Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Pedant17 disruption, after two RFCs

• Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pedant17 has engaged in a pattern of disruption at the WP:GA-quality rated article Outrageous Betrayal, repeatedly reverting to a poor-quality version of the page pushing out his POV for E-Prime - despite not one but two WP:RFCs which do not support his changes.

This has gone on long enough. There were two attempts at dispute resolution, and ample talk page discussion. Consensus did not support the changes by Pedant17.

At this point in time, a block would be appropriate.

I have been involved in quality improvement on the article, and so would appreciate it if another admin could act here.

---

Dispute resolution

1. RfC: Recent wording edits to article -- August 2009
2. RfC: Removal of words Is and Was -- February 2010

Disruption by Pedant17

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the consensus of the two prior RfCs.

The edit summaries given by Pedant17 are noted as well.

• 01:06, 13 May 2010 -- "update, especially in the light of talk-page discussions"
• 04:58, 13 December 2009 -- "revert in the light of archived talk-page discussion"
• 02:11, 9 November 2009 -- "copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions"
• 04:07, 12 March 2009 -- "copyediting"
• 01:40, 24 April 2009 -- "copyedits"
• 08:24, 4 June 2009 -- "improve style"

Prior admin comment

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 -- An admin commented at this prior ANI thread, and advised Pedant17 that the edit pattern was not constructive, and to address individual changes on the article's talk page.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt asked me to take a look at this offline; having reviewed the edit history, article talk page, RFCs, and ANI archive, I have a preliminary opinion that Pedant17's edits are disruptive in the sense that they are repetitive and against consensus on the RFCs, article talk page, and the prior ANI thread from six-ish months ago. I don't think they're vandalism, but they are controversial (stylistic changes that many editors object to and which have been consistently undone by other editors).

Pedant17, It's not considered acceptable behavior to keep trying to end-run consensus by coming back every few months and re-doing something that others have concluded should not be done. I understand that you feel that this improves the article, but Wikipedia is not a project anyone can edit, it's a project that everyone edits, and everyone must be able to edit together and in cooperation. Continuing to try to sneak changes back in, after this degree of controversy and criticism, is disrespectful to the idea of consensus and to the other editors who have objected to your changes.

I don't believe that an instant block or other immediate sanction is called for; however, I agree with Cirt that this has gone beyond talk page and RFC and is now something meriting administrator attention. Pedant17, I invite you to respond here and engage with us on the topic of editing cooperatively and how consensus works on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see my edits as stylistically controversial, you'll have noted that while I have given reasoned justifications for individual proposed changes (see especially the talk-page archives), the opposing viewpoints tend to come in peremptory declarations without explanation: even when I ask for details. -- I don't know that I fully understand your reference to "end-run[ning] consensus by coming back every few months. A glance at the talk-page history demonstrates my ongoing involvement in debate on the points involved - attempting to work out a consensus before I (occasionally) edit the article. But consensus-building does become difficult and protracted when other involved editors ignore points made and when they keep appealing to (artificially-defined) RfC break-points. Wikipedic consensus may tolerate such behavior, but the WP:CONSENSUS policy does state that "Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons" and "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment. I'd be interested to hear what Pedant is hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to improve the article in accordance with the discussion which has unfolded on the talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the editor under probation. I recall a similar concern about this editor's conduct which was raised in March 2008. I wasn't receptive to the concerns at the time and favoured content dispute resolution, but given that content dispute resolution has been tried and the concerns still exist, I'm more receptive to the idea of community imposing a sanction (perhaps in lieu of an administrator imposing a block). What do others think? Cirt, do you think that would help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I'd agree that a sanction is warranted but how would you define this probation you suggest? I'm not certain that would be adequate or sufficient in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd word it as "Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page, set of pages or topic(s). The ban will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at User:Pedant17/Community sanction." The way I see it, a block might be overkill, but if the concern deviates from this one article, then it'd be pointless to just ban him from this single page. This conduct concern affects pretty much the editing of any page on Wikipedia (the concern in 2008 was over the Friedrich Nietzsche article IIRC), yet sanctions might assist him in understanding how Wikipedia (and wiki consensus) work in practice, even if it might take a while. Administrators would have broad discretion in deeming whether Pedant has made an edit which is disruptive, particularly with respect to sneaking changes against consensus. And of course, should he not comply with the ban(s), enforcement would occur via blocking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, that sounds agreeable, but the issue is that he has exhibited similar behavior at other articles, including [1], [2], [3]. (Repeatedly revisiting the same sets of articles, using deceptive edit-summaries to cause disruption, etc. etc.) However, the remedy you propose might be a good start to an appropriate solution. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we discuss sanctions, perhaps ((if only as a matter of natural justice) we should determine whether any disruption has taken place and (if so) who was perpetrated such alleged disruption. I'd like to see some examples of any alleged "sneaking changes against consensus" before I get the opportunity to defend myself in detail.And what appeal procedures would one have against the proposed powers granted to Administrators? -- Note that the issue is NOT "that [I] have exhibited similar behavior at other articles" (allegedly), but (in terms of this incident-report, what to do about the editing of the Outrageous Betrayal article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very relevant issue if you have exhibited such behavior at other articles too. SlimVirgin very gently tried to steer you in the right direction, and Cirt has been extremely patient, but there comes a point where disruptive edits, even when driven by good intentions, are still disruptive to the project. That has brought about the need to consider putting you under probation. Where special appeal procedures are unspecified, standard appeal procedures apply - you can appeal to the admin who imposes the page ban, and if that fails, to the community, and if that fails, to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can accept the examination of other edits (I've nothing to hide) as an issue, if deemed appropriate. But we can hardly make it the issue (as claimed) in a discussion about the editing of the article on Outrageous Betrayal. -- Insofar as my edits to the article under discussion reflect the state of discussion on the talk-page, I don't regard them as disruptive. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original incident-report:

Describing my edits to the Outrageous Betrayal article as "disruption" misrepresents the facts. Ever since becoming aware that some disapproval of my edits existed, I have edited the article in line with the flow of discussion on the talk-page.

Characterizing my edits as "repeatedly reverting" misrepresents the facts.I have enhanced the article in different ways in the light of discussion, reverting only (as on 2009-12-13) when other editors disreguard that discussion. "Repeated reversions" of the article have occurred only at the hands of other Wikipedians: see 2009-12-13, 2009-11-09, and 2009-06-04.

Calling the outcome of any of my edits "a poor-quality version of the page" mischaracterizes my work. I have repeatedly justified and defended my edits of the talk-page, explaining their advantages. In response I generally get vague assertions about poor quality and "non -constructive" contributions.

To characterize my edits as "pushing out" something misrepresents my efforts. My isolated attempts at increasing accuracy and improving style in various sections of the article (all explained individually on the talk-page whenever disputed) have met with dogged and unreasoning resistance.

Representing my work as my "POV for E-Prime" mis-characterizes my editing. I strive to improve all aspects of style and presentation, and sometimes this involves re-casting existing material in a better form - and sometimes that results in sentences conformant with E-Prime. Wikipedia policy encourages accuracy and eschews ambiguity in encyclopedic style - yet some fellow-editors even seem to regard anything which one might label "E-Prime" as inherently undesirable!

Claiming that "not one but two WP:RFCs do not support" my edits misrepresents the facts. Discussion (as opposed to assertion) in the two RFCs resulted not in condemn my edits, but in the emergence of improved wordings which I have attempted to implement accordingly.

Characterizing the talk-page discussion as "ample" misrepresents the situation. The talk-page contains repeated examples of pleas of explanation and questions as to justification. I've asked for such, and seldom received it. Only in their absence (after months of waiting) have I returned to editing the article.

Claiming that "an admin" advised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 that "the edit pattern was not constructive" mis-construes the discussion there, where User:SlimVirgin and I dealt with what he called "a few other changes [...], where it's not clear that the writing is being improved" and which I then proceeded to explain in context.

All in all, I stand firmly by my edits and the lengthy point-by-point discussions made on the talk-page and its archive (to which User:Cirt has kindly provided somewhat restrictively-targeted links: compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#Lead and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal . I have tried to follow procedures, to promote debate and to move towards a better article. I invite (as ever) comments addressing individual edits on the article talk-page, where we can see clearly that consensus can change - even despite some evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In the meantime I still await what I asked for in summary on the talk-page on 2010-03-03: 'Who established the alleged consensus over lack of support for changes by User:Pedant17? and where? and when? Who established any consensus that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 "push out E-Prime" from the article? and where? and when? Who dreamed up the WP:OR that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 appear "seemingly [...] disruptive"? and where? and when? Who proposes an alleged consensus based negatively on the lack of "support for these issues" when some such issues received no or little discussion, let alone reasoned discussion, in one or more of the two RfCs on this article called on specific (and other) topics? Would some evidence - precise, verifiable and quotable evidence - prove more useful than unsupported (even though repeated) assertions?' -

-- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has quoted evidence at length. Multiple uninvolved admins here have reviewed and agreed.

You're arguing generalities; Cirt provided specifics, and we've concurred. You can rebut specifics, if you chose to.

It's not original research for admins to make conclusions in behavior cases. It's our job. Cirt argued that case, we reviewed evidence, we've discussed our conclusions which concur with those claims.

This type of argument you are making is not aligned well with Wikipedia's process, or appropriate discussion or debate tactics. The issue is quite simple: your changes are controversial, many other editors (a clear consensus of those participating in those articles) revert them when you make them, and you keep making them over and over again. You can't keep doing that. It's not ok.

If you actually want to talk to us, that's fine. Please do so. The particular arguments you used here were not useful discussion and were in their own way disruptive.

Even if you mean the best for the encyclopedia, if you keep doing disruptive things and you cannot work with other editors here in a constructive way, and cannot discuss things with other editors here in a constructive way, then you are a problem editor and you may be warned, sanctioned, or blocked to prevent more problems. I would prefer that this be resolved by discussion, but your responses so far do not appear to be good faith discussion on point.

Please come to the point and discuss in good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cirt has kindly provided multiple links, and I've gratefully built on them. But those links do not support the generalities of his case: rather the opposite, as I have attempted to point out claim by claim. I can slice and dice the talk-page contributions individually if required, but the talk-page and its archive make the matter pretty plain in context. There, I've treated the specifics, usually only to find generalities in response.

My quoted mention of WP:OR meant no disrespect to Admins, but formed part of a despairing attempt to bring about meaningful discussion on the talk-page in the face of dismissive refusal to engage.

I note that this ANI issue has drifted into a "behavior case", as opposed to an alleged problem on a specific page. Should we re-frame?

You raise an important point by mentioning that "[t]he issue is quite simple: your changes are controversial". Some of my edits do indeed merit discussion, but it seems implausible to tar all my changes with (say) an E-Prime brush (previous brushes of this sort included: "awkward wording" (as on 2009-04-24) and "the writing quality of the article" (as on 2009-06-04)). In a recent example, while editing the article this week (for the first time this year) I came across a dead link, which I replaced with an archived link and augmented with relevant snippet quotations, changing the article text where necessary to align with the source. A fellow-Wikipedian has now, I note, reverted my work with the sweeping edit-summary "Undid revision 361793412 by Pedant17 (talk) rv extreme disruption in violation of RFC by Pedant17". I ask: what makes my edits so "controversial"?

Accusations of disruption and lack of constructive discussion sadden me as I have attempted to counter disruptive behavior on the part of others and to encourage discussion on the basis of facts and of style. I'll happily respond to specific queries about any of my actions or intentions.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult for people not involved in editing the article to judge what's going on, but you seem to be making extensive edits [4] after not taking part in talk-page discussion or any editing of that article for some time. Given that you've been asked before not to do that, it really would be in your interests in future to post your suggestions on talk before adding them, and to try to gain agreement or suggest some kind of compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. -- According to the talk-page history (as referenced earlier), between my referenced edit of 2010-05-13 and my previous edit of the article on 2009-12-13 I made 18 contributions to the article talk-page:

1. on 2009-12-15 (with the comment "re-opening discussion")
2. on 2009-12-26 (with the comment "response")
3. on 2010-01-01 (with the comment "comment")
4. on 2010-01-02 (with the comment "response")
5. on 2010-02-01 (with the comment "responses")
6. on 2010-02-03 (with the comment "responding")
7. on 2010-02-07 (with the comment "more progress")
8. on 2010-02-15 (with the comment "further refinement of issues")
9. on 2010-02-16 (with the comment "refutations and challenges")
10. on 2010-02-24 (with the comment "comments general and specific")
11. on 2010-03-01 (with the comment "comments")
12. on 2010-03-03 (with the comment "reactions")
13. on 2010-03-10 (with the comment "comments and responses")
14. on 2010-03-18 (with the comment "suggestion")
15. on 2010-03-20 (with the comment "replies and responses")
16. on 2010-03-24 (with the comment "replies")
17. on 2010-04-01 (with the comment "responses")
18. and on 2010-04-02 (with the comment 'companies as a front for "business"').

That makes a ratio of 18 discussion interactions to one edit. Where did I go wrong? Did I wait too long for further comment before WP:BOLDly implementing (2010-05-13) the outcomes of the discussion? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The reverted edit where you say you only fixed a "dead link, which I replaced with an archived link and augmented with relevant snippet quotations, changing the article text where necessary to align with the source" included rewriting several unrelated paragraphs back into E-Prime (in all you removed two instances of the word "is", two of the word "been", one "were" and five instances of the word "was"). Given that two of these sentences had been specifically singled out in an RfC you were involved in, with three other editors stating that the text was clearer when not written in E-Prime, your edit summary of "update, especially in the light of talk-page discussions" seems misleading, and a straight revert doesn't seem an inappropriate reaction to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon -- fancy encountering you here in a discussion which touches(allegedly) on E-Prime. -- If I had indeed said that I "only fixed a dead link ...", then you might have had a case for portraying me as "misleading". But since I wrote quite precisely that "while editing the article this week (for the first time this year) I came across a dead link, which I replaced ...", then my edit-summary appears in a more accurate light, and a total reversion less justified. -- Your claim of "three other editors stating that the text was clearer when not written in E-Prime" also lacks accuracy. Can you quote the exact words of the three who said that? Even if you can, the discussion moved on and proposed different versions of the sentences under discussion, which I have subsequently tried to incorporate into the article. -- You raise a significant point, though: the counting of heads ("three other editors") as opposed to the Wikipedia published policy on WP:CONSENSUS, which (as I quoted previously) mandates: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". I trust that this puts your so-called "rewriting [...] back into E-Prime" in context. Can we discuss style on its merits, rather than in regard to the strictures of E-Prime? You'll recall the wise words of User:Martin Hogbin on the article talk-page on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=prev&oldid=346097098 2010-02-24]: "Nobody should be pushing E-Prime in or out of this article. If you think another editor's style is bad then improve the bits that need it. An argument about style dogma is unproductive." -- As for your statistics of the word-changes (possibly concomitant to improving style), you'll note that I left in the clause '[...] Werner Erhard was "threatening a libel suit" against Pressman and St. Martin's Press' without doctrinairely converting it to E-Prime. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries (again)

• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Accompanying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (death threat to previous editor), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: continued problematic edit summaries. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries for background.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I missed something. Regarding the 2 edits in the article show, the edits were fine. It was a deleted article, so why the need for a redlink to it? Or really even the need for the entry at all? But profanity in and of itself isn't a reason for admin action. As for the third article....That discussion should have been removed before it got that far. It wasn't really about the article, it was just a soapbox. What exactly needs admin action? (Didn;t look at the edits past #3. The edit conflict thing as you add these one at a time was starting to annoy me)Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the one on Wright....he said what I often am thinking when I revert blatant stupidity like that. Frankly, I don't care if vandals get their feelings hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Could definitely be said more politely in those specific examples, but exasperation at the issues he's fixing is understandable. Looking at his overall set of recent summaries, most are milder. Why would you re-add a redlink to for an article that was AfD-deleted? DMacks (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the re-add, he neglected to mention the redlink. I am particularly concerned about 9 (death threat to previous editor).   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jeff, 2 of us have expressed an interest in why you thought that a redlink to a deleted article needed to be re-added. Enquiring minds want to know. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You consider this is a death-threat? Oh dear... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 06:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So not a death threat. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Yes, I do. "some people need to stop breathing", when coupled with "Undid revision 355093054 by The Danimal1993 (talk)" means to me that The Danimal1993 and similar vandals need to die. And this is not this user's first death threat, either - see this one as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well then you and I have vastly different definitions of what a threat is. Even wishing someone would die isn't a threat to kill someone. "I wish you were dead" and "I'm going to kill you" are way different statements. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had closed this, but if you want to insist on months old unactionable stuff on ANI, you've picked the wrong venue, except for drama and hilarity generation purposes. Open an user RfC or ArbCom case instead. Pcap ping 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Someone needs to give JBsupreme a barnstar for the best edit summaries in awhile. I had quite a good laugh at all of them. Going to mark this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did someone repeal WP:CIVIL while I wasn't looking?   — Jeff G. ツ 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy clearly needs a civilty reprimand.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, but sometimes when you are fed up (we all have) with the damned trolls and stupid kids on lunch break screwing around with the Wiki, you lose your temper. Does it actually mean he wants someone to stop breathing, I highly doubt it. Move on Dude, no good is going to come from this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme was warned by the ArbCom as recently as January about the exact behaviors he's repeated recently. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

• 5.1) JBSupreme has occasionally been uncivil: typing edit summaries in all capital letters [5], using profanity or attacks in edit summaries [6], making edits to form inappropriate "contribution sentences" [7], and refusing to respond to good-faith criticism [8] [9].
• JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

He seems to have ignored those warnings along with all of the other warnings and requests. Even trout slapping hasn't worked. Can anyone suggest an alternative to blocking him that will get him to comply with the site's policies?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The banner on top of his talk page says "Why follow the rules when you can ignore them" and further suggest that when he persistently ignores warnings it is wilfull disruption. Unless he has something to say to his defense I would support a block.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's an arbcom issue, refer it back to them. I agree that he needs to tone down the edit summaries, but I don't think these ANI posts are effective for these issues. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WP:AE or WP:RFAR would be the best places to pursue this.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

when you are fed up (we all have) with the damned trolls and stupid kids on lunch break screwing around with the Wiki, you lose your temper. Then you need to stop editing. Or maybe you can show me where in WP:CIVIL it says that is a justifiable reason to insult people? "I was burnt out" doesn't cut it. if that's the reason then the offender should be blocked until such a time that the community feels they are no longer burnt out.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Related issue

By the way, you've warned him for "vandalism" for edits such as [10] [11], which are not wp:vandalism. That's inappropriate. WP:BATTLE much or sour grapes? Pcap ping 07:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pohta ce-am pohtit has a good point. You can't warn someone for vandalism when there isn't any vandalism. I have gotten up to my ass in trouble for that before. When issuing ANY warning, you must make sure that what you are warning for has actually occured. The "vandalism" you warned about, he was reverting a deadlink. Not vandalism and a misuse of the vandalism templates by you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As such, I have removed the vandalism template to JBsupreme's page with apologizes to him for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...although there is still WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, both of which have been the subject of previous warnings regarding his choice of edit summaries. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Folks, we may have another problem. Jeff G. not only misused the vandalism templates, mismarked vandalism, but also took this lack of vandalism to AIV, before being directed here. First, why wasn't this misuse and lack of vandalism caught at AIV, but second (and the bigger question) what should be done about Jeff G. who has taken this lack of vandalism all over Wikipedia tonight winding up here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told Jeff G at his talk oage that his use of warning templates and of the word "vandalism" is incorrect.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not backlash on this either. This isn't the same as blanking a page and adding "your mom", but Jeff's point's already amply made, and I don't see any harm in the language he used. Worst of all you can blame him for templating the regulars (did he even do that?). Let's not be pedantic about this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the {{resolved}} template. JBsupreme's misuse of edit summaries has been a serious problem and has been going on for ages. Many people find these types of edit summaries offensive and when previously warned by editors and administrators he simply removes the warnings from his talk page.
11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
21 April 2009 - User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again
There seems to be a common pattern here. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was previously marked as resolved by Pohta ce-am pohtit, but delete by Jeff G., hence my readding of the resolved template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I've refactored this section slightly. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Swearing is not per se uncivil and some comical exacerbation is a good thing. Can someone provide some context as to how often there are summaries like this, and is this it? It seems odd that summaries, the one thing that are forever archived and almost impossible to get rid of, are where he chooses to fly that flag. Like I said, some context? Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing this out -- this is completely ridiculous. If the above is a "death threat" then apparently I had no idea that the word "threat" meant "to wish" in addition to, you know, "to threaten". I love how one person can express his frustrations via an innocuous edit summary while another person can crucify him by expressing their frustrations via an overblown ANI post that people then need to respond to, resolve, etc. One of these things is a bit more disruptive than the other. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that there's nothing "threatening" about that edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a threat, but it certainly also isn't civil or in line with WP:BITE. Also profanity isn't problematic when it merely expresses the speakers own stress- but when it is directed at other as in many of these cases it is clearly not civil and borders on personal attacks. Humour in edit summaries may be a good thing but not when it is made at others expense.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Even a casual glance at JBSupreme's edit history shows that he's chronically incivil. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy, which means he should be blocked for at least 24 hours - or it isn't, which means that template at the top of the page is a lie. Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I smell a sock here: new user with a dozen edits, practically all his article-space edits are at Tucker Max, and somehow found this thread rather quickly. Pcap ping 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I should probably disclose my Taylor Swift edit history. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything else you wanna 'fess up? wp:Spas or PBML/John254-type socks would be fun; please make it epic like Altenmann ... Pcap ping 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate on my love.... Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just take the opportunity to say again that I could care less if a blatant vandal gets his feelings hurt. When a guy does the extensive vandalism that he did to the Jeremiah Wright article that was shown above, there is not AGF or BITE problem. That's just being a dick and I don't care if someone uses profanity in their edit summary with them. So why is that even an "example" of anything? That edit summary is more likely to get a barnstar from me for just saying what I'm thinking than to send me to complain about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If you see a dick, then you call him a dick, there si nothing wrong with that. And vandals are dicks by definition, so I see very little merit to Jeff G's complaining here. Mountains and molehills and all that. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that this case looks very much like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie? And while I don't think that JB has done anything really problematic, it's sort of startling to see the similarities between Preston and JB's featured edit summaries, and then to see how Preston got an RFC while JB is being defended pretty heavily here. I even think JB's edit summaries were a little harsher than Preston's. To clarify, I don't think action should be taken against JB, but I'm seeing a significant difference between how Preston was dealt with versus how JB is being dealt with. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "got an RfC": What's stopping you from starting one? You don't need administrators' permission for that. Among the editors above, there appear to be some that would gladly ratify it. Pcap ping 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Preston and don't even plan to look at the old RfC. I'm commenting on the case at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The two issues are not directly comparable. Preston used abusive summaries even when people were acting in good faith, basically belittling them for using imperfect spelling and grammar. Such is not the case with JB where he is dealing with individuals purposefully defacing article space. They both use <ahem> "colourful" edit summaries, but the target audience differs substantially. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries here were to people editing in good faith, who just made somewhat foolish errors. That doesn't necessarily mean them might not have been able to become adequate contributors in the future--but they're not very likely to if they are dealt with in such a manner. I consider edit summaries like this blockable conduct in anyone, and especially an arb. The matter does not involve the use of admin functions, but arb com has made it clear that admins are expected to be at least as sensible in such matters as other editors. Using this language in edit summaries is worse than in content--edit summaries can only be removed by deleting the entire edit, not just by reverting. JV and I have had some previous disputes, so I can;t say I'm wholly unbiased, but if it were anybody I had never interacted with and brought to my attention I would block. Given the number of them, I;d suggest a week, with a warning that it will be increased if it ever happens again. More generally, perhaps we need an edit filter that would focus on edit summaries, from which admins would not be exempt. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should demote WP:CIVIL because incivility is obviously allowed per two long discussions that I read on here. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent RfC proving your point, perhaps. A policy for which there is no consensus to enforce is what exactly in wikiland? Don't say paraconsistent... Pcap ping 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more helpful to figure out how to bring the issue before arbcom, at least when whether of not it's by an admin. I'd like to figure out how to do it without being too personal about an individual , since there are a number of people doing this sort o fthing. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since he's repeating the exact behavior that the ArbCom warned him about just four months ago, this should be an easy matter for the ArbCom to handle. It could go to WP:AE except that they failed to add an applicable remedy to that case.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be an epic WP:AE request: "ArbCom, you failed! Please reconsider." Pcap ping 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I determined WP:AE to be an inappropriate venue because there is no ruling to enforce; instead I have filed an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Tothwolf.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

HoundsOfSpring, again

In late February, I brought this user to the attention of this board. As of today he is still performing these problematic edits, and has been since I last discussed him here. The {{whom?}} and other tags such as those in the following diffs are still unnecessary but he still edits in this way despite both my attempts and EyeSerene's: [12] [13] [14] [15]. He's not changing his ways. What do we do?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable about the 1st diff (adding a {{fact}} tag). I could have added it myself had I read that article. Did not check the other ones. Pcap ping 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked them. He does seem to be a little overzealous with the 'whom' tag, but they look like good-faith edits to me... except that he's been asked about this before. Hrm. I'll drop him a note. Shimeru (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also let him know that he's being discussed here again. Apparently, he wasn't notified this time around. Pcap ping 07:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He can't say he didn't see it (in triplicate) now... Pcap ping 10:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that HoundsOfSpring is too educated for the articles he's editing, and insists too much that other editors rise to his standards of sourcing and English (or too "anal", if you prefer). This discussion is a good example. Pcap ping 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why he tags various articles with seems to be that he dislikes passive voice without an agent like "shit is done to editors". All his edits to Wikipedia (using this account, anyway) are only of the copyedit/grammar fixes variety, but are by no means limited to Anime articles. Pcap ping 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pcap pinged me at my talk page for "MoS" advice (but it's more a case of collaborative mechanics than MoS, AFAICS—I can appreciate the irritation, but words such as "anal" and "too educated" will do no good). Some of Hound's edits are improvements, others are not. "A second convention is planned to take place from August 27 to 29, 2010, in Los Angeles". Reasonable point, but the "whom" template is unnecessary. In other places Hound is applying a too-strict rule about avoiding the passive voice, for example "an episode (or two) were dedicated to a ..."—that is fine in the passive without specified agent, to my eyes. "in certain areas"—yep, it's vague. "In many series, a Ranger is also given additional Zords or weapons."—no agent is fine in a vid games context for this meaning, I think. "which has gained much media-coverage."—I agree, this definitely needs citation.

It's a mixed bag. My solution would be to implore Hounds and the other editors to print their proposed copy-edits and inline queries first on the talk page for a while, so that trust can be regained. It's the practical way of doing business. Tony (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. It seems that differences of opinion exist on how (and how frequently) one should use standard Wikipedia "whom"-tags. Perhaps we should have some sort of other tag to ask for more detail - or do we have such a tag already? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As it has ben discussed here and in the old thread, your obsession with the "weasel factor" of the phrasing across the project is not what is expected by other editors. These plot points or other aspects that you request elaboration on are not necessary. That is what I have been telling you for 3 months.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia project in its wisdom has granted us a "whom"-tag, fellow-editors can expect to encounter it from time to time. That said, I tend to interpret it literally as "by whom" and overlook the "weasel-wording" associations. Should we invent/adopt a new/different tag to ask for more information when some Wikipedians want an encyclopedia to give detail and not just to assume that "things happen" somehow? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BKWSU again

Resolved

 – Taking stock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely for being a sock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from my watchlist, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University‎, an article on ArbCom probation, has recently gone "live" again. Could someone take a look? Orderinchaos 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris adherent owning all Brahma Kumari related topics

Yes, thank you, Orderinchaos.

A Brahma Kumaris cult adherent is owning all Brahma Kumari related topics. This has been going on, with extensive edit warring for years. It does not seem right. See: Special:Contributions/Bksimonb.

In light of similar decisions made about the Scientology topic, can someone tell me how long this has to go on for?

The Brahma Kumaris are a passionately evangelistic 'End of the World' cult engaged in fairly heavy PR and media control. Their adherents are motivated a forthcoming Nuclear Holocaust that will "purify" the world, destroying all other religions, so that they alone can inherit the world. Their persistent efforts are inspired by earning a high status in the Golden Age which their god spirit predicts will following "Destruction".

It would not seem to be the most rational basis for contributing to an encyclopedia.

Thank you. --Taking stock (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another obvious sock of User:Lucyintheskywithdada. SPI report already filed. Bksimonb (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add "thanks" for the very rapid response. Looks like he's blocked and the page protected already. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is still going on. Bksimonb very much seems to be a single purpose account here, controlling any topics relating to his cult or its financiers and seeking to subtly modify them over a period of time to match the current corporate PR.

What can one do? --The Same Every 5000 Years (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bksimonb doesn't seem to have edited since yesterday, and in any event was not the user who was sanctioned here. Since you're a very new user, do you mind if I ask how you come to be involved in this issue? TFOWR^propaganda 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's another sock. I've filed another SPI report. Bksimonb (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring, personal attack and automatic deliberate move on House of Bucchia (and several others)

I created few days ago the article House of Bucchia, about an ancient family from the Republic of Ragusa. Today, adding some sources and fixing last edits, I saw it was deliberately moved and changed (with no discussion explaining any reason on talk page) by User:DIREKTOR.
This user has already tried to move-and-change another similar article, House of Cerva, but a requested move and admin intervention solved the question. It already reverted my edit more than three times, and moved it to the titlo he prefers. This is at least unfair, but also very in contrast with wikipedia guidelines. I formally requests formally request article restoration under the previous title.
I also ask a penalty for the user for breaking the three revert rule, and above all for his not careing at all about basilar wiki guidelines, he had never look for the consensus, ignorating my messages. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a subject that's known by more than one spelling. The article should have the title of the spelling most likely to be searched for by English-speaking readers, with redirects from the other spellings. Have you tried talking with him about it? It looks like you're engaging in an edit-war instead of simply discussing the disagreement you're having. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir, the name of the family is unique. It can be changed in one nation literature, slavicized, but remained that one. Moreover sir, I can say for sure User:DIREKTOR should have been the one to ask a requested move for the article I wrote. The sources I added are clear.

You can also see he did the same on another article, House of Bobali, like he's actting sistematically. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for more information about his background sir, you can take a look on House of Cerva page history, or at Fausto Veranzio requested move, after another move-and-change by him. He's always and obsessively try to change titles of article page related to secondary Dalmatian contents pushing croatian names: see for example this, about the article Franco Sacchetti and see how it was resolved in Talk:Franco Sacchetti. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The account User:Theirrulez was created two weeks ago [16] having been blocked on itWiki [17] and has apparently decided to "kill time" by engaging in WP:EW on multiple articles against several established users [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], attacking other editors, blanking articles [24] and has attempted to CANVASS editors and form his own CLIQUE directed against users that oppose his edits [25] [26] [27] [28] (mainly in Italian to boot), and has managed to edit and censor my posts at least five times.

The Dalmatian issues was quiet and settled via user agreements and have been so for months and, years even. This user managed to completely destroy whatever cooperation there existed within a few days. He's been moving articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, avoiding WP:MOVE and the consensus on naming Dubrovnik nobility articles by simply creating new ones in the name he prefers and using exclusively Italian language terminology in Croatian history topics. The extent of the disruption is quite amazing, actually, considering he's only been here a number of days.

To be frank, it looks like User:Giovanni Giove finally got back here by the side-door. At the very least, let me say that in my experience this is one of the most disruptive accounts ever to get dumped here by another project. :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, i think is necessary User:DIREKTOR will offer me his apologies for what he stated above, which I consider one of worst personal attack I ever received.

Sirs, every admin can perform a CU on me, (i suppose already done) and all cited pages history can confirm what User:DIREKTOR said is false. I'm active on it.wiki since 2006 and if you take a look on my user page you can find what's DIREKTOR behaviour with me: he first accuse me to be a sock or a meat, then offer his best apologies, then he accuse me again or use against me an intimidatory tone. Many users are in troubles with him: he already accused for the same reasons User:Piero Montesacro and User:Crisarco, banned for DIREKTOR claims, but then reveiled innocent.

What he stated above it's mostly false and single-purpose: he cited House of Cerva and accused me to have blanked pages or to have moved them deliberately? Well, here at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/House_of_Cerva ther is the proof it's exactly the contrary. The article was created ex novo by me. How can he accuse me to have started an edit war and to have blanked the page? Please, ask User:Ev, how he solved the dispute about the quick and POV move-and-change of House of Cerva (DIREKTOR deliberately moved in the same way other brand new articles created by me like House of Bucchia, House of Bobali and House of Giorgi) or take a look here[29].

Moreover in the same way he was the one who deliberately cancelled several edits from my user talk page as shown in talk history. I warned him here but he kept on doing it: as shown in my talk history.

Also for this reason I feel compelled to report him here, as per repeated violation of WP:TPOC, and considering as aggravation he was already officially warnend by admin LessHeard vanU: [30].

I tried to offer him more and more invitation to a dialogue (watch his talk page), but he simply refused it and he perseveres on reverting and rollbacking me. I'm not a reverter, I'm an editor and above all not a censor.. look what I wrote to User:DIREKTOR's talk, after one of his many disruptive rollback: User talk:DIREKTOR#NIHIL_DIFFICILE_VOLENTI.

Anyways, this User is literally haunted by the presence of names that somehow sound "Italian" within headings Istrian and Dalmatian: [31], [32], [33], [34], or in biography: [35] [36]. When he approach this topics he seems to don't care about consensus or worse to refuse it: in Talk:Pula/Archive_1#Official_bilingual_name its clearly shown how his war against Italian words it's well known all over the project since long time ago.

In this very interesting edit on User talk:Ivan Štambuk, DIREKTOR is openly canvassing, but more openly explained his point of view about users (Sir Floyd in that case) who show oppsite positions or seem somehow Italianny. One of first DIREKTOR's edit on the project shows exactly what's his approach: he deliberately blanked the article Istrian exodus stating: "Italians", in the 20th century! Slavs!!.

Exactly in the same obsessed way he seems deeply busy in creating personal Croatian neologism (without any trace of historical basis or any supporting sources) for long-time attested Italian name, like Franco Sacchetti (here funny transformed by him in Fran Sačetić, without any justifing Talk:Franco_Sacchetti) or like Bartolomeo Vivarini, Bernardo Strozzi, Luigi Quarena, Franceso Hayez and Francesco del Cossa here: [37].

He also clearly stated he don't care about consensus he deliberately performed a quick move of Fausto Veranzio→to→Faust Vrancic while the article talk page already hosted a clear consensus about the right title. After this, and despites a consequent requested move for restoring the right title, he tried to push his pov on the renamed article: this can show how this user deliberately uses to remove all he doesn't like: category, adjectives, quotes, reliable sources! There he put a strange requested move tag "Fausto Veranzio→to→Fausto Veranzio", just in order to confuse the correct requested move discussion. On the same article he just started another edit war with User:Gun Powder Ma, reverting Gun Powder Ma edits several times and imposing his own pov (as usual without any discussion, without careing about consensus): [38]

He had a dispute on Giacomo Micaglia talk page with another wikipedian, User:Salvio giuliano in which Salvio giuliano underlined his POV edits and asked him to discuss. I asked him the same, and the result is this (note exactly which categories were cancelled).

I would underline that in all the discussions he charged with threatening and violent language, accusing whoever to be other users sock, or be part of a clique, or even of being meatpuppet or to stalking, canvassing or anything. This User accused me to Canvass? Take a look on Talk:Fausto Veranzio what he's doing (votestacking, canvassing, claimed by many users). In conclusion, he seems obsessed by socks and meatpuppet, and for this reason he feels himself authorized to make an enormous number of revert per day; It also seems that he recognizes as socks only those users who don't agree with his positions. I'm obviously not a sock or not a meat, but he's accusing me above as his last defense.

I would also like to underline at this moment he is involved in several edit wars, started together with a group of authors who are always in agreement with him (for example the below cited voting on Fausto Veranzio requested move). Here is a brief list of major edit wars in which he is still involved: [39] and # Yugoslavia_flags_separation.

Despites what's shown above, my report it's not related at all to any dispute about article's content, especially those regarding Dalmatia issue; my report is instead and definitely related to this User's method, clearly disruptive.

Just few minutes ago, the reported user reverted my last edit on the Foibe Killings article (one of the most delicate articles of the entire Wikipedia): I added some new images and some quotes from a very reliable source (official website of Italian Republic Presidency), adding the source also in the article talk. He rollbacked me instantly (more than three times) [40], and try to intimidate me on talk page writing: Let me just say this: you can forget about your "Ode to the Glorious Speech" right here and now.(!)

This user is dangerously recidivous, was blocked six times, three times in the last three months.

I don't want to judge his position about content of articles (I use talk page for that, hopefully still waiting for a dialogue, [41], [42]), but his disruptive approach, his sistematic method of action: imho (and in others many users opinion) it doesn't match with basilar wikipedia guidelines and basilar respect principles.

Will I have to convince myself that I am wrong? Have I to abandon the idea to have the right to contribute serenely, having a healthy debate even on those articles this user consider as his own property? I strongly hope not. Maybe I'm wrong, but he had a persecutory threaten to me since my first edit on each article among those he is interested in. He had the same intimidating behaviour to the users I said above (e.g. User:Crisarco), who now are scared to edit on en.wiki. I ask if this users customs are in line with our principles, I ask if wikipedia can accept this way to act. --Theirrulez (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Today user:AjaxSmack espressed his support to the requested move of the above cited article about Fausto Veranzio. After reading that, User:DIREKTOR, not careing about consequences and about any policy wrote on AjaxSmack talk page this attonishing and violent personal attack against me, in order to convince AjaxSmack I'm a nationalist, I'm a sockpuppet of three different banned users. Accusing me of course to be an ultra-fascist or to try to italianize title of article. I now asking not just for an admin intervention. I'm asking for an admin help against this persecutory, intimidating, hidden and disruptive way of act against me.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Thespacecowboy

Resolved

 – Thespacecowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by FisherQueen. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thespacecowboy (talk · contribs) has received three final warnings for vandalism over the last two years; how many do they get? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "three." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

One final warning is amply sufficient in my book. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Three final warnings? Thespacecowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had far too many chances. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I suppose this is inconsequential but I figured I would post this for review anyway. I recently blocked User talk:71.107.130.239 for disruptive editing. After declining the posted unblock request my decline was instantly reverted, twice, with an abusive edit summary. I then revoked talk page access. Posting here for a review of that removal of talk page access, as I wasn't entirely uninvolved at that point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who immediately responds that way is deserving of whatever block they got. Besides, this doesn't seem like someone unfamiliar with the process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the talk page access was well justified considering the summaries, although generally its better not to review unblock requests when you blocked them, two eyes and all that--Jac16888^Talk 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That I can learn from, thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to extend the block, for that edit summary, but there's no sign if the IP is fixed or reassigned regularly so it's probably not worth doing at this time.

If they come back, and it's the same IP, and they abuse again.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I find removal of talk page access perfectly acceptable in this case, as the IP was abusing his/her talk page rights. I also agree with Jac16888 as well—a neutral, third party admin would be better, but not necessary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments at Criticism of Judaism

The Criticism of Judaism page is one that has been under a lot of conflict lately, with a recent edit war ending in the page being protected. The edit war began when users Chesdovi, Bus stop, and Avi disagreed with what information was included in the old version of the article. Thus, they shortened it to its current state, a third the size of the previous article and with, thus, a third of the references. User Noleander, who had been working on the article for a while, tried his best to incorporate their viewpoints and change sections a bit to fit with what they wanted, but the three users seemed to wish to only dismantle the article further, with Bus stop advocating outright deletion of the article, saying it violated NPOV. An IP then, suspiciously if I may say so myself, opened an AfD on the page, which ended in a somewhat clear Keep decision, since the Delete voters were discussing more about content than notability. Since that AfD, Noleander, AzureFury, and myself have been trying to come to some sort of consensus about what sections should be added and that are covered by the scope of the article.

The other three, Chesdovi, Bus stop, and Avi, have continued to disagree with every proposed suggestion so far (without offering any of their own) and Bus stop has still continued to advocate deletion, as most recently shown here.

But, with the background context out the way, the main reason why I am filing this AfD is because of a very recent comment made by Camelbinky on Avi's talk page. As I stated on the article talk page, this comment seems very indicative of a BATTLEGROUND mentality and can even be said to be a personal attack on those of us that disagree with him and whichever user he is referring to in his comment.

PS. Please note that Camelbinky has stated that he will bring up a comment I made on Jimbo's talk page about a completely separate discussion, of which I already apologized for making. Thank you. Silverseren^C 00:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have now informed all mentioned users of this ANI discussion. Silverseren^C 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So after being fierce proponents of the article's deletion at AFD, upon its failure the same group of users removed most of its content? Or am I reading this wrong... Equazcion ^(talk) 00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I forget if they removed the content before or after the AfD...I think it was before. Silverseren^C 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One- I never removed anything..

Two- my COI is I'm a Jew? And possibly Avi and others have a COI because they too are Jewish... (I'm going out on a limb and say Avraham is in fact a Jew! Hope I'm not spilling a secret Avi...) Um.... do I really have to address that accusation seriously or can I start my own AN/I thread against Silver for that comment?Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was once told I shouldn't write about a geographical feature in America which happens to be called Duncan Hill. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Or for that matter, Bunker Hill or the Duncan Yo-Yo, just to cover all bases. Presumably, any editor is either a Jew or a non-Jew. Hence, no one is allowed to edit the article. That should keep it short. Speaking of which, even at full size, the article was only about half the size of Criticism of Islam. That fact could be interpreted a number of ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not stating that it is because you are a Jew. I am stating that your immovable position in the article, tied in with the fact that you are a Jew, along with considering the fact that you do not believe the article to be positive about Judaism, pertains to having a conflict of interest. I am basically saying that, considering your viewpoint and actions so far, I am not sure if you can be neutral in terms of the subject matter. Silverseren^C 01:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the fact that you have not been going to the other Criticism of articles and trying to get them removed or their scope more restricted, while only focusing on the Criticism of article about Judaism seems to suggest that there is some sort of POV issue to address. If you have been going to the other Criticism of articles, please link me so I can see and I shall retract the argument. Silverseren^C 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin delete Warinus de la Strode for me then? I'm a direct decendent (on my non-Jewish side of course) of this British nobility and am the one that created and contributed all content to it. Therefor my COI which I fully disclosed at the time is quite enough I think to ban me from all Strode related articles. Oh, and I am from the Capital District and have been to the actual places which I have created articles/contributed greatly too, you can find them on my user page, please delete all my contributions to those as well, and I'm the co-founder of the NYCD wikiproject, so I have a COI there and should stop working on that as well.

• So this is my interpretation of what you just said "You are a Jew and you have an opposing view of mine and you wont change your opinion based on what I've said, so you must have a COI and I must get you forcibly removed from the discussion". I'm saying this- I'm a Jew, proud of it; I dont believe any article should be an entire article about negative aspects of any topic and a BLP written in this manner even unintentionally wouldve been deleted long ago (and I know that for a fact, ask Jimbo, I disagreed with him and fought hard to keep a BLP he wanted gone for that reason); I dont see the merit of the article being around and I have yet to see one argument from you as to any merit of it staying other than "other things exist"; I do have an open mind, I just dont find your views persuasive.Camelbinky (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion must not be considered in evaluating a COI, nor any other factor mentioned in the Foundation's anti-discrimination policies.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Silverseren^C 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Ok... like that's not confusing... Cant get me on one thing let's change the subject till one sticks? I'd say that sounds like grasping at straws to do what it takes to get me out of the conversation, or a witch-hunt (but I'm not wiccan, I'm Jewish, we have a different word for what your doing). I really am insulted, much more than can be calmed by you simply "removing the section" about you basically saying I'm a Jew, Avi and others "might" be Jews, therefore there's a COI. That and your other lack of AGF towards me at Jimbo's talk page which was intimately tied to this very subject of this article shows disrespect towards me and belittling me ("I dont like editors trying to go over my head", going to Jimbo isnt going over your head, you are NOT better or higher than me!). This isnt the first veiled Jewish remark you and others made at the AfD ("there's an Israel bias on Wikipedia" was one remark by another editor when this has nothing to do with Israel and therefor it was code for "Jews have a COI"). You've admitted you have a problem with Jews not agreeing with you. Dont delete your posts, I want everyone to see your words. Put them back please.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We have Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, even a Criticism of Buddhism. (Knowing how calm and measured Buddhists are, they probably took it well.) Is there a reason for any of these articles to exist? Well, one reason might be that too much information accumulated in the main article, as with Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. But aren't they POV forks / undue weight? Do we have a Praise for Judaism or a Praise for Islam? Noooo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This subject has already been discussed numerous times. This ANI discussion is not about the notability of the article. Please stay on topic. Silverseren^C 01:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that the presence of the article is OK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, look at the AfD. Silverseren^C 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Silver- "stay on topic"? How can we, you keep changing what it is. The only thing constant is that you dont want me around to have an opposing voice, or for Avi and others as well. Anyone Jewish and disagrees with you apparently is not welcomed. Baseball- you better let him know what religion you are!Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Church of Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No editing baseball-related articles for you! (tone of the soup-nazi, hey how appropriate!) And especially no Jewish baseball players, you know Jews actually were quite dominant in early baseball (and basketball)... I wonder if that can be put in the criticism article... I'm sure someone somewhere was very upset about that and wrote a book about Jews taking over things like sports...Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And similarly, you'd be restricted from editing articles about camels, don'cha know. By the way, did you know we have our own yarmulkes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax, I would say was the best Jewish baseball player. Maybe even best Jewish athlete.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Moe Berg, perhaps the best catcher-cum-spy in baseball and espionage history. PhGustaf (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hank Greenberg was certainly an impact player. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do your congregations entail playing a game every Sunday? :P Regardless, we should get back on the topic, which I clearly defined in my original edit. Silverseren^C 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Sometimes even doubleheaders! Bottom line on this section, though, and I do think this is on-topic: Is there agreement that the article should stay? Was it only the IP's that pushed for deletion? Or is this still at issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD that ended just a few days ago closed in Keep after an extensive amount of discussion, what else do you need? And the reason I made this ANI discussion was because of the comment Camelbinky made that I linked to. Silverseren^C 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is still an issue and this is an editing conflict not something for AN/I. I cant be brought here because I'm a Jew and I disagree with someone and refuse to change my mind. Silver cant decide to shut me up and keep me from posting because I dont share his view. His initial post makes it clear he wants only those with like mind to work with, Noleander et al. Noleander was brought to AN/I and MANY asked him to stay away from these types of articles but nothing was ever done, so I should get the same consideration as he recieved.Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not still an issue. This ANI discussion is about this comment that you made. Saying "I truly believe this is in our best interest to show once and for all what kind of a POV-pushing article it is when left with those that have an unhealthy obsession with working on it and other negative-aspects Jewish articles" is the problem. Silverseren^C 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is still an issue for at least me and Bus stop and an AfD can be made at anytime in the future. If this thread is about that one comment made at Avi's talk page why bring up the whole thing about working with Noleander and others and about Avi and Bus stop doing things that "arent productive". Why does your story keep changing on how you want me kicked out of the discussion? Yes, in my opinion it is a POV-pushing article, and the work by certain editors on it have been trying to make it more POVish; am I not allowed to have my opinion and share it with other editors? Oh, wait, I'm Jewish so no I cant have that opinion and voice it on Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention attempting to tag-team with Avi in order to, as you said, "pull the wikiproject Judaism banner from the said article and pull any support of fixing it." Does that ring a bell? Silverseren^C 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I never tag-teamed with him, since he never responded. Secondly- It is up to the consensus of the wikiproject whether or not an article should carry its banner or not, I put the issue out there, I never removed the banner. I support the idea of those of us who want to see the article go to just walk away from it and allow the supporters of keeping the article to edit it. Ironic since you are trying to shut me and others up you are trying to accomplish the same thing! And your comment "does that ring a bell?" is rude, watch it please. Bugs hit the nail on the head with his following comment, this is a content dispute no matter what slime you try to sling my way, I'm Ronald Reagan and I got his teflon suit on. We're done here. Someone has something to say, wait till tomorrow, but its useless, this is over.Camelbinky (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I said "attempting", not that you were tag-teaming as of this moment. I am not tryingto "shut you up", I am trying to address inappropriate comments you have made. I did not start this discussion for it to be about a content dispute, but, just like on the NPOV talk page, others seem to be continually taking it back to that when i'm not even discussing it. Silverseren^C 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The mere presence of the article clearly is an issue, as there were many "deletes" in the AfD as well as many what I would call very "qualified" "keep" comments. The trouble with "Criticism of [religion]" is that it's inevitably going to end up in nitpicking about aspects of the religion that someone else thinks are "wrong", or the actions of politicians who practice those religions and then somehow it becomes a criticism of the religion itself. Near the end, Jay has a long list of valid points about items that aren't appropriate to be criticisms of Judaism by itself. And if you really want to get to the bottom line, the typical atheist could confine each article to just this single sentence: "It's a bogus belief based on a collection of fairy tales." It's one thing to criticize Bill O'Reilly when he verifiably contradicts himself. It's another to say "my religion is better than yours", which is the kind of attention these kinds of articles are apparently attracting, hence the major content dispute, which is what this really seems to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should include only information on sections that can have reliable sources that verify the information. It does not matter if the information is true or not or whether people object to what it is about or not. If it is presented in a neutral manner with reliable sources, then that is all Wikipedia needs. This is getting off-topic. If you wish to discuss this, please do so on the article talk page. Silverseren^C 02:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is a minimum requirement, not a ticket for inclusion. You not only have to verify the given fact ("make it true", for our purposes), you also have to verify that it passes other standards (notability, neutrality, etc.), before it can be taken as appropriate, especially for a contentious article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But not if your Jewish and you disagree with SilverCamelbinky (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to suggest any additions to the article. What has there been to disagree with with you about in you adding stuff? Silverseren^C 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CamelBinky's comment isn't all that different from other comments I've seen, where some anti-something agenda is supposedly being recognized, with the demand that something be done about it. Someone who works on an article making sure it's complete is going to be seen as POV pushing, perhaps even having "an unhealthy obsession", when that article basically exists to describe a single POV; whereas if the editor had focused their attention on a less contentious article, no one would be making any accusations. As BB put nicely, this is going to come up often with these types of articles, and does. My personal pipe dream regarding COI is basically that anyone who gets angry over inaccuracies in the "Criticism of" article on their religion shouldn't be allowed to edit it; which is not to say that there aren't objective people who can be connected to a topic yet remain emotionally disconnected, but those who don't have already shown that their judgment in this area is slanted, and they should keep away. This is of course not going to happen, so we have to deal with these flair ups on a regular basis. It'll die down when everyone gets tired, and then come back again when everyone's refreshed, perhaps in a couple weeks. Que sera sera. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the older version is better at first glance, but I'm losing track through all of the back and forth as a newer observer. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And I would agree with you. But, off-topic. This isn't to discuss versions either. Silverseren^C 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I've lost track of who's who here, so i'm just looking at the content. Sometimes I think the encyclopedia, and indeed the world, would be better if we didn't talk about people and just talked about ideas and other abstract concepts we face. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanity pause

Maybe its just because I am uninvolved, but it would appear to me that we need articles of differing opinions, so as to remain both neutral and encyclopedic. That means we get articles on Judaism and Criticisms of Judaism. Everyone gets equal time, so long as sources are notable and reliable. Period. The moment some person claims another's COI based on ethnicity or religion, they have already lost the argument. We allow capitalists and communists here. We allow Christians and Satanists. We allow Democrats and Republicans. It is because of this balance that we create better, more-balanced articles. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you are a Jew, a non-Jew or someone with a beef with Jews. We accept it all.

Only by illumination do we ever learn to see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud what Jack just said here. I came here because I began paying attention to the article after taking part in the AfD (supporting keep). I really do not see anything in this thread that requires administrator intervention, although I have a hunch that this will eventually lead to some topic bans from ArbCom. It's sad to read the talk page for the article. There appear to be some editors (not all, of course) who have become so emotional over their disagreements about content that they have lost interest in even discussing content in any reasonable way, and are just looking for ways to pick fights with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of image link in Christian denomination

I want to start by saying I'm not used to these noticeboards and ask for forgiveness for any hiccups resulting from that. Would appreciate feedback regarding how to better handle these situations.

User:BreadBran and anonymous IPs 173.206.236.231 and 173.206.236.24 have been persistently editing Christian denomination to replace the image Image:ChristianityBranches.svg with BreadBran's image File:ChristianBranches.png. The PNG version appears to be a simple conversion from the SVG version with the removal of "Early Christianity" text from the leftmost branch. Consensus on Talk:Christian denomination (and from what I've been told, on Wikipedia) is that SVG is preferred over PNG for non-photographic content, so these edits are against this consensus. Furthermore, have attempted to notify BreadBran and IP through User_talk:BreadBran, User_talk:173.206.236.24, User_talk:173.206.236.231 and through the article's Talk:Christian denomination, as well as through edit summaries asking for discussion. Neither user has replied on any talk page; I went on a brief Wikibreak, came back and discovered these edits have been continuing, and are being reverted.

Sample diffs:

• BreadBran
  • [43]
  • [44]
• IP
  • [45]
  • [46]

Would also appreciate guidance on whether/how to deal with the graphic itself; BreadBran originally claimed ownership, when it is clearly a port from the SVG; I edited the description on File:ChristianBranches.png to reflect this. Not sure what Commons policy is on image duplication/derivation; I'm not familiar with the Commons, unfortunately.

It doesn't seem to meet vandalism (AGF that the user genuinely believes PNG is better for some reason), but it doesn't seem to meet edit-warring either since we've repeatedly asked for participation in discussion and haven't gotten any. 3RR isn't being violated, since the edits are being made over a longer period of time actually, IP did violate 3RR; see: [47]. For these reasons, I was not sure which noticeboard to use; this seems to meet the definition of "tendentious editing" to me; e.g. WP:POINT meant to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. Also, for what it's worth thus far BreadBran seems to be a single-use account. Would ask for an administrator's judgment on this matter as to whether/what action is necessary. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IP didn't violate 3RR -- the last four edits were over four days. It's clearly edit warring, though: if the IP/BreadBran aren't willing to discuss, they should back off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP has now violated 3RR. These four reversions: [48], [49], [50], and [51] took place over a period of 18 hours and 18 minutes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note at User:BreadBran's talk page. Also reverted the article back to the .svg version of the image. Shimeru (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism of on user pages.

An annon account [52] has made this edits ([53] and [54]) on two different user pages. I reverted it, but I´m not sure what else needs to be donne in this cases, so I decided to report it here. Regards for all, FkpCascais (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV is this-a-way. That'll be the place you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Panthera germanicus

Panthera germanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user persists in posting long entries to article talk page in the mode of forum discussion (e.g. here for the most recent). Several editors have politely requested him to stop, and my own message on his talk page was ignored. This is not a content dispute -- he does not edit the article in question at all. A minor complaint in the grand scheme of things, but it does mean the article talk page gets filled up with stuff that has nothing to do with editing the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. All of the user's edits in this month consist of WP:SOAP-type general discussion on the talk page of George Alan Rekers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with no edits to the article. Indeed, Panthera germanicus has never made a single edit to the article namespace. This mode of editing is disruptive, as it constitutes the misuse of Wikipedia as a discussion forum. I am blocking Panthera germanicus for 24 hours, with a warning that he may end up infinitely blocked if he does not stop bloviating and start working on the encyclopedia.  Sandstein  13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

He requested to be unblocked. I gave him some advice and denied the unblock. 24 hours is a short time. He could make good use of it, or not. It's up to him now. -

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 ([55][56][57][58][59][60]) 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 [61] and [62] 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)

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)

• 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)

(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)

Difficulty with editor on USAA

Over a content dispute with an editor on the article USAA, the editor has been uncivil on more than one occasion and has been warned by at least one other editor who noticed the exchange. I have not responded in kind. The editor is also using several unregistered IP addresses, perhaps unwittingly being a "sockpuppet." So investigation into one IP may show little, collectively it is one editor and is on several occasions. Not sure how to proceed here. I don't think I will answer him on discussion anymore. This could lead to an edit war which I have successfully avoided for many years. See particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.152.104.158, and a series of sometimes reasoned, sometimes hostile responses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USAA#Geico_envy.3F. Student7 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

River Phoenix

Some moron deleted cultural references to this man and his death. Can it be retrieved? B-Machine (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A diff or two would help identify the edit(s) that concern you. Looking through your contributions I see you have edited talk pages before. That might be an avenue you could explore. Another option is that you make the changes yourself. Also, while using "moron" might be a convenient way to avoid leaving an editor the proper notice that they're being discussed here, I would advise that you not employ this characterization when referring to fellow editors. The costs could outweigh the benefits. Regards Tiderolls 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pyrrhus16 noted here and here that the quotes are unsourced are better for Wikiquote and the cultural references as trivia. I've informed him but this is just a content dispute and too soon for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove those sections. The article is in a bad enough state as it is. It doesn't need more unsourced trivial junk. Pyrrhus16 19:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Resolved

 – Tide rolls has warned two users, and the fiesta appears to be over. TFOWR^propaganda 19:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone wave cluesticks appropriately on the fiesta of stupid currently taking place at First Flight High School and Talk:First Flight High School? – iridescent 16:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Tide rolls (talk · contribs) has done that already. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [63]
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [64] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [65] Again in a subsequent month [66] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [67]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [68] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[69]

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [70], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

--Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.

The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

"the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^{Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)}

unrelated WP:PEREN policy discussion

By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Probably no one's reading because this thread has pretty much ended, but my question is serious -- what reasons can people have not to make an account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This thread and probably the board generally isn't the venue for your meta/philosophical question. If you wish to discuss such things you may like to discuss it on each other's talkpages, on meta, or the village pumps. But please don't hijack this thread. The thread is about a user's violations of the living persons content policy, personal attacks and disruptive editing. It is unresolved / unactioned, and there is a 'blp victim'. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Why thank you for the advice, IP editor who has only edited under this address for the last week, but who has clearly edited before and who might be the same person as the other 92.xxx IP editors who have dominated that article for quite a while but I can't really tell because of the way their IP address changes with frequency (maybe, if that's the same person). I surely understand now that there's no reason to treat IP editors, who with great frequency it is difficult to hold accountable for their editing history, any differently from editors who register an account and can have their history checked relatively easily, unless of course they use sockpuppets, which is to say another account, a concept very similar to, but apparently much more frowned upon, than hopping (deliberately or not) from one IP address to another. I'm glad to have had you answer my simple and straight-forward question – in which I asked for a legitimate motivation for people to edit with an IP address rather than an account – with the royal blow off. I'm sure there's no reason for Wikipedia to ever consider banning IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring from archive as instructed at top of page. This remains unactioned after sitting for more than 7 days, which I think is explained by this board's talkpage that says sometimes threads get forgotten. I recognise it's a difficult case compared with some here, but I urge an admin to take a look and give it consideration.
The user's blp violations are important; the personal attacks and disruptive editing, including ignoring any concerns (instead commenting on an unrelated issue in the article or different article entirely) when raised, directed to unregistered and registered users alike were the basis of their past block and are clearly a pattern. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that the reason why comment trailed off is because Eric144 appears to have stopped editing soon after this matter was raised. Looking into their editing history, this account appears to be fairly infrequent and now orientated toward one topic. Should they reappear and make similar edits, put up another post and link to the archived version of this one - or nudge me on my talkpage. Otherwise let this matter be for the time being, the article is in fair shape now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That could be it. The various activity was repeating each time they logged in, inc. here, though like you say editing appears to have stopped. Thanks for taking a look, appreciate the response. Taking all considerations into account, what you suggest is probably best. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The so called unsourced document was by Guardian and NYT journalist Jonathan Friedland in the Guardian which 92.30.111.99 seems to think is a tabloid. The other one (posted by 92.30.111.99) was ridiculous nonsense about Zac being a gentle person accoding to his mother. It was removed with scorn by an intelligent user. The same user also removed another very biased edit by 92.30.111.99 by commenting He didn't "refute" the claims, he denied them". This is someone with an agenda. I am not happy at all with the attacks made on me. I have no idea how to do advanced wiki editing and never will.

--Eric144 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Jonathan Friedland is a very clever man. He writes for the Guardian and New York Times and he is Jewish himself. Not likely to be antisemitic then.

--Eric144 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This all started when 92.30.111.99 sent me a warning saying the article was unsourced, then said it was from a tabloid. Why was I sent a warning from a total stranger on preposterous grounds ? It is actually from a distinguished international journalist in the Guardian. If any one of you people wants to know the editing history, it is all recorded. Why don't any of you you do that ?

--Eric144 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Joypesquera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by Ruslik0. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much to do. Just informing for the records about the legal threat on my talk page. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 socks

Resolved

 – All of the accounts listed are blocked indefinitely, and most likely sockpuppets of Irvine22 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Willy Haupt-Stauner, User:Helmut Stauner and User:Max Stauner who are currently vandalising articles associated with User:Snowded. The users are highly likely to be sock puppets of indef banned User:Irvine22. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• All blocked indef as vandalism-only accounts; I agree they almost certainly are Irvine22 though. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis, GK1973

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[76]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:91.198.174.202 (toolserver IP / AIV bot blocked)

Is 91.198.174.202 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that way. I have blocked it. Crum375 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the consensus against blocking AIV bots, even logged out? They run from the toolserver IPs [77]. Pcap ping 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Andewz111's signature

Resolved

 – Nice when it works out this fast --Jayron32 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Andewz111 (talk · contribs)

How I found this user isn't important. What is important, is that they are using a template in their signature. Given how numerous signatures are, this is now a large cleanup issue. I don't know if they are going to take my warning to heart or not, but I would feel better if an admin echos my words at their talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this template is already transcluded on 71139 (exact count as of 1 minute ago) different pages, I don't see what the issue is. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Daedalus969, tell us, what were the results of the previous discussion you had with this user over their signature? --Jayron32 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can change the signature to the standard. [[::User:Andewz111|Andewz111]] (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 06:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sig changed. Inform me of any more problems before this gets resolved. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, this discussion is not about this user changing their signature, it is about the cleanup issue involving what it previously was.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is that the sig is changed to prevent the problem in the future. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 06:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

U.U

I am sorry for not notifying you. I notified myself. I just realized. :/ — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that's a mistake anyone can make. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie James Dio

Resolved

 – No action required - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Went to update Ronnie James Dio on the untimely passing of the rock singer (and creator of the Devil Horns) and the page is locked down due to vandalism. Could an admin add the passing and this reference? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't need to come here. Use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page with the change you wish to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And he's not dead. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct....OK, so I went with the immediately release of information. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you were going to add news of someone's death to a BLP based on a post on a rumours website? Top marks to whatever clever admin protected the page to prevent that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was the first story I came across. Admittedly not the best link I could have picked, but the only one available according to Google. Oh well, didn't happen, so all's well that ends well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Runtshit-vandal. Please block ASAP!

Resolved

 – Blocked, Thanks User:zzuuzz! --- Huldra (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello admins, are you all sleeping this morning? Could you please block 67.231.246.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ASAP? It is the User:Runtshit-vandal. And yes; I have reported it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where there is a backlog...and I am tired of running around cleaning up after him, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooo, five years! SGGH ^ping! 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You gotta love it when you see the AIV helperbots remove blocks like that. Runtshit + static IP + server hosting + open web proxy = 5 years. A tiresome formula. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Admin eyes are required over here, seems some reports from yesterday have still not been dealt with. Mo ainm~Talk 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection from new editors?

Resolved

 – Protected by Toddst1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackforums be protected from editing by editors that signed up only to comment on the AfD? Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the question, but in the meantime the Single Purpose Account tag will at least highlight the problem to other !voters and to the closer. TFOWR^propaganda 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Users seem to get quite worse in AfD when that is used. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been protected. Please mark as resolved. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner

Copied from WP:BLPN because this has potential PR implications (consider Michael Winner's reputation for acerbic comment in his newspaper column). I can't do the necessary line-by-line fact check due to jetlag, having just this morning returned from a week in the States on business.

There have been exchanges of email which I have merged together under VRTS ticket # 2010041710014178. This includes an official biography which I copy by permission at Talk:Michael Winner/Bio. This is, of course, not presented with inline sources and the style is not compatible with our manual of style, but I would appreciate it if people could cross-check for factual inaccuracies since Mr. Winner's office is (perhaps understandably) unwilling to spoon-feed us with specifics. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The period 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)

Apparent Edit War on What They Died For

I have come across what appears to be an edit war on What They Died For (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), involving inclusion of a plot summary. The arguments appear to be that: the episode has aired to a select number of fans, however, other users are deleting the plot summary as either unverified, or as spoilers. The spoiler argument is obviously invalid per WP:SPOILER, but I feel some sort of administrator may be needed, as it appears some editors may have broken the 3RR rule. Brambleclawx 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it to an earlier, much shorter, & obviously incorrect version, then semi-protected it for 52 hours. (That's an off-the-cuff calculation for when the episode will actually be first broadcast to a sizable audience; another Admin with better math skills is welcome to modify the time.) Whether or not they are spoilers (& the producers have been known to leak misleading information about future episodes), this is clearly unverifiable information at this writing. Now let's all get back to something more important -- like worrying about unfounded allegations of child pornography on commons. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Judith Reisman

While on Huggle this morning, I noticed somone blanked this page, simply leaving a message saying 'Please delete this page'. I reverted it, and then a couple of minutes later, an account called Judithreisman done the same, only this time said that the page should be deleted due to 'deflamatory and libel content'. I reverted it again, but left a note on the user's talk page informing them I had e-mailed Wikipeida. I have had no response. A couple of minutes ago, I received this message on my talk page:

FROM JUDITH REISMAN TO WIKIPEDIA

Gentlemen: I am in another country right now and was informed that Wikipedia was again using people who are long time pornography and pedophile lobbyists to defame me. Jimmy Wales had to correct all this a few years ago and now its back. This site ridicules my scholarship and undermines my professional reputation (legally this is interference with advantageous relations). For example, the representative from the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco who you pose as a credible source to assault my pristine child sexual abuse research, has sold its own home made child pornography to Hustler magazine while Wardell Pomeroy, their former "dean" is on record as soliciting funds from the Adult Video Association to film child pornography at the IASHS. Their BOOK, Meditations on the Gift of Sexuality is a picture book of students, faculty, staff and friends engaged in illegal sexual orgies (circa 1977) including what is clearly understood today as child pornography, and my research has exposed their "institute" as a bogus "scientific" establishment in great detail. The same facts apply to your other critic. I could go through your entire entry for the slanted coverage, libelous and trivialization of my findings but I simply demand that you remove my entry from your site. It is wholly untrustworthy. Thank you for your immediate attention to this issue, Judith A Reisman, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judithreisman (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this requires urgent attention, I have posted relevant riffs below: The message on my talk page Presumably her IP Different account Her account

Thanks, and if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Acather96 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left her instructions on her talk page on how to address this with the foundation and semi protected Judith Reisman given the multiple sock issue. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELF may be of some interest to Judithreisman (talk · contribs). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations for four weeks

Claireea9 (talk · contribs) has uploaded 27 copyrighted images, all of them without any tags, FURs or what-have-you, since April 18th. They have, for the most part, been deleted or nominated for deletion; a few have dealt with by kindly editors.

Given that the user has received plenty of warnings and information, has presumably read the material at Wikipedia:Upload (impossible to avoid seeing it, certainly!) and for some reason ignored all this. Their mainspace editing also leaves significant room for improvement, to say the least. I propose that this clearly disruptive editor is blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note also. I will block this editor in an hour or so if I get no response, anyone else can block earlier and I won't cry. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I already blocked (Doug, you hadn't commented here before I started the process, I would have held off if I'd seen it). I suggest keeping blocked until they acknowledge their problems, and address them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—I think it's for the best! ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)