now stricken) which consisted of a delay of a whole 11 minutes [115] reminds me why I rarely use my admin tools these days. Secondly my comment on my talk [116] sums up my attitude here. WP:BLP1E is clear. I noted in my edit summary [117] the (now) main article is possibly dubious. I'm really not bothered however - any admin can do what they wish. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone see an assertion of notability in that article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, to address Hullabaloo's concern about Google or someone picking up the article title, I've moved it to University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy. I understand this is a sucky title, but it'll do until we decide what to do with the article. If I was feeling just slightly more rouge, I'd A7 this, but I suspect that would attract opposition, so I'll AFD it as a BLP1E instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good choice, and as I noted on my talk WP:AFD is the way forward. C:CSD was not, in my opinion, the way to handle this one (not having a dig at Hullabaloo who I don't doubt is acting with good conviction and honesty) Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For review: Block and REVDEL

Resolved

 – the punters are happy good sir

Bossadkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please check this user's deleted and regular contributions. I've blocked them for 31 hours and used REVDEL on their only on-deleted contributions. Feedback requested:

• Good block?
• Good revision deletion?
• Should the edits go for oversight or is that enough?

Thanks in advance SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good block, good revdel, no need for oversight IMHO (no real identifying info that admins shouldn't see). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, I was lazy, didn't notice the block was only for 31 hours. Agree with Clreland below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• You should have blocked the account indefinitely and kept autoblock enabled, in my opinion. CIreland (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Good REVDEL; indef block, throwaway account. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've indeffed. No need to keep a throwaway account like that around. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has canvassed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) by notifying a group including ARS regulars ([118][119][120][121][122][123]) about the AfD renomination (some of whom weren't even involved in the previous discussion) without notifying everyone involved in the previous discussion. The user's response to notification of this has been wikilawyering with no attempt to notify further participants in the original discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it should also be noted that all those alerted by Richard Norton are editors known for only !voting at bilateral article AfDs. This is one of the most blatant violations of canvassing I've seen in recent times. The fact that Richard Norton as an experienced editor pretends this is not canvassing with responses like this, shows that he is deliberately trying to conceal obvious canvassing and a deliberate disregard for WP rules. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This happened 48 hours ago and has already been raised at the AFD. Norton has already been warned for this and I briefly considered blocking him for it yesterday but decided that it was a little after the event for this to be anything other then punitive. Add another day and block looks even more punitive and I'm afraid you just have to wait for the AFD to be closed and for the closing admin to make allowances for the canvassing. If this doesn't happen then you have a prima facie case for the close to be overturned at DRV and the article relisted. Not really sure what else you can reasonably expect us to do here right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that he is a very experienced editor and knew exactly what he was doing. yes I warned him after this spate of canvassing, however the bigger issue here is his deliberate disregard of WP rules, when pressed on canvassing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't reprehensible, it was was, but the time to raise a complaint is at the time of the event not 48 hours afterwards. Blocks are not punishments but preventative. What does a block right now prevent? If he canvassed further then I would block in a milisecond but unless he does that its really down to weighing the keep side against the fact of the canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea this far down the road might cross from preventative into punitive, but I found the "well everyone showed up anyways" response to be the troubling part. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

and to everyone, this is his most recent comment on this [124] and [125] which seems more disregard for WP process. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that this report is too late to be valid, but I did not become aware of it as it occurred, and after looking around this morning I felt that it had not been raised in an appropriate forum after the lack of a meaningful reply on his talk page (as AfD should be about the article, not other actions). Personally, I'm a fan of blocking purpose #3: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated", but then that's what's used most often (as far as I can tell) when it comes to copyright violations (where policy violations are often not immediately discovered) which is where I usually work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite many people pointing out to Richard it was clearly canvassing, he continually tries to pretend and deny it was canvassing. If he said, "sorry I won't do it again" then that would be end of story but he persists with this attitude that such "notifications" (masquerading blatant canvassing) are acceptable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article canvass squadron permitted space to exist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was started with he best of intentions and was not intended to just be a hardcore inclusionist voting block. Somewhere along the line most of them lost their way and became obsessed with keeping any old piece of junk as a "tactical maneuver" as opposed to actually improving articles so that they meet our basic criteria. I've been knocking around an essay on this at User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver, maybe I'll move it into project space... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was started with the best of intentions, but I've been wondering for a while, having seen it on other AfdS, if it has changed to the point where it is no longer helpful to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of the people who actually do the work of constructively improving and adding sources to savable articles have gone it alone. There has always been a 'turn up and vote "keep"' element within the ARS and that tends to be people's perception of the project.pretty preppy prose, pablo!   pablo_hablo. 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• To ensure a representative sample is drawn, the remaining participants from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations not already canvassed (if any) should be contacted in a suitably neutral fashion. –xeno^talk 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've done this. –xeno^talk 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard A Norton has been given final warning. I don't monitor AFDs often, so editors that notice further behaviour along this line should drop me a note.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I wrote "let the wars being" in your near-unanimous last RfA, I was anticipating something like this. Glad you haven't let me down. Popcorn! Pcap ping 05:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe he only contacted people who were involved in the previous AFD for that article. Libstar is nominating the same articles he failed to get deleted a year ago, we having the same AFDs over again. Everyone from the previous AFD should be contacted, regardless of how they voted. If he failed to contact some of the participates who hadn't already found their way there, then I believe it was done in error, he not understanding the rules, they not all clearly written. I don't know if everyone contacted was a member of the Article Rescue Squadron or not, but that wasn't the reason they were contacted so isn't relevant. Dream Focus 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus you are clearly wrong, here is the original Afd, I can note that Richard canvassed these users who did not even appear in the original AfD: Namiba, AlanSohn, MichaelQSchmidt. Richard failed to contact any of the delete voters in the original AfD. clearest case of canvassing I've seen. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb for this is pretty simple: don't talk to anyone about AFDs anywhere but on the AFD and the talk page for the article that has been nominated. That way, no one can ever accuse you of canvassing. There's no reason to invite people from similar AFDs, previous AFDs, or even people that have edited the article. The goal of an AFD is to get an unbiased cross-section of editors, not one sorted by any criteria, no matter how objectively reasonable that criteria seems to be.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they give you the power to impose new policy by fiat in your RfA? I missed that part... Perhaps you should speedy delete WP:DELSORT as well, because it attracts editors that might care about certain articles as opposed to completely random ones. I've been "canvased", and have "canvased" myself w.r.t AfD a good number of times. The guideline seems to be WP:CANVASS, last I checked. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my advice, not policy. Norton violated WP:CANVAS, and that's what he was warned about and that's what he will be blocked for future violations of.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuse-making. This is an experienced editor, not a green-thumbed newbie, and WP:CANVAS has a very easy to read table to help determine the difference between proper and improper notifications. Norton only notified noted inclusionists such as yourself, and quite clearly knew what he was doing. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, the only reason Richard Norton contacted those people is because he wanted them to come and vote keep. He selectively contacted only people he felt would vote the way he wanted, but excluded people who voted to delete last time. That's pretty obvious canvassing, and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone who responded has missed my point. Richard is a long-time & experienced Wikipedian; he knows about canvassing & that he can be sanctioned for it. Yet he felt this issue was worth risking a ban for doing this. Why did he do this? The reason is obvious: the unresolved dispute over "notable" bilateral relations. So it is reasonable to suspect that even if Richard is permanently banned from Wikipedia, this dispute won't go away. Attempts to resolve it by finding a consensus have been unsuccessful, to put it mildly. Yes, WP:AN/I should focus on behavior over content, but unless the deeper cause is addressed -- lack of an explicit standard for notable bilateral relations -- other parties in this dispute will become featured guests here. Which I assume no one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We did have consensus--we had an approximate standard, much less inclusionist than I would have liked, but a moderately self-consistent set of decisions nonetheless, at the original rounds of discussion on these. The recent afds are renomination of the articles that survived, and I see them as an attempt to disrupt the admittedly fragile tacit settlement that had been achieved . DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "don't talk about AfD anywhere but the AfD discussion. It is permissible to inform Wikiprojects with a neutral notice that "article X" has been nominated for deletion. Members of that WP then have the opportunity to look at the article, and decide whether it should be kept, deleted, merged or turned into a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why the simpler approach of indef blocks for those users who continue to turn AfD into a battleground (there are less than a dozen, and three of the most high-profile have thankfully left the project recently anyway) is best. Then people can continue to argue for a more sanguine approach to notifying other editors of AfDs without acting as useful idiots for the hardcore disruptors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• It is time for an unequivocal ban on ARS canvassing. They can use a transcluded notification page and/or watchlist a noticeboard. This keeps happening, keeps causing drama, and keeps being an unacceptably one-sided form of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought there was an "unequivocal ban" on canvassing, period. Or is this a proposal along the lines of the old warning, "Offenders will be shot. Repeat offenders will be repeatedly shot"? -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've never understood the long-standing battle over these relations articles - they don't seem to warrant the fuss that is made over them either way. Anyway, the comments of the usual hard-core deletionists above seem neither helpful nor unbiased as they just seem to represent one side of this battle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAMEcup? Pcap ping 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous canvassing. Getting inclusionists to vote on that AFD is definitely not neutral, and especially because Arthur is very experienced around here, this is clearly canvassing. Wonder why he hasn't posted here yet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "usual hard-core deletionists" are getting just a wee bit tired of the ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs? You can't shoot the messenger just because someone got caught so red-handed. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Call a spade a spade. Whatever the intentions when created, the ARS has beomce, to a degree, the Canvass squadron. Posting a notice there invites dozens of "the usual hardcore inclusionists" to run to an AfD and start claiming that "one source passes GNG" or something like that. If there was a Article Deletionist project, it would be the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• And if someone did start a hardcore deletionist wikiproject, you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, although members occassionally improve article, I regard ARS as little more than a subtle canvassing project. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• You & I both, Colonel. I was hoping that the discussion I linked to above would have created some kind of consensus about the matter, even if in a negative manner -- e.g., "If two countries do not have diplomatic staff resident in each others countries, nor any explicit reason why this is not so, then their bilateral relations are not notable." Instead, the two camps remain at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has it been canvassing? Yes, perhaps. However when AfD's etc. are discussed here, for example, and armies of deletionists come consequently to sink articles, canvassing complaints are immediately dismissed (see [126]). Double standards? Also: I am an outspoken inclusionist, yet I've still to see "dozens of the usual hardcore inclusionists" in any AfD discussion. I would absolutely love to see examples of that, it would give me back some faith in the WP process :) --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Anyone with more than a brief experience of XfD who claims to be unfamiliar with the dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption is being wholly disingenuous. Full stop. This goes double for anyone who reads enough of Wikipedia Review to be linking to discussions of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  I have more than a brief experience of AfD, and I really see no "dominant inclusionist clique". I instead see a dominant deletionist bias, especially (but not only) in dealing with BLPs. Perhaps we read two different AfD's? --Cyclopia^talk 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I've just seen Jimbo's comments regarding your attitude towards unreferenced BLPs. I rather think we're on different planets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia Review has been tremendously helpful for identifying and focusing editors to flock to discussions and greatly sway events regardless of the disruption and invasion of privacy. In fact it's so very helpful to disrupt Wikipedia time and time again to make a point, right? We don't need a deletion canvas squadron as Wikipedia Review does that quite effectively with zero accountability and unencumbered by our pesky policies. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Our"? An odd word to use for an account's first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comfort shoe is clearly somebody's sock. A Nobody/The Pumpkin King/Elizabeth Rogan/Wikipedian, Historian and Friend has been socking again so it may be him. But it's definitely somebody'sBali ultimate (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, all that's needed is another web site, Wikipedia Unreview, for inclusionists? Pcap ping 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia gets criticised on Wikipedia Review anyway, so one has to do some pretty selective reading to suggest that it's some deletionist holdout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Wikipedia Review Reality Check would help or a template warning that specific discussions are poisoned by offsite canvassing. We can pretend it's all noble to critique editors and policies on other websites but when editors show duplicitous signs of disruption and defend banned users making a point it gets tired. Eroding the academic work of volunteers may be great sport however the end result remains the degrading of human knowledge by intimidation rather than utilizing the consensus processes worked out over years. Comfort shoe (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not saying anything which hasn't previously been discussed. Indeed, even the "Wikipedia review is sending people to delete our articles" trope is a well-walked road: Le Grand Roi was fond of that one for a while about a year ago. I'm still curious as to why you chose this thread as the location of your first registered contribution to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of a very few (i.e. Everyking), I'd say most WR regulars are leaning on the deletionist side. While I can link lots of WR threads where successful AfD's are collectively cheered with smiles and hoorays, I've yet to see WR actively taking side to keep an article. --Cyclopia^talk 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you believe that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to link me some example of the WR community being happy and relieved of an article being kept at an AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discourtesy break

The discussion in the section above is a perfect example of why this canvassing has to stop. It stokes persecution mania and militancy and reinforces the false belief in "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as mutually exclusive opposing camps when in reality there is a spectrum of inclusionism and a broad range of personal views on where the threshold should lie for any given topic. Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom. Was that intended? Probably not, but it happened anyway. So: no more ARS canvassing. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about no more canvassing in general? Skewing consensus is bad either way, isn't it? I am not an active ARS member, but ARS has a noble objective at least -improving articles to make sure valuable material is not deleted. How can this cause "division and venom" baffles me -all what I see in this disgraceful thread is venom thrown against ARS. --Cyclopia^talk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are more than welcome to rescue articles (Uncle G is one of my favourite Wikipedians of all time, and he has a long history of doing just that). The problem is canvassing. By ARS, by WikiProjects, by anyone. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the issue is not that the use of the ARS is inherently bad, but that the ARS is open to abuse, e.g. where the article was already well written and referenced and so had no need of rescue. It's cases like this where rescuing an article could be considered votestacking as it then only serves to attract !voters as opposed to editors to improve the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Bingo! This is my sentiment as well. To the extent that ARS members canvass (as is alleged here) they should be reprimanded. To the extent that NON-ARS members canvass, to whatever end, they too should be reprimanded. The anti-ARS rants are pointless. I reiterate my position that ARS should be a core, volunteer function like 3O, not a wikiproject with membership and leadership. Everything that CAN be improved instead of deleted should be; that which cannot, should not. ARS should be a tool to that end, and neither anyone's pet canvassing forum nor anyone else's pet punching bag. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. This really isn't about the ARS at all, since the concern is canvassing of individuals by R.A.N., not the addition of a rescue tag to the article. If/when ARS volunteers simply vote keep without explanation, the vote should be suitably discounted as any other similar vote would be, and votes with valid reasoning should be considered; when ARS members actually improve an article, then it might be worthwhile for editors to consider the changes in the AfD when !voting.

llywrch has one of the few constructive comments that could solve the real problem here: "What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?)".

It appears that LibStar renominated an article for deletion that they had nominated a year prior, and which was kept. The renomination makes no mention of the the prior keep. When that happens it tends to irritate people because there's no explanation for why there is a new AfD -- it smacks of a simple deletion canvass (because every AfD asks editors to consider whether an article should be deleted, that's the nature of the AfD process). Renominating articles without a rationale for it invites drama. R.A.N.'s response is more understandable in that light, though not excused. It takes two to tango (tangle?). In any event, I'd prefer we solve the underlying problem -- the lack of consensus on how to treat these bilateral articles, because areas like this will consistently cause AN/I threads with varying labels.

Since I am an active ARS member, I should disclose that I was not canvassed for the AfD--I noted it independently while scanning recent AfDs (not even those marked for rescue), and !voted about 12 hours ago. Cyclopedia recently noted the existence of this ANI on the ARS talk page.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LibStar has been doing these renominations for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philippines–Romania_relations_(2nd_nomination) for instance. Pcap ping 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that s/he has two barnstars that were given for the exact reason of having nominated for AfD, what I would assume to be, numerous bilateral relations articles. Silverseren^C 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And considering that the last two of the three nominations of that article were "keep", the barnstars only show that an extreme deletionist camp exists, and that they frot barnstar each other. Pcap ping 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try and tone down the language a bit, please. :/ Silverseren^C 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction The result of the previous AfD for the article in question was "no consensus" not "keep," so accusations that Libstar's nomination is somehow ill conceived are ill conceived. A year ago we couldn't find consensus on the notability of this article, so it seems perfectly reasonable to come back a year later and try again. Community views may have changed in the meantime, certain disruptive editors may have left or been blocked/banned in the mean time, new sources may have become available, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Philippines–Romania relations, which lists 3 noms, as I said (the first was part of a group nom.) Pcap ping 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another more recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination); previous two nominations were "keep" as well. Pcap ping 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Milowent's comment, not yours. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on all of you

• I am deeply, deeply offended about comments made above about the ARS. I would have thought that such long-standing members would have even a hint of civility. What, just because you're talking about a group of people, instead of individuals, it's okay to use personal attacks? That's one of the worst cases of Wikilawyering i've ever seen. I, for one, have always tried to improve an article, if it's something that does need improvement to be worthy of inclusion. If I can't improve an article at all, I don't vote, there's no point, I believe it to be non-notable. The insinuations and comments made above by other users have been absolutely reprehensible. Though I suppose it's not surprising at all, since the comments are composed by the usual outspoken critics, the deletionists. I'm just shocked that other users have just let them go on and on and not say anything about their incivil remarks. If this is the state of Wikipedia, where we just allow crass remarks and titling of sections with "Discourtesy break" to be said by established users, just because they are such, then the project is far closer to crumbling than I imagined. Silverseren^C 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While heated, I think this thread is already going along just fine without the dramamongering. --Smashville^talk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the entire section dedicated to spewing abuse on ARS members? How is that "going along just fine"? I would think that an administrator would actually want to stop incivility. Silverseren^C 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to counter anything they said or are you just going to go on about how "offended" you are and "reprehensible"? That's what I meant about dramamongering. Would you mind giving us some diffs of personal attacks and abuse? --Smashville^talk 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[127] "ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs"

[128] "you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. "

[129] "Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom."

All of these comments I find offensive and laughable, especially the insinuation that this is the ARS' fault, when it was Richard who contacted individual members. Taking that to mean the entire group as a whole is incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you any diffs that you haven't pulled out of context? Granted, Tarc is pretty abrasive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that you're not exactly disputing the validity of these claims other than repeating how horribly offended you are that someone dare question ARS. --Smashville^talk 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"ARSes" translates to "asses" in American English. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out and discussing behavioural problems from a group of editors is not a personal attack. The fact is that the ARS has frequently been used as a keep vote canvassing vehicle. You yourself used it that way not so long ago. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a method of getting more people to look at the changes I had made. Would you say that the article is non-notable after my changes to it? Silverseren^C 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was canvassing. That's why it ended up being redacted by WereSpielChequers as obvious canvassing. Whether or not you made changes to the article is irrelevant: asking people to turn up and vote your way is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:CANVAS. The fact that hardly anyone in the ARS has a problem with it is embarrassing. As long as the Article Rescue Squadron tacitly supports inclusionist votestacking, they'll continue to be regarded as a dubious phenomenon and any good rescue work they do won't get the respect it deserves. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• The ARS' initial goal of article cleanup and retention may have been a noble and well-intentioned goal, but that got lost along the way. The current squad, the one who rallies the loyalistas to keep the most horridly abusive BLPs (Miriam Sakewitz, Eric Ely, Bigoted woman incident), the blindingly-obvious WP:NOTNEWS (2008 Passover margarine shortage), and the amazingly crystal-clear case of fucking a non-single song with ZERO 3rd party coverage (Money (Michael Jackson song)...yea, the current wikiproject is a cancer upon the project. A dangerous mix of blind devotion and extreme short-sightedness. Disband this fiasco for the good of all and to prevent further harm. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • LOL. What rubbish. The very idea that 'bigotgate' was even given the chance to be 'rescued' is absolute bollocks. It was deleted and salted within the hour, a decision rightly condemned eventualy at Drv as an abuse, not that that has reversed the damage or rescued the article. If those other examples are even remotely comparable, the "cancer" is not the ARS. Still, shut your eyes Tarc, don't look!. don't look!. She never existed, yesterday's chip wrappings, not notable, beneath contempt, yadder yadder. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest that folks calm down a bit? Anyone can join ARS, and anyone can participate in AFD, and no one's being shot at... --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nuujinn's valid comment aside: Oh, what drama. I think Tarc is the cancer. Nanny nanny hoo hoo. (Shall I be blocked for repeating Tarc's slur?) BTW, I am one of the most active ARS members and fought hard to get Ely deleted, and though that AfD had a few 'keep' votes, there was no unified ARS opinion there, not even a colorful Dream Focus-signatured keep. Stop using the ARS as a proxy for attacking inclusionist viewpoints with which you differ.--Milowent (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• It's a shame that there's no Deletionist Squadron to counter the influence of the ARS. Of course, there was one, but they unanimously voted to delete it. Just so you know my intention is to be constructive: Here's a question to consider: What is the difference between the ARS and institutionalised canvassing? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can really only speak for myself and not the group as a whole, but I know that I go into an Afd with the intention of improving the article first. If the article already appears to have reliable references and is notable, then I will vote Keep, with policy backing. But, otherwise, I will do my best to make the article better so that it fits the notability guidelines. If there's nothing I can do for an article, I leave it alone and stay out of the Afd. In a manner, Afds I don't participate in, at least the ones I look through, have an unofficial delete vote from me, because I would be voting keep if I thought it was worthy. I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it. That's my viewpoint, at least. Hope it helps. Silverseren^C 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it." Srsly? That's one the most shortsighted comments I've seen in a long time. What about nationalistic POV monuments, businesses nobody has ever heard of, hoaxes, or even plain gibberish? Even DGG !votes delete once in a while... Pcap ping 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then others will vote delete. Almost all of the time the AfD is already tending toward delete as it is, what's the point of voting delete? I just move on to things that could use my help. Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, there is an institutionalized deletionist group, its called "Articles for Deletion." Yes, my comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but AfD is deletionist by nature, because that is its purpose. (I recall seeing comments from long time editors about how they opposed AfD even existing, or that it should be put on hiatus. I wish could find these right now, but the process is now institutionalized.) AfD works generally well, only a small percentage of discussions become battles. And over time these battles lead to working rules and guidelines to eliminate battles.--Milowent (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one, hopefully. I remember the guideline discussion surrounding Wikipedia:Software notability after some mass nominations that also led to a WP:RFAR (somewhat inaptly named Tothwolf, after one of the participants). Pcap ping 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians apparently got moved to meta and discarded some of its operating procedures. I remember laughing at the wp version because it was basically inclusionist despite its name. AfD is not remotely a deletionist institution by the way. It operates within a highly incluionistic framework and makes no attempt to contest that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, make an Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians, for great justice. A more appropriate name would be the Association of G11 Wikipedians, though. I've managed to have deleted articles with over 100 potential references with a well placed G11 tag. Others have done much better, managing to rid us of article with potentially over 1000 references, but they had DRV help. I haven't graduated to that cabal, yet... Pcap ping 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians...or as members of Anonymous call it DELETE EVERYTHING!!! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Delete fucking everything" is the correct terminology. I'd give you a link to it too (ED), but it's on our WP:BADSITES list, and the software won't let me enter the URL. I'm sure you can find it using the google. (Apology for the foul language, but it's part of the official canon.) Pcap ping 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re {{rescue}}-tagging an article at AfD

There are obviously divergent views on whether ARS is a net positive or negative to WP, and further discussion here on the project's merits is probably only going to raise tension. But what about the following, which is perhaps a more clear cut abuse of the ARS's {{rescue}} tag? The first time Iceland–Mexico relations was AfD'd, the tag was added to the article. Maybe this was "stealth canvassing," maybe it wasn't, but I assume it was done in good faith to improve the article. But when the article was reAfDed, the tag was readded. Here, the purpose of tagging seems more obviously to be about canvassing--after all, the article had already enjoyed the ARS's attention a year earlier, so it's less likely that the squad is going to be able to do much with the article. (In addition, the tagging editor's very next set of edits was the canvassing that is the subject of this thread.) So anyways, I guess what I'm suggesting is that applying the {{rescue}} tag to an article that's previously been tagged with it should be discouraged or perhaps even disallowed, and any editor should be allowed to remove the tag. In other words, re-tagging carries the high potential for abuse (i.e. canvassing) but low potential for additional, incremental article improvement, so articles should only be eligible for ARS improvement once. Thoughts? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments can be used for almost any tags - the tag per se is not a problem AFAICT. The problem is that any group which "believes" in its purpose on WP can be just as culpable in making a false consensus. WP is ill-served by any such group (whether formal or informal in nature), and admins who view consensus set by any such group should ignore any improper consensus. A few of the ArbCom findings are at WP:False consensus. Collect (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I wouldn't see this as a problem in itself; I'd rather {{rescue}} were given a concrete overcoat, but while there's no consensus for that I don't see the harm in applying it again if it could theoretically help. The bigger problem is that the editor who re-tagged happens to be engaged in regular brinksmanship regarding the boundaries of canvassing, much like Ikip did (when not simply flagrantly overstepping the line), and even editors like user:Silver seren above (who are strongly in favour of ARS even though they aren't part of the infamous bloc of inclusionists who follow each other from AfD to ANI to RfA) appear to be neither concerned about said canvassing nor even particularly aware of what the point of participating in an AfD actually is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind clarifying who are the components of this vague "infamous bloc of inclusionists" are? Apart that being inclusionist and following AfD is not a crime (yet), it seems something vaguely existing only in your mind. What are exactly the problems? --Cyclopia^talk 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A crime no, but it skews AfD if you're not being truly objective about the article and simply voting to keep it because you !vote to keep everything. Frankly its a disservice to the community for anyone to !vote without being objective.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't concerned about the canvassing. I was just saying that Richard is the culprit in this and the ARS shouldn't be blamed just for the mere fact that he canvassed some members. Blame Richard, not us. Silverseren^C 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the tag, it's the culture. The group is well intentioned but has morphed into a separate identity outside of being a Wikipedia Editor. It's Esperanza all over again, and it will end the same way. To invoke and paraphrase Twain 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.' --M^ask? 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The "rescue tag", like most processes at WP, works well most of the time. It alerts people that an article, which currently is so bad it may be deleted, might be especially worthy of inclusion. Most articles tagged so do in fact need some help. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not know of any responsible editor who misuses the tag. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The question I posed is not about the tag in general, but rather about re-tagging articles with it. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think retagging is a significant problem. A lot of articles are kept on the basis of the idea that an article has implicit promise. A second AFD occurs because that promise has not been fulfilled. There really isn't anything saying that sources didn't appear in the intervening time period, and perhaps a second rescue attempt will be successful. Rescue tags aren't immoral or evil, and the worst of the abusers have left the project or been blocked. Hopefully, the image of the ARS will be rehabilitated as a result.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally a sane comment. There's nothing wrong with ARS in principle. Many of the editors there are actually improving articles instead of trying to rally some kind of political force. Focus on the canvassing by Richard Arthur Norton. Even then I'm sure that only a clear warning is necessary to improve his behavior. Arskwad (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all he received, and I haven't seen any signs that anyone thinks that more would be necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: start a guideline discussion

All I see in the various AfDs on this topic are reiterations of the same positions, which leads to WP:BATTLE among small groups of editors. I suggest that the party who wishes special (different from WP:GNG) rules to apply to this area draft a guideline and follow the usual ratification process. This should settle the core argument. After it's reasonably well drafted, advertise it widely, and conduct a RfC for its adoptions, so uninvolved participants can join an express their view once. Look at what happened with Wikipedia:Software notability; this was proposed during another fight over a large group of articles, a fight which also led to an arbitration case. Pcap ping 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already ongoing, and isn't something which needs to go to ANI. The problem is that some editors aren't willing to stick to the regular process of gaining consensus and end up resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks, which has unfortunately become closely associated with ARS because the editors in question have been deeply involved with that project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A key question is who closely associates these dirty tricks with the ARS? Answer: an admittedly sizeable proportion of those community members who are politically active within our encyclopedias internals. Taking a broader view, the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users. Externally, Journalists have wrote positively about the ARS and inclusionists, while taking a much dimmer view of deletionists. The squad is also aligned with the Foundation who still wish to foster growth, promote diversity and a friendly collaborative project - values which the ARS reflects. The squad represents the original m:Vision of this project, which is still used in our marketing material Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. So a very credible alternative view is that its those who are overly aggressive in pursuing their contrarian elitist and deletionist vision who are casing needless hostility. A lot more could be said, but this doesnt seem the best forum, can someone please resolve this needlessly inflamatory thread? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So? wikipedia has constantly been made a laughing stock the amount of space it devotes to fictional topics, like say.. pokemon. That is immaterial and so is what "journalists" think. What is a journalist anyway? Anyone with a heart beat and access to a computer who wants to start a blog/twitter/etc? The community here long ago decided there was a threshold of inclusion and the sum of all knowledge wasn't it. Perhaps it is simply those who can look objectively at a subject and the applicable guidelines and policies and decide whether or not an article should go. But now that I'm done taking pot shots at various groups and opinions, can someone lock this so I can have the last word?--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's split roughly evenly between people who see inclusionist-related drama on ANI and attribute it to ARS because it's from someone active there (which is most uninvolved admins), and the disruptors themselves who attempt to portray any criticism of hyper-inclusionist as an attack on the ARS as a smokescreen. And oh yes, "the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users" indeed: that is evidently why your brand of inclusionism is so popular here that it requires the coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace (XfD, ANI, RfA) to achieve your aims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace"? Gee, Chris, your delusional ranting is making me roll on the floor laughing. --Cyclopia^talk 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And that will be your last personal attack. I don't know you from Adam, which rather implies that you're not one of the editors who is really being discussed here. It's not my job to provide you with a full history of this two-year dramafest on demand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you (sorry if it felt this way). I am only criticizing (harshly, I agree) your point of view on the situation, and the way you present it. You are talking about vague conspiracies, and when asked for information (implicitly or explicitly) you just answer that it's not your job. Well, if there actually is such a conspiracy, it would be perhaps not your job but a courtesy to inform unaware WP editors of what is going on, so that we don't get caught in shady things, and to provide evidence of that. My experience in AfD gives me a completely opposite picture, that's why I am so incredulous and surprised. --Cyclopia^talk 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can conclude with n-th law of Wikipedia: "The cabal is always the group you're not associated with." Pcap ping 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, this is approximately the hundredth time that one of this group has been the result of ANI drama in the last two years. I am being deliberately reticent about naming names a) because I've no time for the mock outrage and heated denials which would result from that, b) because it's a group behaviour which is the problem here and a correction there would be far better than individual sanctions, and c) because frankly anyone who has been following this at all closely should be able to name most of the parties in question without too much thought. If you're not in a position to do that then great; you've not been editing in quite the same circles as the problemative editors, so pretty much all of this discussion is inapplicable to you. I would far rather not have to go discussing this offline, so this is the compromise I've found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and apologies again for the excessive sarcasm. That said, if someone else wants to explain me what we're talking about, I'd be happy. --Cyclopia^talk 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Pcap above, I think there's a move towards a consensus on this issue (look at Sjakkalle's close) although it's happening without anyone noticing it, which means the WikiDrama is unnecessarily continuing. All that I -- call me an inclusionist, a deletionist, Yet Another Pain-in-the-butt -- want out of these discussions is to know what the community truly thinks are notable articles in this area. Until that happens, I'll spend my writing time on articles which have nothing to do with bilateral relations, & wait out these two camps while they fight it out. As for ARS, as long as its members limit their efforts to rescuing articles which could be saved with a decent rewrite, no one should have a problem with that WikiProject; if individuals go beyond that then the individuals deserve sanctioning, not the entire WikiProject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Delsort queue fixed

I've noticed there was a delsort queue for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, but it was badly formatted, and it was never approved at WT:DELSORT. I've fixed it and added without prior discussion as an emergency measure. Hopefully, interested parties can now watchlist this instead of the more arcane and less transparent means of AfD notification. Pcap ping 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem

If members of the ARS (or anyone else for that matter) are Keepspamming AfDs with dubious rationales, then the closing admin should just be ignoring them. Exactly the same way as they should be ignoring "Delete - not notable" comments. The problem is not the ARS or any other voting bloc, it's the fact that too many AfD closers are still vote-counting because they're terrified of being taken to DRV. If that's you, there's a simple answer - stop closing AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know better than that. It is very easy to abuse the good faith of a closing admin, and deleting articles after a series of pile-on keeps is inevitably going to lead to deletion review and further drama. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, as has been stated, the closing admin shouldn't be the closing admin, but should vote Delete themselves with as persuasive a rationale as they can manage. It is incredibly likely that that would be more than enough for the another admin who comes along and closes it to feel firm in their decision to Delete. If it goes to DRV after that, it is highly likely that they will concur with the rationale and endorse it. It's really not that complicated. Silverseren^C 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the chilling effect which the disruptors were hoping to enable; a situation where any admin who dared to close a debate that they might personally feel one way or the other on (i.e. in most cases which are being discussed, to delete against the will of the disruptors) would feel too scared to do so. Eventually you get a situation where the very people most suitable for closing contentious AfDs are scared off them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it go for both directions though (controversy from both Keep and Delete blocs). What do you think the best method is for fixing it? Is my idea I put above your comment a sound one? Silverseren^C 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning Drama mongers and opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus? After a few heads roll you'd probably find the inclination to try and disrupt AfDs (at least by regular users) to drop. There is a serious problem with some AfDs where admins do nothing but count votes when most of the arguments amount to nothing more than "keep, I'm wearing blue pants!". Frankly we're not remotely tough enough on canvassers. Anyone genuinely caught canvassing should be blocked for the duration of the AfD the first time. The second time they should be blocked for a year.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If this includes off-site canvassing (WR, I'm looking at you), I can agree. But here it seems canvassing is thought a problem only one-way, and not the other. --Cyclopia^talk 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Black Kite. There's very little backlog at AfD, which has been the case for a very long time. Admins who get routinely overturned at DRV and those who cannot stomach standing up to bad rationales can direct their efforts elsewhere with little chance of problems arising in this area. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem in similar terms to BK/JzG/Chris/, but just the opposite direction. Many admins who close AfD are, in my opinion, much more inclined to close as delete than keep. Most of the mass identical votes I see there are from people wanting to delete. I think our increasing tendency to unreasoning deletionism is putting the encyclopedia at great risk of ridicule. Anyone who uses WP at all basically expect when they look for an article, to find something. This is being frustrated by what seems to me an attempt to rally the deletionists here. Chris higher up the page is basically asking for everybody who disagrees with him to be blocked, and Crossmr here is asking for RfCs on admins who close as keep. One of the most dedicated article-sourcers has just been forced to leave by arbcom, and others have left out of frustration with the experienced deletionists here who are well skilled in process and know the right places to gather. Chris talks about chilling effect, but the effect of this group has forced me to only close afd debates where i can say delete (with a few exceptions where the keep voice is unanimous.) Even when I close a grossly contaminated debate as non-consensus I find I am subject to attack, to the extent I am unlikely to risk it again. And people above call me an extreme inclusionist when about 1/3 of my afd !votes are delete. I didn't want to use myself as an example when I know many other admins feel similarly, but they'll have to speak up for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised by the candor of this post. This has essentially been DGG's line of reasoning through two years of being the most prominent and respected enabler of the behaviour in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of which behavior? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, canvassing is a good example. Look back at the most recent discussion on Ikip's blatant canvassing, for instance. DGG has also been Le Grand Roi's informal mentor for over a year, and saw fit to suggest that half of ArbCom should be de-bitted the other day for daring to suggest that after his having socked yet again this week that a ban was appropriate over his current indef block. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an inclusionist who has nominated articles for deletion -- & believes that the process works 90% of the time -- I strongly disagree. As one Wikipedian wrote, years ago, articles which are worth having will get attention, & be worked on; articles which don't merit attention will be ignored. Who is hurt by the presence of an article like Ethiopia-Bhutan bilateral relations? (FWIW, it is not notable, & I'll happy vote to delete it.) No one. Disk space is cheap & Wikipedia is not paper. If an article is created as a stub, then misses a deletion decision by a hair, there is always the chance that someone will work hard on it to make it a truly useful article; & if not, well, until someone proves that unnotable Wikipedia articles kills kittens, we shouldn't need to worry about keeping borderline or sketchy articles. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The specific threshold of notability is absolutely not in discussion here. It is the constant dodging of policy and battlegrounding of one easily-indentified group who happen to be inclusionists which is the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia Review tends to run deletionist but agree their constant "dodging of policy and battlegrounding" is unacceptable. 71.139.28.19 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Chris. My point is that complaining about being frustrated at deleting articles -- even articles which are clearly unnotable & should be deleted -- is much ado about nothing. If you have proof of a cabal devoted to violating general consensus in order to prevent the deletion of articles, kindly provide it & they will be dealt with. (Well, eventually, but we both understand why that is & should try not to be frustrated by that slowness.) Otherwise, there's a lot of content that needs work & doing that is far more satisfying than arguing with someone here who happens to disagree with you. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I'm not and mischaracterizing doesn't make your point. I specifically said RfCs should be open on admins who routinely ignore consensus, whatever that may be. I gave keep as an example, but if an article was deleted for no reason other than "Delete - I'm wearing blue pants!" and an admin repeatedly did it, I'd recommend an RfC on them as well. I recommend an RfC on any admin who routinely vote counts and ignores consensus arguments. It shows they have zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and aren't serving the community.--Crossmr (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse every single word of DGG. Thank you. --Cyclopia^talk 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus vs Crossmr here is asking for RfCs on admins who close as keep. So you endorse someone who deliberately tries to misrepresent what people said? Tells us a lot.--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I think it's strange that you're now accusing the ArbCom of driving AN away, when a few days ago you accused them of luring him into a trap. Bit hard to both simultaneously. In fact, they have done neither. They've actually shown remarkable restraint and good-will, far more in my opinion than he deserves after all the dodgy stunts he's pulled, and the entire ArbCom process has only come about because all previous attempts at dispute resolution have failed- because AN has refused to participate. What has happened to A Nobody is his own doing, not because people are ganging up on him and persecuting him as you seem to be suggesting. Reyk _YO! 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

seems pretty clear to me: they lured him into a trap, and when he was caught, they used the opportunity to force him out of Wikipedia. Simple enough. That he was susceptible to such traps is his own lack of judgment and refusal to follow advice, but that's no excuse for those who took advantage of it. But this part of the discussion belongs elsewhere on the page. DGG ( talk )

Oh come off it, he hasn't been forced off of anything. At least, not yet. The ArbCom have made it very clear that they are very receptive to hearing from him and that he can return just as soon as he contacts them and declares himself ready to answer for his own actions. The fact that this is the hardest possible thing in the world for A Nobody isn't the doing of the ArbCom. Reyk _YO! 04:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV is part of the problem

In most review processes in real life, and even in some on Wikipedia, the reviewers are different from the original authors/participants. Our DRV process however happens to have the same involved parties dominate the discussion in a considerable number of cases, especially if the original AfD involved a lot of participants. Pcap ping 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The main thing that DRV needs is greater participation, both in listing articles and in discussing them. There's a perception of it as a process too arcane for most people to be comfortable with, but I do not think that holds. What is true is that to participate there effectively one needs to carefully read the previous discussion and also the underlying article, which will generally be undeleted for the purpose of discussion, and that those who !vote one way or another without examination will not find much respect paid to their opinions. . I just come from there, having supported 2 prior deletes. On the one hand, many appeals to it from deletion are unreasonable last ditch efforts, but on the other many dubious admin decisions are not taken there that ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

casual observation

has anybody ever noticed that it's literaly impossible to address an individual user's bad behavior on the admin noticeboard? there are always a few defenders who come out of the wood work to say that the incident is about their view point instead of behavior.. and they are often right because a few attackers will be happy to attack a whole wikiphilosophy and take their attetion off the individual problem...

when is somebody going to treat these incidents as individual behavior issues and stop getting all meta? when somebody breaks the rules we can't so much as warn them to not do it again without it becoming a philosophy batteground? if somebody would just put their foot down you could reduce the tactical wikilawyering and prevent these philosophy debates from spilling onto the admin noticeboard in the first place...

issue a warning and move on... Arskwad (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Silverseren^C 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. I've followed the threads on this page off & on for at least 4 years, & bad behavior has been dealt with promptly here all of the time. Although sometimes A complains about B without going thru the dispute resolution procedure linked to at the top of the page. Then there is the common situation where A complains about B, & B complains in turn about A, which leads to a thread where they flame each other for several thousand words. (It's not a very constructive thread, but sometimes entertaining to read.) The bottom line is that an Admin's powers aren't as effective as anyone thinks or would want; no one is going to track a given Wikipedian down to their house & knock sense into their head with a clue-by-four -- even if that should be done. All that an Admin can do in any case is either warn or block one -- or both -- parties. So follow the dispute resolution procedure if you want to achieve a successful solution about individual behavior, or learn to tolerate it, because if a block isn't going to solve the issue then there isn't much that can be done about it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most of what comes here are about one-half fairly straightforward behavioral problems, which are dealt with effectively. Some of the others are questions which are in fact often based on an underlying wiki-philosophy, which is sometimes slightly different from the consensus, & the question in essence is how far from consensus it actually is. What can we do with these but discuss them here? how can such a discussion avoid discussing the policy?--and if there is no resolution, sometimes we in the end move to a question of whether we need to revise policy to be less ambiguous, and that part is something that should then be dealt with elsewhere.

I think there is no question that people here often use behavioral problems as an excuse for advancing their agendas either of policy topics or on content. How can it be otherwise when we have no definitive stable way of resolving them? The easiest way to advance ones views is to try to silence one's opponent, either by catching hold of their errors to try to remove them for a short of long period, or to use their mistakes to characterize their views as outside the pale of acceptability. I've seen it used in all sorts of different directions. At present, the most consistent one seems to be the deletionist/inclusionist debate. The repeated charges are in my opinion evidence that the deletionists are under the impression that they losing badly, and have no other recourse, because only a very few of them are actually people who would prefer to attack individuals rather than arguments if there is an option. three years ago when I came there was little need for them to do this, because they could reliably count on getting a majority--there's a lot of damage done in previous years that needs to be corrected.

Canvassing is in some sense a response to the size of Wikipedia. Nobody can watch as much as they would like to. No one can be sure of not missing something apparently minor that turns out to have significant implications. We probably need more some way to organize it rather than to do it illegitimately. the list of articles people want deleted is pretty obvious: it's at afd. There is therefore a need for a list of articles that people think can be effectively defended or improved. It doesn't have to be at ARS, but that was intention. In each case, it works best if used reasonably and moderately. Trying to delete articles that will not be deleted in order to make a point or keep up an attack is counterproductive in attracting unfavorable attention, and so is trying to improve articles that are hopeless. Not everyone has used either of them reasonably or moderately. But there's no need to attack them for it: it's self-correcting. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how you try to wax poetically about trying to characterize people to silence them, when you yourself are mischaracterizing people above. The real problem is people closing debates who think majority = consensus when it does not. Whether it is keep or delete. It really shouldn't matter if a hundred meatpuppets show up to a debate if they're not making arguments in line with policies and guidelines. It means the closing admin has to do a little more work, but if they don't want to actually do that, then step aside and let someone who wants to do it, do it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

more wikiphilosophy... i respect your views but every time some body turns an admin incident into a meta discussion we make it seem like bad behavior is ok... for DGG i have two simple questions... if an admin incident is filed for breaking an actual policy like canvassing but a few editors pile on "as an excuse for advancing their agendas" does that make the policy breach excusable? ... if a process is flawed (and all of our processes are flawd) does that make it ok to break behavior policy in the name of improvement? Arskwad (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arskwad, I was aware I was going into more general topics than the original complaint, but I was under the impression that at the beginning of this subsection you asked for such metadiscussion. If you meant it as a complaint that too much such had already occurred, I apologize for misunderstanding. As for the questions you asked me, I have always discouraged people from canvassing, even in support of my views. As for dealing with violations of rules, I do not believe in an automatic response. One needs to consider the circumstances and the effect. The literal and strict enforcement of regulations has been a method used in group persecution as well as individual revenge. The classic literary examples are Merchant of Venice, and Measure for Measure. When I lose a discussion, I do not go looking around for possible violations by the opposite side.

Crossmr, the real problem is exactly the opposite of what you think, people going by their own opinion instead of the community and relying on claimed super-voter status to avoid blame for it. I have been reluctant to bring individual closures to Del Rev because the problem is too general, and I do not like making examples of individuals. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry i was unclear... there are some good wikiphilosophy ideas here but yeah I wanted to tone that down and focus on the actual incident.. it sounds like you're saying people should be allowed to violate policy if they can prove they're being persecuted... and for any editor in any contentious debate this will be true because we can always assume bad faith and believe that even 10% of people are there for revenge... the problem with letting people off the hook for small infractions is that it gives them permission to escalate while also making their enemies escalate in response.. i agree that an automatic and blunt response can be too much but too often we let people off without so much as a warning... this thread could be closed easily by with a warning to stop canvassing and use ordinary AFD/rescue channels.. but insead we get excuses and wikiphilosopy. Arskwad (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Arskwad, the reason why some threads drift into "wikiphilosophy" is due to the principle "ignore all rules": sometimes an editor is being a jerk because it's the only way she/he can keep the project from going over the cliff. (And yes, far more often the reason an editor is being a jerk because she/he is a jerk.) Unless you want every incident brought to WP:AN/I to be handled with the rough justice of a hanging judge on the frontier, some threads will lead that way. Just remember, no one is making you read every thread here -- & God help you if you feel compelled to do so. -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've argued on IAR many times, and something I've often seen agreed upon, but refused to be put into the actual text is that IAR is not a shield. It means you don't have to study the rules perfectly to edit but if you do something against consensus or that people don't agree with you actually need to explain it and if the explanation doesn't gain consensus you need to undo it. You can't just invoke IAR and walk away. If you're invoking IAR, you're doing it wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

seems i've broken my own rule and gone meta... but i always felt behavioral policy was above "IAR"... not saying we should ban everyone on sight but if we don't even give a warning we give people permission to crete a toxic enviroment... if someone believes they are right and that their enemies are evil then they are allowed to do anything they want... like i said we should just warn the user and move on.. Arskwad (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I don't think that I'm disagreeing with you in the least. I was simply referring to IAR as a shorthand for saying, "Hold to the spirit, not the letter, of the policy." Unfortunately, there are people who insist on making everyone else follow a given policy to the letter & it takes a couple of multi-thousand word threads on WP:AN/I (or a similar forum) before the issue is hashed out. And, for the record, I consider the best way to invoke ignore all rules is to simply not to reveal that you are. If a given action makes good common sense, no one will care; if a given action fails not only policy but common sense, as you said "IAR is not a shield", & pleading as one were simply following that policy won't help one in the least. -- llywrch (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Using an audit as retaliation and Nixon's enemy list

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.

---

" There is nothing for an admin to do here. If there are still worries about someone's behaviour, WP:Dispute resolution would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand when someone is given a random audit by the IRS, and the same applies here at Wikipedia for images. But User:TreasuryTag is combing through all my image postings and challenging them as retaliation for being on the wrong side of an AFD debate on bilateral relations. President Nixon used the same technique with an IRS audit for people on his enemies list and it became part of his impeachment. What is the rule for using a punitive image audit as retaliation. Is it considered wikistalking? Last year I had User:Torkmann retaliate by nominating about 20 of my articles for deletion under three usernames for being on the wrong side of a deletion debate. What are the rules, can you keep and enemies list and subject them to a punitive audit, or is it wikistalking? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I looked through the files Treasury Tag has nominated and incidentally, they all happen to be valid tags. Considering that you yourself have had issues with copyright in the past, I suggest you work to fix the problems with your files, rather than acting combative and hostile. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a little-known fact that the Watergate break-in was mostly about Nixon's obsession with copyright violations. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...though we are doing our best to publicise it at ANI. G. Gordon Liddy - anti-communist and copyright crusader... TFOWR^propaganda 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think when my own user page image is up for deletion, and no friendly notice is sent, it is harassment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is excessive and appears to be WP:HARASSMENT of RAN by TreasuryTag. Copyright is important, but TT could and should have approached this by talking to RAN and asking if any of his other uploads might be problematic, and whether non-free image rationales could be provided where missing. Adding a CSD tag to an image of RAN that he uses on his user page is indicative of a thoughtless approach. Fences&Windows 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, using an image on your userpage without ensuring it meets Wikipedia's relatively simple copyright requirements is indicative of a thoughtless approach. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone is going to upload an image taken in the 1920s and claim to be that image's creator, then they must expect it to be tagged. If they upload an image with a false declaration that it is releasable under CC-BY, and then admit that it isn't, that is very serious indeed. I started looking through his images after finding a problem with a few of his uploads related to bilaterial relations, and spent several hours identifying hundreds of copyright violations. Surely this is not a Bad Thing? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing three very basic issues. Each image has a person that took the image; a person who claims the rights; and the person that uploads it. The three may be the same, or may be three different people. You saying I am not the rights holder to a family photo just because I wasn't born in 1920 is a misunderstanding of the basic concepts involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do actually understand that. I simply said that there is no evidence. In some cases, you tagged the images saying that you were the creator, which is patently untrue, even if you do hold the rights. The link I posted just above is similar to tens of other files: you listed them as CC-BY and subsequently admitted that they were just fair use. Surely you can see that there's a problem here? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

By my very rough estimate he has tagged about 100 or more of my photos, all for being on the wrong side of him on and AFD debate. If that isn't WP:HARASSMENT, I don't know what is. User:Torkmann was banned from Wikipedia for the same behavior. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two very basic issues. First, we were on opposite sides of an AfD debate. Second, you have uploaded hundreds of inappropriately tagged images which I marked appropriately. Call it harassment if it makes you feel better, but you have no-one to blame for them being falsely tagged but yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 09:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, User:Torkmann was blocked (no indication of a formal ban) for sockpuppetry, even if that editor was also against you as well, Richard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course not notifying me intensifies the harassment. A message should have been left on my page for each of the changes requested instead of tagging them for deletion because they didn't use the most recent templates. Some were deleted before I even knew the templates were being questioned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only images which met the "blatant copyvio" criterion were deleted immediately, so you presumably couldn't have done anything about them anyway, though I think I did notify you for those? Twinkle allowing, of course.

However, I have no further comment to make on this ridiculous issue. I stand by what I did. If you still object, the next step would be an RfC, I guess. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For regular editors, I think it would be appropriate to condense multiple notices into a single message. If not, at least a link to the pages where the images are being discussed would be the minimal I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did :) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton and TreasuryTag: section-break

Point of order: there is no harassing in going through a user's contributions and trying to weed out copyright violations. That's what Special:Contributions exists for: editorial oversight. Please restrict your use of "harassment" to actual harassment; there are several victims of criminal harassment on Wikipedia who I don't think would take too kindly to the word being thrown around as it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment is harrassment, whether its on line or real world. Considering the fact that Treasury Tags has recently used sexually aggressive cuss words against Richard, and also nominated many of his harmless user pages for deletion, its unlikely he has the objectivity to evaluate whether or not Richards use of images are copyrights or fairuse, and should disengage. Ive advised the user accordingly on his talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please give one example of an image of Richard's that I tagged which was, in fact, perfectly fine to begin with. That would prove that I lack the objectivity. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you seem to have just respeonded to my civil request on your talk by asking if I can "sod off". So youre being a little unrealistic if you exspect me to help evaluate your work, unleast untill a few days have passed without you harrassing my respected colleague RAN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so you're accusing me of harassment and refusing to provide any links or evidence. According to WP:HA#NOT, "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Dear oh dear. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As Ive explicity said, the image nominations on their own are not harrassment. Its the whole range of behaviour in combination as per my reply below. Do you deny any of the behavours? If so I'll supply diffs, but please note unless you have some kind of serious memory problem, you're be adding outright lying to the list of your un -collegial behaviour. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, harrassment is harrassment, and this isn't. Nominating pages for deletion that you disagree with does not mean that someone has lost objectivity, and an image is either copyrighted/fair use... or it isn't. If TreasuryTag starts nomination images for deletion under copyvios when they clearly aren't, then and only then would a 'please disengage' message (or something stronger ;)) be at all relevant. Ale_Jrb^talk 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating the images alone wouldnt be harrassment. Combine it with agressive and vulgar language and multiple noms of harmless user space pages (aggravated by a contingent of the usual delete voters turning up) and borderline edit warning and the picture is different. Not block worthy IMO, but he should be asked to stop. Ask yourself this - if you received that kind of attention, with admins enabling the behaviour rather than warning against it, would you want to carry on volunterring your time to improving this encylopedia? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this mudfight between TreasuryTag and Norton1958 by pure chance, and within a few clicks I saw that it's the sort of thing that caused me to lose interest in being a regular editor a few years ago. The fact that these two editors can abuse each other across the site and draw other editors into the fray without being shut down quickly and decisively troubles me. That it can take up precious quarter-hours of a disinterested, uncompensated party's time to explore a case like this well enough to ensure they can make a fair assessment begs for stricter sanctions and a less legalist approach to delivering them. I hereby nominate both TreasuryTag and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for a 30-day suspension followed by a 2-year, zero-tolerance probation. I also nominate this concept for elevation to Highest Law of the Land. Erielhonan 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note from Commons: TreasuryTag nominated (almost) every image uploaded Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Family history. multichill (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Maybe there's no harassment or bad faith intended here, but speaking as a more or less uninvolved onlooker it's hard for me, as not to suspect that TreasuryTag's nominations violate WP:BATTLEFIELD, if not its language then its spirit. I would suggest that if TT is acting here in good faith she/he should simply withdraw all of these nominations as a gesture of good will. If these images truly should be deleted, someone else will nominate them again. (But then what do I know... ) -- llywrch (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said in a thread below, when I stumble across an user who has one or two images with problematic fair-use issues, I naturally take a look at their upload log. This is perfectly normal behaviour for a lot of editors active in the image-copyright processes around Wikipedia, I would expect. Imagine my surprise when I found hundreds of improperly-tagged images in Richard's log, stretching back several years. Yes, I had a content dispute with him: but surely that doesn't mean I should just ignore so many files with copyright problems? Or does it?

Many of these files were only used on his family-history pages in his userspace, which I glanced at, and considered them to be inappropriate, given WP:NOTMEMORIAL and so on. Again, surely I am not supposed to leave things like that solely because I had a run-in with the person in question over a completely different issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Richard also has a ridiculous amount of WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:NOTMEMORIAL violating images locally on this Wikipedia. I note and respect the suggestion from Llywrch (talk · contribs) that I should leave them be in the expectation that someone else will nominate them, but many of them have been around for years and years, and there is no reason to suppose that that situation will change on its own.
Yes, I dislike Richard because he abuses Wiki(p|m)edia as his own personal webpage, and yes I dislike him because he's started multiple ANI threads about me simply because he mis-tagged hundreds of images.
But it is not harassment to "[track] a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." As it happens, I personally don't mind people like FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) and Erielhonan (talk · contribs) accusing me of being a stalker. Because I know it isn't true.
I have identified a ton of images which I think need deletion, after following up on an editor who has a track-record of that sort of thing, and I do not believe that it is expected of me to sit and leave them simply because I've !voted differently to him in one deletion discussion, once. Sorry, but I don't believe that.
For that reason, I will be nominating a slew of his files for deletion later today, once I've identified which ones are inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no harassment here, just throwing accusations in the hope that it will divert focus from policy violations. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment or not in the wider scale of things, that does not make those pages not a gross violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That's not an accusation, it's a fact, as the ongoing MfD is demonstrating by consensus. SGGH ^ping! 09:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What difference does that make? That some people disagree with TT doesn't mean the nomination was made in bad faith or as a part of some vendetta against this editor. I understand why RAN feels attacked; subjectively, it is a reasonable thing to feel. However, that does not mean he is right. TT is acting in good faith, and until someone bothers to show diffs explaining exactly how nomination for deletion of files clearly in violation of policy and other pages and of media that it is reasonable to believe are in violation of policy somehow constitute harassment, this discussion should be closed. -Rrius (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I';; assume that wasn't directed at me, Rrius, as I agree with you :) SGGH ^ping! 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one of your "nots" in the double negative. I shouldn't edit tired, but I do. -Rrius (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

TT, stalking is not synonymous with harassment. We havent accused you of stalking. Please dont make false accusations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton and TreasuryTag: section break the second

• RAN has made over 95,000 contributions – and the raw edit count understates his work as many edits are based on his attentive research where we benefit from his skill as a practising scientist. Even if RAN's consumed a few Mbytes of storage with stuff that doesnt belong here, that doesnt justify such a great contributor being harassed by someone who has aggressed him with excessive negative attention and vulgar, offensive language. If folk want to close down this thread a reasonable resolution would be for TT to be asked to disengage by an admin. Maybe RAN could be asked to read WP:User pages and possibly non-involved neautrals could nom any breaching pages if he doesn move them after a few weeks. We shouldnt countenance harassment against anyone and especially not a prodigious contributor such as RAN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First, that's yet another completely unsupported charge of harassment. This has already begun to stray into personal attack territory. Second, the quality of one's contributions does not entitle one to special treatment. We are not indebted to RAN for his contributions, no matter how great. By hitting the send button, he releases his edits into the wild free of charge. In the end, there is simply no basis for telling TT not to nominate improper items for deletion. That RAN feels put upon does not in anyway justify limiting TT's freedom of action. Nor does his saying "oh, fuck off" in the edit summary accompanying his removal of an inappropriate 3RR warning made in conjunction with an inappropriate report at AN3. While it would be nice for RAN to go ahead and read WP:User pages, this discussion should be closed with no result. -Rrius (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  But the vast, vast majority of editors, admin and otherwise, who have commented here, do not seem to think that it is harassment... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Rrius. The claim isnt "completely unsupported" as it includes a diff. Theres no need for diffs on the borderline edit warring, or mass upload nominations or mass user space nominations as TT hasnt denied doing any of those behaviours. Its your assertions that are unsupported. Some diffs of these files "clearly in violation of policy" would be nice, especially if they pose any remotely plausible risk of litigation; from a random sample Im just seeing mostly harmless files being nominated such as this user page pic of Richard.

@Treasury Tag. No there isnt a " vast, vast majority of editors" who condone your aggression. At the time you wrote that pablo and Gwen hadnt commented. Only 6 had opined on the thread that youre not harassing, while 4 suggested you are, not counting llywrch who thinks you should back off or the editor who reported your nominations on Commons. This ought to be enough to show you that youre unwelcome attention to RAN is controversial at best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that there would be no possibility of unwelcome attention if he hadn't uploaded hundreds of inappropriate images in the first place. You have yet to substantiate the case that I am harassing anybody, and I remind you once again that it is considered a personal attack to make such baseless allegations. (And you seriously think that this proves harassment?!) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't harassment. The nominations all appear justified. Feyd Huxtable appears to be focussing on Treasury Tag's use of language; that's more a matter for WP:WQA rather than here.   pablo_hablo. 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think FeydHuxtable is concerned about this: As it happens, I personally don't mind people like FeydHuxtable and Erielhonan accusing me of being a stalker? I don't read that in quite the same way (I read it as "TreasuryTag wouldn't mind if...", as opposed to "TreasuryTag didn't mind when...") but I can see how it could be inferred in the latter form. Maybe TreasuryTag could clarify or reword?

The original post in this thread did ask the question "Is it considered wikistalking?", but I don't think anyone else in this thread has suggested that TreasuryTag is wikistalking. (And presumably if there's consensus that there's no harassment, there's also no wikistalking).

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 11:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: yes, I did mean it hypothetically, as TFOWR suggested. I also tend to endorse the suggestion by Rrius (talk · contribs) that Feyd "has already begun to stray into personal attack territory" – ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 11:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's rather too much, to aliken a nom for deletion of some personal pages in userspace to the kind of retribution from a powerful politician which can bring true and meaningful harm to someone's life. These are web pages on a server. If some editors want to open up the userspace to webhosting for editors with X number of edits or whatever, then they are welcome to begin a policy discussion about it (keeping in mind there could be legal worries about running a free webhosting service with which the site's owners WmF might or might not want to tangle). Likewise, discussions could be had about opening up the article space to more genealogical content, or even starting up a genealogy wiki. Meanwhile, I read a few of RAN's family pages and liked them. They are not going to be dropped into a memory hole with no way for him to save the content and images. However, under the notability and userspace policies as they now stand, those pages don't belong here. I see no stalking or harassment as they're defined on this website and there is nothing untowards about reviewing an editor's public contribution history or their public userspace, or acting upon what's been found under policy and through consensus where needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and and once more I'm Nixon, I apparently didn't give him a single notification of any deletion tagging (strange that he failed to notice all these ones – [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]) and I'm now subject to rigorous scrutiny! Very wearing. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed RANs use of the word friendly ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't, I just discounted it. WP:FFD clearly specifies the template messages to be used. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we to understand that your defense of RAN's honour is now premised on the fact that the standard templates are "friendly" enough? At what point do people get serious and simply close this silly discussion instead of continuing to take up sillier and sillier defenses of what should have been closed with no report straight away? -Rrius (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey says harassment. TT nominated for deletion[144] RAN's image of himself on his userpage. That's total baloney.--Milowent (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag is not harrassing anyone. Editors' contributions are recorded so that if need be they can be scrutinized, and insisting that editors stay within the bounds of policy cannot be considered harrassment. FeydHuxtable needs to drop this offensive line of attack. Reyk _YO! 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"insisting that editors stay within the bounds of policy cannot be considered harrassment" --Super total baloney! That's the best kind of harrassment here on wikipedia because editors can often get away with it!--Milowent (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not trying to split the baby here, but as I see it there is some degree of fault here all around. TT's investigation of RAN's contributions is perfectly legitimate – it's for this very reason that we have access to each other's contributions – and if he found problems in the images, he should certainly bring that forward. However, unless he was absolutely convinced that RAN's intentions were to harm or disrupt the project, he should have approached the entire situation with a much lighter touch. Collegiality and AGF require working together, and TT should have opened discussions with RAN about the image problems he found, before tagging them. If those discussions, for whatever reason, could not come to a satisfactory result, then TT needed to either proceed as he saw fit, or turn his data over to someone else for their evaluation. This would have avoided the entire perception that TT's actions were retaliatory in some way.

On the other hand, it's hard to see RAN's "audit" of TT as anything but retaliation for a perceived slight. It's perfectly natural and understandable that he should feel attacked by TT's actions, but he should have compiled his information off-wiki and turned it over to someone else for evaluation.

In any case, now that both of these datasets have been brought out to the community, both TT and RAN need to back away and let others deal with their information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now he has moved to WikiCommons and appears to be nominating every image I have uploaded there just to see what sticks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@Milowent; That's got to be the silliest comment I've seen today. "insisting that editors stay within the bounds of policy" is quite common on this project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Section break n: please close this sucker

I don't think anything's being accomplished here, I don't think any admin action is required apart from closing this thread and possibly distributing trout. Please can a non-involved admin step up?   pablo_hablo. 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whats yet to be accomplished is for the siutation to be resolved. Closing the thread on its own would legitimise the perceived harrassment. The result of that will be to erode good faith editors respect for the admin community, possibly leading to them ceasing to make any effort to comply with community norms, and then as per previous cases to them being perma banned. Perhaps that suits some who seem to enjoy the process. But admin decissions should be even handed. It should be up to RAN, but I've personally no objection to the thread being closed if the admin warns both sides in the fair and reasonable way suggested by Illwych or Beyond My Ken. No need for TT to be officially warned for harassng as while that may not be inaccurate it admitedly carries connotations of much worse behaviour than TT has engaged in. Just as long as its suggested TT disengages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of confusing statements in the above paragraph; "legitimise the perceived harrassment"(sic) particularly. I'm logging off for a while in the hopes that you'll rewrite it or replace it with something that makes sense.   pablo_hablo. 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

and teh bit about some of the participants here not complying with community norms is not a possible result of whatever emerges here, it is what is already occurring, which of course is why we're here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:56, 24 May 2010 (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.

Self-reporting

Resolved

 – User warns self. Film at 11. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that I be given a warning for uncivil behavior due to accumulating a massive case of self-loathing after spending too much time on [X]fD and Incidents noticeboards. I further suggest that this editor be advised to avoid these boards if he ever hopes to maintain a positive outlook on the Wikipedia community. In addition to self-directed harassment, this user has been muttering under his breath that "there are far too many people in this place who know all the rules and have no sense in how to apply them", and that he'd "rather hang out at around a 2nd-rate California law school than put up with this sort of petty and hare-brained litigiousness". I have a serious concern about this user's bad attitude. Erielhonan 04:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned. Feel free to put a template on your talk page. Perhaps uw-goofball. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rockwick spammer may be back again

(Background: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lifnlsdlsdnf/Archive)

The "Rockwick" spammer/puppetmaster may be back, this time as Asodiuhsadfiuo (talk · contribs) [145]. The usual pattern is trying to make "standby letters of credit" look more legitimate, plus promotion of "Rockwick Capital" (now blocked) and "Cohen & Stein". About 25 sockpuppets blocked to date, most with random strings of characters as usernames. This guy tries every two or three months. --John Nagle (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked user evading his block

The account Samofi was indefinitely blocked by administrators a few days ago for disruptive editing and POV pushing, however his IP address (User:78.128.181.9) was not, therefore the blocked user continued to edit in the same disruptive way, (i.e mostly ethnicity related edits) which is WP:EVADE. Please compare their contributions. Note that Ip 78.128.181.9 confirmed (User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) that he is blocked user Samofi. His sockpuppet (User:JanVarga) was blocked yeterday.--B@xter⁹ 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of indef blocked user Frei Hans

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

We have consensus here; next janitor who happens along needs to close this. I'd do it, but I'm an involved sok ;)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't know which of you remember this user, but doing a quick search of the ANI archives will reveal who they are, and what they've done. I realize this is just a tad, early, but per this edit, they are obviously going to keep coming back.

Given the massive amount of disruption this user caused with their never-ending bad faith assumptions of the community, I ask for a ban, to make dealing with their socks easier; eg, revert their edits on sight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting/discussion

• Support - Per the above, obviously as thread creator.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I remember this user very well. I believe that for reasons that are probably out of his control he is simply not able to assist us with building an encyclopedia. We would not do anyone a favour by pretending otherwise. Hans Adler 20:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I too remember this user all too well and support a ban. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support what Dougweller said. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. His prior history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war was quite enough. He's simply disruptive. Fences&Windows 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have seen a lot of totally non-encyclopedic original research placed in Synthetic telepathy (recently deleted and recreated as a redirect). I have no particular evidence that the IP behind the OR is Frei Hans, but it seems likely given the similar interests. Helpful contributions are very unlikely. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a response to what I think were this editor's edits to the fringe noticeboard. ClovisPt (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ya — Basically a technically; he's already indef'd for cause. Not fit for this project due to endless bad faith. Jack Merridew 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Also salt the following alternate titles Frei Hans vowed he'd utilize to get his manifesto onto Wikipedia: Military research into telepathy, Telepathic technology, Telepathic applications, Computer-mediated telepathy, Synthetic Telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Too much disruption here; enough is enough. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - We can't tolerate this kind of disruption. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sometimes, we just have to say enough is enough. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A look at the contribs was eye-opening. Frei Hans was given too many chances, in my view. A perma-boot is well deserved here. Jusdafax 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support as someone who dealt with this editor in the past. Since they're still contributing anonymously and still - apparently - intent on doing so in spite of community sanctions, then I think it's a good idea to ramp up those sanctions to "community ban", and make it easier to revert their edits on sight. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 24 May 2010 (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.