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

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

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

---

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

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

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

• February 2010 warring episodes: [1] , [2], [3] and then [4]

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

• August 2010: [5]
• December 2010: [6] , [7], [8], [9]
• January 2011: [10] , [11]

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

• Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_16#Video
• Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_16#Four_Frame_Photo
• Talk:Ejaculation#A_plea_for_sanity
• Talk:Ejaculation#There_was_no_consensus_about_the_four-plate_photo
• ArbCom request by DMSBel, dismissed.
• Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_94#Can_photos_from_a_porn_site_be_deleted_as_an_unreliable_source.3F (somehow attempt at forum shopping; when I merely linked the discussion on Talk:Ejaculation, for transparency, DMSBel was quite angry and responded with Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive96#Cyclopia, which ended in a predictable boomerang)
• [12].

Edit warring on other sexuality articles

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

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

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

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

Response by User DMSBel

I think Cyclopia has overstated the amount of edit waring in his complaint, in most of his cited instances there have only been one or two reverts, before I returned to discussion on the matter. Whether there was a consensus for keeping is debatable and the last RFC only maintained the status quo with the closing editor saying he "would hesitate to say there was a consensus". Generally I have avoided making controversial edits and have documented such edits on the discussion page. If there has been resistance to the edit I have made I calmly take a step back before it turns into an edit war, as I have done in this instance. His complaint here is about my deletion of pornographic content from the ejaculation page. As there has been new requests put forward for deletion by other editors my assessment has been that the consensus now is for deletion and that WP:NOTCENSORED does not prevent that, and that editors such as Cyclopia and a few others are not open to reason on this issue (other editors have noted Cyclopia's poor judgement in the discussion, and he has said that motives of uploaders do not matter, to quote him: "I don't give a frak if people who upload stuff do it because they jerk off on it or because of the most hideous possible hidden motivation."[[15]], and seems to have lost the ability to make a good editorial judgement here.

• To highlight Cyclopia's extremity he has said he would not disapprove of someone uploading a beheading video for the decapitation page. [[16]]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by other users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further comment, see this video, especially the comment at about 40 seconds:[17] In general, substitute "Wikipedia" for "No Name City", and we've got an appropriate warning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Clarify scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 months, apparently (I had no involvement prior to the discussion here at ANI): [18], [19] JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment:Is this in the right place, isn't there an edit warring noticeboard?[[20]], but then I had not even violated 3RR which seems to be what edit warring is and what that board is for, and had backed away from making any further edits after the second revert. DMSBel (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not about a 3RR violation. This is about a long pattern of disruption, and this is the correct place to request a ban. --Cyclopia^talk 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I think my "screw Wikipedia" comment was perfectly okay.[22]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Off-wiki harassment by User:Carolmooredc

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

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

---

Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) has objected to my questions at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CarolMooreDC. In this post she links to an off-wiki site [23] which in turn links to my talk page where she had already posted a frivolous, false and offensive complaint. Trolling my talk page is one thing -- publishing my userid and offensive and false allegations off-wiki goes well beyond the limits of acceptability. Perhaps she should take a very long break from editing Wikipedia? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent link to the mentioned version of the off-wiki site [24] --Danger (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't know the background of this Allegations of Jewish control article, and I didn't see the initial AN/I complaint. But that she's being harassed is just nonsense. She's targeted me because I set up Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard when I saw Jehochman having difficulty finding a suitable venue to post his concerns about her —not a special board for Carol, for heaven's sake, but only as the trigger for an idea I had ages ago. She then accused me of being involved with CAMERA of all things, and maybe wanting to set up the board because of that involvement (though I was instrumental in having at least one the CAMERA accounts blocked). And what the connection might be remains unexplained. Then she accused Kennilworth of being an S&M person who was using her to obtain free kicks via verbal abuse. :) [25] She brings the same approach to articles whenever I've seen her edit, and I'm putting that very mildly. Please don't allow her to impose one of her conspiratorial structures on events here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side question

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What just happened?

From WP:HARASS:

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

Now the external page itself [26] seems like perfectly acceptable offwiki commentary. this post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism mentions an addition to the external page; which points at this diff. Does the diff amount to harassment? Not obviously. Pointing to it from offwiki may seem harassment territory to some, but if Carol didn't point Kenilworth to the external statement, it doesn't seem to meet the definition. Either way, it seems in the very shallow end of the pool, especially considering that Carol uses her real name and Kenilworth Terrace is obviously a pseudonym, and the context of the prior treatment of Carol. In sum, I find it rather unlikely that Carol would have been blocked for this if the battleground/advocacy behaviour which keeps being alleged weren't an issue. But if that's the case it should probably be handled via an Arbcom case, where these things usually end up; or at least via a community discussion focussing on that. So I would suggest the block be reduced to time served, and if someone wants to propose a topic ban or battleground/advocacy block or whatever, then do that; though I can't help observing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Carolmooredc is a redlink. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• CommentIts seems that carol is still expected to defend her self and to at the right thing even though she has been blocked for three months[[27]]. The hounding is still going on even though she can no longer edit (or reply) this has to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any indication Spaceclerk is aware of the block? They don't seem to have taken part in this discusion Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The user is now aware of the block and is sill attacking the user with accusations of anti-Semitism [[28]]. This has to stop, as Carol has apologised for her misdemeanour should we not now be asking other users to behave as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She is asked here to say she has no COI [[29]] Carol responds that she does not meet the criteria in this case [[30]] She is then asked the question again[[31]] Again she replies [[32]] The question is then re-worded [[33]] She is then found wanting because she cannot say that because others think she has a COI she should admit it (as far as I can see), or that she has not answer the question that she has a COI (apparently saying you do not have one does not count) [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you both for your views. Meanwhile ...

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

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

Comment by Jrtayloriv on unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apology accepted, should unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunate votes

I have created the article David Wood (Christian apologist) and unfortunately people started voting several hours before i was finished referencing and gave all sorts of uncited and not-notable-enough objections. I was done referencing the next day (today) but people were already voting at 12 noon. Ideally i'd like you to somehow restart the process all over or renew the voting for Articles for deletion. It was hard to find references because his name is so common. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help desk would be a better bet for this question. In any case you probably want to start off with WP:VOTE and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And although AfDing an article quickly after creation is discouraged, it is really the author's responsibility to have a well-referenced article right when it goes into mainspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was the person who started the AfD. It was started about an hour (I believe) after the article was created, plenty enough time for referencing.

Also, being the starter of the AfD, I was not notified of this ANI thread, nor were the other editors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian apologist? What the heck is that? It's not a profession that I know of and is probably a form of POV "name calling" that is completely inappropriate in an article, especially a BLP. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See Christian apologetics and there appears to be a reference for calling Wood that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - "apologist" is not a derogatory term as some seem to think, it's a genuinely accepted term for those who defend a religion. In fact, it means something like "defender", and should not be confused with the modern usage of "apology" as in saying sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still seems rather opinion pushing and derogatory as it implies someone who apologizes for Christianity or being a Christian. So I would recommend either removing or replaced with a more neutral term. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it simply doesn't mean "to apologize" at all - "apologist" is the correct term and is a formal term used in theology. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. It's not in common usage anymore, so it's confusing people a bit here, but it's a term of art / jargon term in theology. It's being used correctly here and is not derogatory, as far as I can tell. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Farix, see the article apologetics for info related to non-Christian religions. Or G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology for a non-religious example, or Apology (Plato) for the original(?) use of the term. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O Fenian, who is quoted here, i also is in need of some STRONGEST POSSIBLE WARNING to contructively contribute instead of blackmail to get his war Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts abd [35].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Histowiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Oppenheim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White Box Gallery is also reporting it.[36] per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[37] I think this is good enough to mention in the article, possibly as an unconfirmed report. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The JS blog post has been updated with a confirmation sourced to a friend of Oppenheim's.[38] 67.122.209.190 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

El Norte de Castilla: [39] 67.122.209.190 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is now a proper English-language news source for his death: [40] Guess we can put the matter to rest, so to speak. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

IPs of Likebox (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for legal threats, have posted numerous times on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium, personally attacking the nominator and the commentators. Would an admin protect the MfD page and/or block the block-evading IPs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is Likebox (talk · contribs). I think it is Archimedes Plutonium himself. At least one of the IP addresses he is using has been blocked. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I have stricken out Likebox from my comment. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be protected, but since I have commented there I do not want to do it myself.--Bduke (Discussion) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It don't matter who it is. All that badgering needs to stop. Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Likebox should be unblocked. There is no basis for his polically motivated block anymore. An additional problem that sufaces now and then is that the original basis for this whole advocacy nonsense is no longer properly understood which leads to all sorts of problems, like right now for me here. The fact that Likebox is bliocked actually contributes to this problem for me, because people who don't take the time to delve into the details reason like: "Likebox is blocked, so this was something very serious", when in fact it was nothing serious at all, other than ArbCom's credibility. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke that those IP's are almost certainly not Likebox (not his style). It's plausible that they are Archimedes Plutonium. Anyway, semi-protecting the MFD seems reasonable. Re Likebox: IMHO as a mathematics editor who is glad Likebox is gone, I'm fine with the idea of giving due consideration to an unblock request from him, but he certainly shouldn't be unblocked if he doesn't himself ask to be unblocked. Also: I don't know how good Likebox was at physics, but if he is ever unblocked, I think he should be topic-banned from mathematical logic. Count Iblis really does not appreciate what a terrible and disruptive editor Likebox was in that subject. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He was pushing his proof of Godel and that "pushing" was dealt with with a restriction and also a voluntary 1RR restriction. So, his behavior had already changed long before he was blocked for not being able to accept the terms of that stupid advocacy restriction which by now is completely irrelevant. Then, just like we don't (and shouldn't) topic ban global warming sceptics from climate change articles (provided they behave themselves), Likebox should not be topic banned from anything, provided he behaves himself and stays within the restriction that already exist. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Likebox needs to request unblock himself, with a promise to a) stop breaking the Arbcom restriction, b) edit constructively to improve the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok., but a) is moot and b) is self evident. He has never edited non-constructively except for not accepting the by now moot ArbCom restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's 'moot' then they should have no problems promising it. Ultimately of course this whole discussion is moot until and unless Lightbox requests an unblock but from their statements last year, this seemed rather unlikely at the time. P.S. I wouldn't exactly consider [41] [42] constructive... And this wasn't just not accepting something but going to another extreme altogether. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that 50% of all regular editors here would have behaved like the two diffs show (i.e. behaved in a way that, taken out of context, looks outrageous). If an editor is restricted by ArbCom without a hearing, i.e. by motion only, and that restriction is completely unjustified but you were not allowed to put your case forward and any appeal would be in violation of the restriction, then typically that editor would leave Wikipedia. Likebox left and in the process he slammed the door shut. That's a 100% normal human reaction. We are deluding ourselves that you can gravely insult productive editors and then expect that such editors will always stay very polite. Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact details, but Likebox had ample warning that his advocacy for Brews was being very disruptive. He chose to ignore all those warnings. Eventually, Arbcom was forced to make a formal restriction. Then Likebox decided to violate the restriction, thus getting himself blocked. The point is: Likebox decided to start a disruptive crusade for perceived injustices against Brews, and all the later problems were caused by said crusade. It's up to him to stop his disruptive behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget Likebox's other gems of wisdom such as "Abrasive opinionated assholes are the only good content contributors. Only these people have something nontrivial to say."[43] and "I do not intend to cite a SINGLE SOURCE for this statement, because it is too obvious to cite. I will unilaterally assert it, again and again, until somebody fixes the problem."[44], both from long before the Brews incidents. I am glad Likebox has lost interest in editing here. Should he seek to return, I hope it will reflect a rather drastic change in his attitude on many fronts. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User making threats

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to Radio, I have attempted to clarify and add factual information to a paragraph which concerns a subject that I have trained in for 51 years. I have been examined and certified as a full license holder in my country. I have many commercial practical and training experiences in many subjects. Every edit attempt was reverted. Check out the hoistory. The talk oage was disrupted by LuckyLouie (talk), it may have been done with good intention, but it resulted in this:-[45] which resulted in a bot signing all my now disjointed contributions. I have since corrected these errors and have re-assembled the page back to its chronlogical order, see here:-[46].

There is a situation of WP:OWN with LuckyLouie (talk) and other contributors. Their perception that anything non ameraican is not acceptable under any circumstances for inclusion. This "judgement" for "suitability" section was added to highlight the "absurdity" of "interrogating" every contributor on the talk page before new edits are allowed. The "drop off point" was added to allow "owners" of the article opportunity to confirm "validity" and "suitability" for inclusion. I had already made it clear at the outset that no harm was intended by my contributions. See here:-[47].

The act of constant reversions was observed by another "editor" and he included a new sub-section entitled "globalise", see here:-[48]. He also tagged the article page accordingly. I still find the behaviour of the article "owners" inappropriate, and added clarification (using my "wacky" British humour) to enlighten the "owners" of the article that there are more english speaking countries out there who would also like to contribute.See here:-[49]. Since this "debacle" started there have now been further "revesions" to other contributors "edits". Can somebody monitor this situation more closly pleasee? It is becoming really annoying.

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

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

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

Apologies, but what did you mean by these edits (and in particular, the edit summaries)? [50], [51]

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

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

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

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

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

Bit of a rampage

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Apologies for the rushed report. I am not familiar with the articles either, so it's going to take a while to research. Where I ran into them was on Weeble where they added a supposed 2011 film.[52] for which imdb came up with nothing so I reverted. They then come back a few minutes later and adds a 2013 movie instead.[53] This is when a red flag goes up, and again, no relevant google hits, so go to revert and warn them. I notice the previous ban and that they have racked up several hundred edits in the last few days (over 400 if I'm counting correctly.) A quick spot checking of their contribs show suspicious WP:CRYSTAL type material which is why I filed the above report.

Looking through their contribs from the top, a lot seem to have been reverted by now. [54] reverted[55] as "unreferenced-may be subtle vandalism" and [56] reverted as vandalism[57] and [58] reverted as unreferenced[59] and [60] reverted as vandalism.[61] These are just the last few edits that happened after I left the final warning. If needed I can dig further into their contribs.

In the history of Warner Bros. Television Distribution[62] I see earlier reverted edits from nearby IP 24.99.97.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which looks like it could be the same editor. That IP was banned for a month on the 14th for similar hoaxing behavior, look at User talk:24.99.97.181. Siawase (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Guy Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unusual case of Jeremiestrother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per his comments on [63] and noted above, Jeremiestrother views these series of edits as one of "style". That is, we really should see a city's common name in the "official name" field. He doesn't seem to understand the problem or the problem with going against logic and consensus, but he is asking for a mentor. I've pointed him to our mentoring page, so that may help. He also stated that he hoped to spark discussion by editing so many articles in this way, so I pointed him to our Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point page, too. Rklawton (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

User:LouisPhilippeCharles propagating socks

Resolved

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

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

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

Needs Help

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block socket master and sockpuppets

Resolved

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

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

Looking into this: it seems like three of the identified users were checkuser confirmed at the Swedish Wikipedia as socks. There's evidence of abuse of multiple accounts in this edit history, where Ulla attempted to change something and was reverted as against consensus. When told "You are the only person insisting on adding a "the". No reliable source in English does so", s/he brought in a sock: [64]. (also: [65]). The other account, E.G. (talk · contribs · block user), was stale, but has evidently been blocked ([66]) on behavioral evidence ("Det finns ingen IP-information om EG, men en stark koppling till de övriga.") I'm in the process of blocking the named accounts and will come back to consider what actions may or may not be appropriate with regards to the IP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

USchick

USchick (talk · contribs) has continued to incorrectly tag pages for speedy deletion after being warned multiple times by editors on her talk page. Her only explanation for her taggings was the text of the A7 criterion, which was completely irrelevant to the discussion. She either needs editing restrictions for tagging pages for deletion or some other resolution. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: where was the "credible assertion of notability" in "Denys Wortman (2 May 1887-20 September 1958) was a painter, cartoonist and comic strip creator."? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A poorly made assertion I agree, but it does cite the American National Biography. Wortman appears to be notable: a Google search brings up this which looks promising. I would have declined the speedy myself. But the point for AN/I is: does USchick make too many false positives on her tags? Or is the proportion acceptable for a busy editor who tags a lot of articles and does most of them well? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very quick scan shows about 30 successful deletion tags over the last three days, and six challenges reported on her talk page (it's possible there might be more where the editor declining the speedy failed to say so.) I think a one-in-six false positive rate is a little high and may indicate over-enthusiastic tagging. This account seems to have been dormant for nearly a year before starting up again in the last couple of days. Maybe she needs to review the criteria a bit more carefully? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not used drawing this kind of attention to myself, so perhaps I do need to review my actions. If you review my record, there were 39 pages deleted for good cause. Six were challenged, and out of those six, 3 were improved to the point where they are now acceptable. So that's 3 out of 39. For the record, I was not on a "deletion spree," I was working off the Dead-end Category and cleaning up as I went along. USchick (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. In the last 24 hours, that is. This isn't just about the swing-to-miss ratio, but more a misunderstanding of what qualifies under speedy deletion. USChick's response to multiple warnings, declines and queries was to quote the A7 policy back to the person warning her, which seems rather amusing given that Zimao mountain and Vijayanarayanam, geographical locations - were tagged with A7. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a fairly experienced New Page Patroller, I'd have definitely tagged Mix n Blend for G11; I'm not sure how that slipped by. The We are Trans-MIssion one is right on the border too, that would depend on the admin; I'd have PRODded it myself (I'm obviously not an admin), but that's not a totally unreasonable tag. The others are pretty cut and dry, though. If USchick would like, I'd be more than happy to spend some time and work on it with her; A7 can be tricky, and it took me a while to get a full grip on A7/A9, so I can relate. I've been doing NPP for around 8 months now, I pretty well know what I'm doing, and we really need more New Page Patrollers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, but it's a thankless task, due to problems like this where the patroller is always in the wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very select few of us (I won't name names, those who I'm referring to know who they are) do a disproportionately large chunk of NPP (i.e. almost all of it); I think what we need is more things like WP:GARAGE that highlight the lighter side of it. I love doing it, but we still desperately need more people, and even one more will be great; hence my above offer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, if I understand your offer correctly, you will teach me how to use WP:GARAGE as a criteria for speedy deletion? Ok, I'm in! :) Seriously, the real reason we're here today having a discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard (in my opinion) is because the person who started this discussion is an aspiring administrator, (but no one has taken him up on his offer). So I am at your mercy, do with me what you wish, and if I can be helpful in any way, I'll be happy to follow your instruction. USchick (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll get some stuff in order and get you going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Error on main page, makes Wikipedia laughable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering there is even a logo with Domodedovo International Airport on their site [67], I guess you just didn't look hard enough... While anyone in the airport has much more important things to worry about, I suspect under different circumstances they will probably be noticing similar things since going by their website, there is probably still stuff there as well which say 'Domodedovo International Airport'. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Here is an explanation of the term.[68] USchick (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Reverting edits.

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

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

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

Fifteen501

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boys Noize

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

User:SeekerAfterTruth

I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look at this edit to my talk page - [69]. Out of nowhere, User:SeekerAfterTruth has accused me of being sectarian and bigoted. I find these insults deeply offensive, and a clear personal attack. SeekerAfterTruth is a single-issue editor, whose agenda seems to be limited to removing reliably-sourced material about sectarian aspects of Rangers Football Club. I fail to see what he is contributing to the encyclopedia, besides conflict. --hippo43 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Could somebody please protect User talk:Kgrave?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

 Confirmed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images of children

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

Jaxdave

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

Original thread

User: Jaxdave is an apparent WP: SPA (or even, arguably, a WP: VOA) who seems to have a major axe to grind against black pastors. His edits generally come in "spurts" about a week to a month apart, the most recent one being January 9 (in which he removed a vandalism warning from his talk page: [70]). Prior to this, on January 2, he rather blatantly vandalized Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King III. See [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. He doesn't seem to have made any constructive contributions to date, so WP: VOA would almost certainly apply. Apart from vandalizing articles, the only other edits he's made appear to be talk page soapboxing such as these: [77][78] (in which he describes in detail his opinion of the aforementioned pastors, including inexplicably blaming them for Jim Crow) [79] [80] [81]. Further back in time is this disturbing little screed on his talk page about "ragheads" and Israel (which was later removed by another editor): [82]. Because of all this, and the fact that he doesn't respect BLP, I think Wikipedia would be better off without him. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

NAZIS ARE EVIL MURDERERS! DEATH TO NAZIS!

WHY DON'T YOU BAN NAZIS? WHY DO YOU IDIOT WIKIPEDIANS TOLERATE NAZIS? — Kgrave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.241.41 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)