Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

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

So where does that leave things now? --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've apologised (on my talkpage) for the indef block, and I'm happy to repeat that apology here (and leave timestamps in this thread, so it gets archived). As regards the future: avoid the behaviour that led to the past blocks, and you'll avoid further blocks. There seems to be a consensus that doubling block-duration is more appropriate than a "one day, one week, one month, one year" approach, and I'll certainly follow a doubling approach if necessary. I hope it won't be, however. TFOWR 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Resolved

 – PhanuelB indef'ed. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Update. Since the accused blocked editor is still working on his draft in response please do not add a timestamp until this matter is solved so that uninvolved admins who are not aware of the sub page can still see it and comment. --TMCk (talk)

• Update 2: PhanuelB has finaly submitted his response. Admins and editor are ask to please take a fresh look at it so a decission can be reached. Thanks,--TMCk (talk)

Is it justified to remove a deletions nomination when the nominator doesn't know what a page is about?

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, puppeteer community banned, AfDs allowed to run their course - Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently an editor User talk:Donald Schroeder JWH018 has nominated a bunch of Transformers articles (again). This guy doesn't even seem to be reading the articles or know what they are about, as he says in every nomination that he wants to get rid of "Gobots crap" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) and there about nearly a dozen other times. I've asked directly if he's joking about thinking they are Gobots, he isn't. He does point to a link about some character who did a "gobot" rant from some movie. ("And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.") Can a deletion nomination be closed early based on clear proof that the nominator either doesn't know what the article is about or that he's making a joke out of the nominations process? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can argue that the AfD be speedily closed as keep, and if the reason for listing is blatantly unfounded I believe an admin can close it as such. I'm not 100% on that though; it may be necessary to allow the 7 days to expire to gain consensus on closing it for such a reason (or per WP:SNOW). Someone else should be able to confirm or deny that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what the articles are about. They are "about" failing the WP:GNG standards and having no reliable sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that both of the AfDs linked to here have at least one additional, justified, delete !votes; such AfDs certainly can't be closed in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 judging from his edit history and his talkpage appears to have some civility and ranting issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominations for deletion are all perfectly acceptable AfD nominations that should be discussed on their own individual merits. There is no ill faith on the part of the nominator, and as far as I can see there is no "speedy close" reason applicable. Let the discussions run their own course; the closing admins will be perfectly able to gauge the consensus. Filing this AN/I report is an example of frivolous forum shopping. And oh, by the way, if you are keen on Transformers, the Transformers Wiki is that-a-way -- I am sure they would be extremely appreciative of your efforts to enlarge their database. But Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. 80.135.18.50 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Concentrate on the issue at hand, the continued failure for the majority of our Transformers coverage to have significant secondary sourcing, rather than constantly running to ANI to get people un-personed for raising that as an issue. Saying "gobots" instead of "transformers" is not in itself a flagrant example of bad faith nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Donald Schroeder's civility issues are not a reason to declare an AFD invalid, and even if he is mistaken about the cartoon series involved he is actually right about the lack of reliable, independent sources. And since there are good-faith delete votes at both AFDs now, an early close is ruled out. This recent spate of Transformers-related deletion discussions is the inevitable consequence of nearly two years of legitimate concerns about these articles. You should have made an effort to fix the problems when they were brought up, but you didn't. Ignoring people for two years and then whining loudly everywhere when the community finally gets fed up and gets on with things without you is not very constructive. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all that came from. You seem to have a personal problem with me. I had a legitimate question about nominations from someone who seemingly was just ranting about gobots in the nominations rather than addressing the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as an honest criticism of your attitude towards this issue, not a personal attack. I do not have a problem with you personally; I just want you to understand everyone else's point of view on this, and that your unwillingness to discuss and compromise with people like Sarujo is part of the reason all this Transformers stuff has come crashing down all at once. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The deletion nominator ought to be perma-banned for confusing Transformers with GoBots. Back in the 80s, them was fightin words! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your Cy-Kill and raise you Megatron. I find it disturbing that it seems that the recent response to Transformer AfDs is to attack the nominator. Sure, one nominator was abusing multiple accounts but that doesn't mean that anyone that nominates the articles for deletion is doing so in bad faith. -- Atama頭 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In all seriousness, some of these nominations are absurd. Nominating Cliffjumper for deletion? I realize only nerds like Transformers, but that character was central to the first 2 seasons of the TV show. I can see nominating some of the less-known characters (some of them even I've never heard of), but Cliffjumper is absolutely notable as a central character in the TV show, in the comic books, and for being voiced by Kasey Casem (who left the show with some controversy). I would advise people nominating these articles to 1) make a more thorough and legitimate rationale for deletion other than "contested prod, gobots crap", 2) Please be civil, and 3) don't nominate things for deletion when sources can be found. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for nominating things that truly are not notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper notable? Never heard of it. Still Wikipedia's 'notability' inclusion criterion demands the use of reliable sources and the ones in that article don't hack for me. Jon.

Cliffjumper was Bumblebee, basically, but colored red. (I was really into those toys as a kid.) He was one of the main characters from the original show. My biggest complaint about this nomination is the lack of edit summaries, when an article is nominated for deletion it makes it really handy to be able to see later in the history (if it's kept). Many admins don't bother putting an oldafdfull tag on the article's talk page after closing an AfD. -- Atama頭 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper was one of an, errr, ensemble cast who were given rotation in the stories so as to ensure kids bought the toys. If you were billing the G1 "cast" in order of plot importance he'd be well behind Prime, Wheeljack, Ironhide, Bumblebee, Ratchet and half the bad guys. The most notable thing anyone's ever found a secondary source saying about his is that his toy is a recolour of Bumblebee's. That's not exactly standalone article material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Someone else may want to consider whether the AFDs should be closed as initiated disruptively by a sock of an indeffed user. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the SECOND banned sock puppeteer making mass deletion nominations of Transformers Wiki Project articles in the course of 2 weeks. Both of which came from me asking about incidents of weird mass deletion nominations. Both of which had many accounts and seemed to love to nominate for deletion and vote to delete articles. Yeesh. Does this happen often? I've never seen it before, then TWO in 2 weeks? Mathewignash (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not happen often. Usually when people use sockpuppets at AFDs they use them to stack the vote but it doesn't look as though these people have double voted. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting this from all the TF articles. Everybody is crying notability for everything with ponying up the proof when asked for it. It seem that everybody has no real clue as to what notability is or they wouldn't be so quick to deem the articles as such. Ignash and I will not see eye-to-eye on what these articles need. Ignash just claimed here, "we are not establishing article notability". When what are they trying to establish??? To me Ignash seen to be exploiting editor faults to save unnotable articles. To me that practically game. Sarujo (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another sock: please also block the original account name DeepAgentBorrasco (talk · contribs). After his account was renamed he went and recreated the old one [1]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that the previous statement was written before the news of socking. Now I feel sick. Sarujo (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. You agree with Person A about something. Person A turns out to be a ratbag. You feel dirty by association. Still, we had no way of knowing Donald was a sockpuppet and voted on those AFDs in good faith.

Although it is not allegedly important, steady 4000 views a month for Cliffjumper. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• These nominations are tainted and cannot reasonably result in a clean outcome for deletion. As such, all of them ought to be speedily closed as keep for procedural reasons, whether or not there is any legitimate commentary. That doesn't take an administrator to do, although some sense of the community's consensus would be helpful. Sock-gaming of deletion nominations seems to be a persistent problem, and the best response in some cases is to simply undo the damage, get rid of the socks, and if warranted start the deletion process again. Continuing a tainted process to a tainted conclusion is a big waste of time. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd probably revert a non-admin that tried to pull that sort of stunt. We had this discussion last week, where consensus was that even if an AfD was initiated in bad faith, there's no legit reason to abort it if good-faith !votes have already been entered. Same logic for article creation by socks; if they ar the primary/sole contributor then toss it, but if others have made significant edits in the meantime, then it's no longer appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Agree : good-faith editors' contributions shouldn't be rejected simply because the nominator opened an AfD in bad faith. A single user's argument made against policy doesn't "taint" the AfD: it's simply ignored. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Edit warring in support of socks is not a cool thing. The wording of the AfD policy page is misleading on the point and doesn't reflect actual practice - there is no blanket consensus for keeping bad faith AfDs open after the first good faith comment. I've been in these situations before and they all end up with the article kept, the socks blocked (eventually), and lots of heat. Flawed nominations need to get shut down. Anyone who gets suckered into supporting someone else's process games ought to reserve their indignation for the socks, not the editors trying to clean up the mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we'd heard the last of this old "AfDs started by socks are tainted" chestnut after Le Grand Roi left the building. These AfDs have been a long time coming, and it is a waste of the community's time to procedurally close them when editors have already engaged on them in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a case by case matter. If the nomination is viable and there's a manageable amount of misbehavior, then an AfD can reach a viable conclusion. At the opposite extreme, when an editor banned or blocked for making a string of bad faith deletion nominations starts creating socks to re-nominate the same articles, those are best reverted on sight. That goes for other process gaming too, not just AfD. Sock-filed reports on the help desk and 3RR notice board occasionally get deleted too, or bad faith soapboxing on article talk pages, whether or not a passerby unaware of the problem has innocently offered their opinion. When socking gets particularly disruptive, WP:DENY and WP:IAR are much more fundamental and important than unwavering adherence to procedure. I'm thinking of a case from a couple years ago where a very strange editor was creating socks to nominate a series of articles about primarily African-American urban neighborhoods and nearby geographic features for deletion. These wasted a heck of a lot of time. I don't know about the exact circumstances here, but in general it is best not to humor sockpuppets, or waste much time hand-wringing over undoing their process games. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Here it is, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qrc2006, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogtown, Oakland, California, one of their many nominations that were deleted or more commonly speedily closed by non-administrators. Speedy closure is in fact the correct result there, not posturing over deletion theory. After the socking itself, the worst disruption and biggest time sink arises out of the tangential administrative complaints. If the articles truly need to be deleted it won't kill anybody to wait a week in order to go about it the right way. The encyclopedia won't sink in the meanwhile. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted per unanimous consensus - Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This level of abusive sockpuppetry and gamesmanship is repugnant. I propose a community ban for the puppetmaster Torkmann (talk · contribs). This will allow us to automatically revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support- Socking is not on. It's dishonest and disrespectful to everyone. However, the freedom to instarevert should not apply to the currently open AfD discussions, because a lot of good faith editors have already expressed opinions on them. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is obviously due. That said, let's not prejudice these (rather overdue) AfDs on that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk; clearly there are a lot of socks entering play now, and the user has already proven themselves disruptive. The currently open AfDs have good-faith !votes in them though, and this should have no bearing on them. The nomination reason in each case was not based on policy anyway (mainly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT), and will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Almost seems like a campaign to remove this wikis transformer articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is not a bad thing at all, just that this is the wrong person to be doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This is just preying upon a revealed weakness, in this case Mathewignash's ill-considered and poor responses to anything dealing in Transformers articles, as revealed by the previous AN/I discussion. At one point it was Richard Arthur Norton who was the target. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And while it's deeply unfortunate that people resort to hounding people's contribs through socks, the community still hasn't come up with a proper solution for that. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is not likely to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Need to move forward with the AfDs without the taint of socks. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Socks suck mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support The socking is not good. Purely disruptive behavior. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am in favor of this, but I am involved with the "user" as I have put an article up for nomination and the user was the first and only keep on the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And don't I feel like a dimwit after arguing to assume good faith about these nominations. Sigh. -- Atama頭 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quite ironic that the OP can complain about people not knowing what AfD nominations are about when he appears to not be able to read the nominations himself. Call me insulted *stomps off in a huff* Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inexcusable behavior. Dream Focus 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is his newest incarnation? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 probably, look to the thread above. -- Atama頭 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I guess User:DeepAgentBorrasco was created more recently although that account doesn't seem to have any contributions (deleted or otherwise). -- Atama頭 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A bureaucrat renamed "DeepAgentBorrasco" to "Donald Schroeder JWH018". –MuZemike 05:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! MuZemike! Kindzmarauli caught this above. ↑ Atama is right. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I encountered this user about a month ago and my experience with him was less than pleasant. His attitude and socking is only disruptive and detrimental, and a ban is necessary. —fetch·comms 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for the right reasons.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Not a big fan of the behavior shown. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is not acceptable behaviour. Ban 'im. --Divebomb (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This user has exhausted community's patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here seems to be clear. I will place the ban notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[2] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[3] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

• Failure to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.
• Failure to be scrupulous in the representation of sources and the use of purported quotes from them.
• Failure to respond directly to the substance of concerns about the use of sources and quotations.
• Continued aggressive posturing when asked the above.

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[4] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[5][6] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [7]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([8])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([9])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([10]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

I believe Viriditas' edits to be disruptive, and his talk page activity to violate civility and harassment guidelines. I ask for no formal sanction against him, but do request an administrator acquaint him with basic policy in this regard. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[11] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[12] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[13] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[14] and Fell was happy.[15] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [16], [17]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[18]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[19]] (why this should be here) [[20]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[21]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also relevant, this discussion with FellGleaming about not so reliable sources for science articles on the Goddard Institute talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [22]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A question Is this about this specific iuncident or about Fells wider actions=?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to Slater's question, but I do consider it pretty disruptive to copy-paste a hotly-contested section from one article into a new one when you're right in the middle of a discussion at WP:NORN about that section. And since FellGleaming will no doubt respond by informing the world of it, I'll mention that, like John, I've had my problems with this editor before, and that I agree with John's assessment. For example, I requested full protection for Linda McMahon a couple of days ago because FellGleaming, along with two others, was engaged in a smoking-hot edit war over that article. ( I wasn't involved. ) The article was fully-protected for a couple of weeks, but FellGleaming has been right back to the talk page claiming "consensus" with her his same-side edit warrior, to whom she he gave a barnstar for his part in that war after the article was protected, and suggesting they approach an admin to ask that an edit they'd been warring for be implemented through the full-protect. Not pretty stuff at all, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) ( revised by Ohiostandard at 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC). sorry, FG, just habit from previous assumption, which I apologized sincerely for, as you know. this is the only time I've made the mistake since I was informed of it; you've no reason to think it was intentional: it was not. )

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [23]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [24], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had run ins with thism user in the past but am not sure how relevant it is. I will say this on the current case. No one, it would appear, on Mariana Trench appears to have objected to this material being added apart from an involved user on the related page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

After my agreeing to acompromise version of the text that did not state the US had not ratified the UNCLOSIII treaty, (his original objection) Viriditas has taken to simply repeatedly blanking the entire section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming appears to be on some kind of campaign, going from article to article, making poor edits that distort the sources and push a single POV. For only one of many examples, today on endocrine disruptor, Fell made the following edit:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[25]

However, that is not what the source said. The source actually examined and presented both sides, not one side as Fell did. The source that FellGleaming cited said:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[26]

This is not a mistake on FellGleaming's part. This is part of a willful, purposeful campaign of misrepresentation of sources in article after article, and something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This example seems to fit very well into my overall picture of FellGleaming: An excellently informed editor who is pushing an industry POV vehemently and with a strong focus on results rather than interpersonal conflicts. If the public relations departments of huge industry associations ever start paying people for editing Wikipedia, we are going to get a lot of editors here who will be behaving very much like FellGleaming. Come to think of it, it's amazing that we haven't reached that stage yet. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Got a bit of a situation here....

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

---

Got a bit of a situation with the Dr. Mario (video game) article. The two players are User:Odokee and User:Ryulong. Odokee apparently keeps removing the japanese characters from the article. Ryulong keeps putting them back. This has been going on since September 9th. No effort has been made to discuss the issue on the article's talk page but Ryulong has tried, several times, to talk to Okokee ([27] [28], [29] on his talkpage only to be dismissed and ignored. Both editors have apparently been blocked once this month for edit warring over another Mario Brothers article for the same reason.--*Kat* (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like each editor has 4 or 5 reverts total over the last 10 days, and at least some appear to be over different material. It doesn't appear to be serious enough for sanction at this point. Have you tried talking to the editors involved yourself? Fell Gleaming^talk 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At present, both users are at 2RR today. Recommend locking the page down to force these two to the talk page. This has be done with other users and other pages and has worked successfully. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody removed any Japanese characters at all. - Odokee (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Japanese words then. Not sure what to call it. Romanji maybe? But you and Ryulong are clearly in an ongoing edit war over the existence of that text and you're not trying to compromise with him or even talk about it.

As for me intervening before bringing it here: I thought about it. Then I looked over the edit history (not just the summaries either, I looked at the actual modifications made), the talk page history, Odokee talk page's edit history and Ryulong's talk page and decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. That's why I brought it here instead.--*Kat* (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires the users to be blocked before the page is locked down. Just saying....Basket of Puppies 06:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss things with Odokee (regarding Dr. Mario (video game), Game Boy, Super Mario RPG, etc.). I have been civil. I have been blunt and not civil. Odokee keeps unnecessarily replacing the text "Dokutā" with "Dr.", and has now been doing that while simultaneously performing other large scale edits on the page. This is not the first time he has done this and I am fucking tired of his methods. I have attempted to bring up his behavior and inadvertantly bring up my own in response on this board three fucking times and the last time there was a ban suggested that I did not want to agree to because it would have prevented me from editing constructively in other subject areas. Odokee has been almost entirely unresponsive to my messages on his user talk. The only way I can communicate with him is apparently when we edit war over this style/content/whatever the fuck you want to call it. And even with his comment here he is trying to say that there is nothing wrong with what he has been doing by being obtuse and saying that he's not doing what you're saying he's doing, exactly. The last time, we were both blocked and he socked and performed a revert during the block. Odokee is a net loss to this project and needs to be given the boot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His latest response to my request. At least he attempted a response before removing my section entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On this board, we consider "making the beast with two backs" to be more genteel. In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It's called being correct. That's what I am doing: fixing the mistakes of others. - Odokee (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in my using the text "Dokutā" in the Hepburn romanization section of {{nihongo}} on Dr. Mario (video game). The mistake is you replacing it with "Dr." which is not a romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, you of all people should know that edit warring is bad, but to do so to make a POINT is just a double no-no. If the behavior is bad enough, take it to ANI or AIV, do not edit war.

Odokee, you need to chill. If you don't get your behavior is a problem by the number of times you have been to ANI, then you don't need to be here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to get outside input. The most input I got was in the third thread I made (first link) where it was suggested that both Odokee and myself be banned from doing anything regarding romaji which would severely hamper my ability to edit other pages I regularly edit. And I am not trying to make a point by edit warring as being the only method to talk to him. It was just an unfortunate realization on my part that it's the only way to talk to him, aside from the fact that he responded on his talk page for the first time ever this morning, but then proceeded to blank the entire section from his talk page before I would have any sort of attempt to respond.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a style issue right? And one currently before Arbcom? Don't you think that's not nearly a major enough issue to edit war over? Why (and this is a question for both of you) is a stylistic difference important enough to go to such lengths? Fell Gleaming^talk 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was put up at ArbCom prematurely by someone who was planning to put it up before ArbCom because there is no grey area to make a compromise in in the discussion that stagnated two weeks ago. ArbCom is also not taking the case because there has been no outside mediation and the RFC was useless apparently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if this is how he responds, he should be banned. There have been de-adminings for the same behavior, if I recall correctly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style issue in the least. - - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad populum? really? - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, you say above In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. I warmly agree. You are right. Allow me as an entirely uninvolved editor (I don't even play computer games) to assist, and to resolve the conflict.

And so: This is a unusually straightforward matter. Ryulong is right, and Odokee is wrong, simple as that. Reason being that Ryulong is compactly providing a small amount of useful and highly relevant information (the Japanese pronunciation of the Japanese name of a Japanese product), and doing so in full accordance with relevant guidelines. Now, Odokee may have some reason why these guidelines should, extraordinarily, be put aside for these particular articles; but until he puts this forward, lucidly and persuasively, we needn't trouble ourselves to try to divine his reasons.

(Oh, in case anyone is wondering, there's nothing personal here. I'd never heard of Odokee until a few minutes ago, and Ryulong is a user who I think was fairly recently in some dispute with me, though I really don't remember what it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [slight tweak 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)]

(We had been discussing the merits for and against the use of tildes in the titles of Japanese media; a matter I would still like to discuss because I feel that they have some use).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing the wrong info is the issue here. One I am trying to correct. - Odokee (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And what, precisely, is the "wrong info" here? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is Dokutā/Dr. in the romanization section of {{nihongo}}. Hoary and I believe that "Dr." is wrong, while Odokee believes that "Dokutā" is wrong (and is a fake word).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the standard "everyone is wrong but me" defense. Odokee, just knock it off, move along and edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Odokee, it isn't a "fake word", see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he can edit constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sort of inclined to agree. As I said above, the reason why I didn't try and intervene on my own before coming here was because, after reviewing Odokee's talk page history and the article's history and other stuff, I decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. Odokee makes no effort to communicate with others. He just does things the way he thinks it should be done and to heck with anybody else's opinions. That would be fine if this was the Encyclopedia Britannica but it won't work on Wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what that means. But, needless to say, it doesn't affect this in the least. - Odokee (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember the underlying principle in WP articles isn't truth or accuracy, but verifiability. Do either of you have reliable sources that validate your interpretation? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong wrote the Japanese pronunciation. What has "interpretation" got to do with it? Do you want reliable sources saying that what he says is the Japanese pronunciation is indeed the Japanese pronunciation; and if not, what do you want? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One user says the info is correct. Another says it's incorrect. But what do the sources say? If there's a RS for one interpretation, it should be used. If no RS at all can be found, the material should be excluded, whether or not we think it's useful. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot an apostrophe. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Japanese derivation of the English word "doctor" is parsed as ドクター which would be interpretted per our guidelines on transliteration of Japanese as "dokutā". The issue is that rather than saying "dokutā" is wrong, Odokee is saying that it is not a real word and therefore should not be used on Dr. Mario (video game). He is instead replacing it with "Dr.", because the Japanese title of the game does not explicitly feature the text of ドクター, despite that being the intended pronunciation of "Dr." in the Japanese market. He has arguably done the same sort of edits to articles on other video game related topics that also feature English text in the Japanese title (such as スーパーマリオRPG, ゲームボーイアドバンスSP, etc.). And while he performs these edits, he does not respond to criticism on his talk page, and generally continues to make these bold edits, despite being reverted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I previously recommended a 2 week topic ban for both editors which gained traction, but wasn't implemented. I further recommended and even longer topic ban from article space for odokee because of his non-communication. It's obvious he's continued that, and now I'd recommend he be blocked. The topic ban should still be in place, but Ryulong has at least tried to communicate. I recommend Odokee be blocked for a week, followed by a 1 month article topic ban on anything to do with changing the romanization (broadly construed) of anything to do with video games, japanese, etc. Ryulong should be topic banned for 2 weeks, and as I previously recommended both should write a well thought out proposal for the conclusion of this situation, including compromises. If one or both parties can't engage in constructive debate then they need to be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth should Ryulong be topic banned for a day, let alone two weeks? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's been edit warring and blocked over the topic. You can see the previous discussion we had about this, I believe it's linked above.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per Hoary. --*Kat* (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer requested temporary full protection at RFPP about ten hours ago, a bit after this thread was posted. Since then, the edit history has been fairly quiet, and discussion has begun here. Is this protection still needed? Airplaneman ✈ 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, with eyes on the page, that protection is not needed at this time, but should be used if the edit war starts up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I've never typed one of these up before, but here goes nothing.

One week full ban for Odokee (to get his attention) followed by a month long topic ban on Romaji and Mario Games. If Odokee wishes to edit in other areas during the topic ban and after the topic ban, that is fine, but he needs to find himself a mentor.

How does this sound? --*Kat* (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I would also add in that Ryulong will not edit war on any article....period. He should know better since he is a former admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I sort of thought that that went without saying.--*Kat* (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and have a content dispute, and Ryulong does not have full consensus for his edits. So no, without a remedy applied to him to curb his behaviour and actually find a solution to this as I proposed above, it doesn't fix the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee's behavior has been proven time and time again to be inappropriate. He needs a flat out ban. He is in the wrong and I am in the right. This has nothing to do with the arbcom shit. This is something else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? I don't really think you demonstrated where this supposed Japanese of "doctor" came from. It's a transliteration, not a translation. You can't go from japanese to english when there is no japanese. So yeah, it's a fabrication. I've proven this time and time again, and your behavior has clearly been disruptive. Does this mean you should be banned? - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are all statements from users who (for the most part) are involved in the dispute. Adding neutral and verifiable content is not disruptive. Repeatedly removing it is. Several times, Odokee, uninvolved users have called you out on your behavior, particularly in this thread. And let's not forget that you were found to be socking during our last block to perform the same revert that got you (and me) blocked in the first place. And there was a link from Neutralhomer in this very thread that shows that "doctor" has been made into a Japanese cognate, which is rendered as "dokutā" in Hepburn. Seriously, stop trying to change the subject to make it seem that you are right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All misleading and beside the point. You are hypocritically ignoring the inverse of bad edits. Simply adding material doesn't make it acceptable. Is adding any sort of trivia to any article completely acceptable? Can it not be reverted? You simply don't make a good argument here. And this is after the fact about how you've been purposefully going against the grain of consensus in the VG community. How many people said you were disruptive and asked you to stop? I guess in your mind it doesn't matter, since you just ignore everything around you and BRRR at every chance and claim good faith. How can I assume good faith when you deliberately edit war to keep in dubious content? I still haven't seen anyone agree with you where it counts. What I do see is that you keep making the same awful argument about a japanese word that does not exist in the article. Why should it be translated into something that isn't there? You have once again ignored your previous points in lieu of whatever fits you at the moment. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted it does take two to tango but Odokee was the primary instigator and perpetuator. Something should be done about him. If you would like to propose a separate sanction or remedy that will apply to Ryulong, then be my guest. But this is my solution for Odokee's unacceptable behavior.--*Kat* (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claims simply aren't true. I don't even need to go into it. - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I added content in good faith. As we can clearly see from your edit summaries, you have constantly been removing content in bad faith: rv japanification vandalism, rinse, repeat, remove bad edit, lol japanification, Undid revision 383787215, undo japanifications, Undid revision 383787091 by Ryulong (talk) fake japanification, Undid revision 383787092, remove japanification and bad edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, simply dreadful. I don't know how you can sleep at night. Or maybe it helps that you try to game the system to remove competition and cuss them out when it doesn't instantly work? - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support *Kat*'s proposal, with a reminder to Ryulong regarding warring. Any sanction on Ryulong should be discussed separately; as a number of us who are uninvoled here have said, on this occasion we can't find what Ryulong has done wrong. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support the ban proposal per the above suggestion by *Kat*. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support *Kat*'s proposal. With the proviso that Ryulong be explicit in his understanding that repeatedly "Adding neutral and verifiable content" can indeed be disruptive when it becomes edit warring, and as such should be avoided. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Strange Passerby. I think Ryulong's in the right here, but an edit warring reminder is appropriate. Kcowolf (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Although I don't approve of the edit warring from Ryulong either, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT language I see repeated from Odokee is particularly troublesome. -- Atama頭 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So basically while a content dispute, something that no one has demonstrated to be incorrect as far as my edits went, none of that matters when one person cries louder than the rest and claims to be innocent/in good faith. I guess no one noticed how Ryulong's attempt to gain consensus with several users had ended in failure, considering there isn't enough substance to his proposals. How does that end in my actions being malicious? Seems rather counter-intuitive, but I guess assuming that people would be generally intelligent can result in the downfall of good intentions. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So your response is to continue the dispute despite being told that you should stop by people uninvolved in the dispute?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the above broad community consensus, can we please get an admin to do the necessary? The fact that Odokee continued his ways (per Ryulong's diffs) even while being discussed for a community ban over it is not encouraging. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have requested that User:TFOWR, an uninvolved admin, review this and decide if it's time to apply the community consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to do so. However, I'm time-poor right now, and it's likely to be 17:30 UTC at the earliest before I can take a look (this is a discussion I've not been following, which I suppose makes me eminently uninvolved, but also makes me completely uninformed right now). So, if anyone else closes in the meantime I won't be upset. TFOWR 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't support - I don't see this as a solution to the problem at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a pretty clear consensus here. This resolution leaves open the opportunity to modify these sanctions, if required. Off2riorob, I hope this addresses in part your concerns. TFOWR 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Globalstatus

User:Globalstatus is a relatively new WP:SPA who for the last month and a half has been pushing hard a single point at Russia and Talk:Russia: to add a statement to the article lede that Russia is a recognized superpower. I feel that this is a fairly bad case of WP:PLAGUE POV pushing and the user's presence at the Russia article has become considerably disruptive. The relevant threads there are: [[Talk:Russia#Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010]], Talk:Russia#Article is being abused request to close editing again, Talk:Russia#Superpower status, Talk:Russia#A proposal to settle down the superpower issue, Talk:Russia#Requestioning sources on Russia as great power. A number of other users in these threads have been engaged in working out a reasonable compromise but User:Globalstatus would not budge and keeps repeating the same thing ad naseum, even though objections to his position have been raised on several grounds (that there are a number of sources disputing designation of Russia as a superpower, that some of the sources cited by Globalstatus are themselves biased, that the term "superpower" is POV laden and its discussion may not belong in the lede, and others). User:Globalstatus has been engaged in attacks and questioning good faith of other editors, e.g. [30] and inserting his comments in the middle of other users' comments rather than below them (see the same diff). He has also been trying to ram through actual edits to the Russia article that do not reflect consensus at the talk page, e.g. his recent edits here[31][32]. I feel that this editor's presence at Russia and Talk:Russia has become seriously disruptive and threatens to derail the ongoing GA reassessment where more serious issues have to be dealt with, see Talk:Russia#GAR and urgent work needed. I think there is sufficient evidence of tendentious editing by User:Globalstatus to justify a block for disruption and/or a topic ban for a couple of months for Russia-related topics. In any event, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Globalstatus' involvement in the dispute is disruptive, especially his edit warring. I hope an uninvolved admin will do something about it, but I'd like to remind that Globalstatus is a new user and in the spirit of WP:BITE we should not treat him too harshly because it could cause him to leave the project completely. I already asked him to step back from the dispute for a week and take a break, but I guess it did not help. Perhaps if an admin asked, it would have more effect? Or perhaps a short block is in order if he doesn't listen. Offliner (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As s/he is a new editor, I have tried reasoning with Globastatus on how to behave (see here). Others have tried similar approaches. But s/he will not listen at all. S/he continues to take matters all over people's talkpages, with a clear POV, and a lack of interest in working with others. The comments from Globalstatus are becoming more and more incoherent, suggesting a rather heightened emotional involvement. I think a block might very effective at bringing him/her to their senses, calming down and either realising that wikipedia doesn't work the way s/he thought, and so work differently, or find another forum.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a short block is probably in order. It should be supplemented with a note on how the user should improve his behaviour. After the block we will see if it helped. Offliner (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Globalstatus

I am responding to discussion as User:Globalstatus- here is my side of the story:

I have mentioned this to User:Nsk92 here about the new intro version [33] and I have posted it on the talkpages here too [34]. The intro is confusing because I have asked and asked questions in favor for sources and no sources have been provided but only comments without sources instead[35][36] here I mentioned that there was no sources under United Nations Security Council by User:Greyhood I replied again to User:Nsk92 and User:Greyhood under the talkpages and ask before these questions by making a new topic of request for answers here[37] and before that I even provided my own listed sources[38] that really went unanswered, I even sent this over to User:Greyhood asking him for more answers [39] but simplying was not providing sources[40][41] and going back to the talkpages asking here[42] and I provided there sources here [43]

In my case for appealing this block I have tried to get the heart of the answers but the content in the intro was changed marely overnight without acedemic sources and not enough time to consensus [44] done. In most cases it should be given sometime to over the talk than rushing to change the intro as User:Nsk92 do not respond with answers but undoing the article [45] (but Nsk92 said it was before 1991 cold war that but there is current superpower status article in the earlier situation which is misleading the reader) even when the consensus was not final. Originally it was User:Nsk92 who wanted to call Russia a great power back in August 8th 2010[46] providing non-acedemic sources on to the intro page. I commented then [47]but I allowed it even though I disagreed with it.

Now that the issue has come back User:Greyhood first went changing the intro page before consensus [48] which stike my attention to stop. User:Greyhood carried on with the editing but less than 24 hours the intro is changed without a single source stating Russia is a great superpower, no one source. Between User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner have not provided a single source of acedemic sources or even some sources to the article. It seems unfair that we have a open article that confuses the readers when Googling "Russia Superpower" [49] but under articles Superpowers, potential superpowers Russia is considered a emerging superpower and no sources but under great powers there is no acedemic sources Russia being a great power either as User:Greyhood said to find the information but he has refused me to look up acedemic sources but he has not replied anything. I even replied to look under United Nations Security Council but no sources of anything that says Russia is a great power which User:Greyhood said there was and nothing exist there either.

I am appealing as I think there is a misconeption here that as much as I have tried to ask I have been denied the answers from User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner but editor User:FellGleaming undid the intro himself and admitted there was a problem[50] by agreeing with me[51]

I also asked User:Nsk92 to respond in providing sources here [52] but he did not respond in anyway.

Like post these sample sources to see my point on Russia as a superpower with titles dates, authors and media sources below here: "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[53], "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [54] or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [55] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [56] or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [57] or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[58] or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[59] or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [60] or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [61] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[62] or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[63] or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[64] or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[65] or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[66] or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[67] or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[68]

Now this is 17 sources, I have about 110 total on Russia being a superpower but what gets me is no one is replying to these sources as these are recent sources from this year. I am confused to User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner they are imposing on me as asking too many questions but they don't supply back with any sources to say that Russia is a great power over what I have provided as Russia as a superpower for example. Seems very unfair to me but also to the readers this is confusing them and willing to provide sources to state my claim here.

So I ask is there needs to be either more consensus on this topic to have editors supply answers with sources. If you look at the article currently there is not sources Russia after the works Russia is a great power, not a thing said and User:Nsk92 erased my version when I added this recently twice [69][70] which said: Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources

User:Nsk92 said I was pushing the edits is not true when you see my discussions on the talkpages here[71] yet User:Nsk92 originally wrote this clause back in August 8 [72] by saying: although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.. Which I am writing what he put on the article intro back then applying it again but now he is opposing it. I think User:Nak9 is failing the complaint against me when he was originally apart of this edit conversion from Superpower to Great Power back in August 8, 2010. Seems he is blamming me for something he orginally wrote himself in August 8 but I provided sources to the text for example. You can compare the examples here - this is User:Nsk92 version [73] and mine here version [74]. I am questioning this as it seems User:Nsk92 is more concerned with Russia being called a great power than reading new sources on Russia being a superpower or even them providing sources to other editors vice versa on this discussion. I feel there is something is bothering in this intro because it says Russia being a superpower and User:Nsk92 User:Greyhood rightly oppose it but they did not provide any sources back to support their edits to the article to change Russian from superpower to great power.

I have not bothered anybody but tried to get realible sources using the talkpages (and talkspages on Nsk9, Greyhood and Offline) and I have been denied requested source from answers concerning this matter. I ask for is some from of resolution for a continuing this intro section on the talkpages so sources can be reviewed and able to see and agree in some fashion as there is no sources here and I rightly disgree to this article as it stands which should be addressed. Also the big issue too is allowing acedemic sources and media sources to support Russia being a superpower or even a great power in that in regards too. Can we simply then use sources such as media sources if any sources such as acedemic sources are not available to promote the article? I think this would probably give the article a chance to base it on its available sources to agree with or not depending who provides the sources if Russia is up for being displayed as a superpower or potential superpower or emerging superpower for example? --Globalstatus (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Global, you've made 10 edits to your response. I'd request that in the future that if you're making addendums to your comments, you not refactor what's already on the page as it makes it easier for other users to see what you've written without having to reread six paragraphs and figure out what the difference is by memory. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Elektrik Shoos - Sorry I was only trying to fix my add ins I found on my edits I have added to my case for example. I also have made a few misspellings and some words I missed as examples.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Globalstatus is continuing to edit war, and I think he's over 3RR now. Can we get a block please? Offliner (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please. S/he's rejecting academic books published by OUP as sources, for Heaven's sake, and is spamming talkpages. Either a POV warrior, or through incompetence and pigheadedness is a bull in a china shop. There's a very productive GA-focused re-write/clearout of Russia going on to bring it down to an appropriate length, and Globalstatus' interventions are causing havoc. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

I disgree. I have seen some edits that were done without consensus, never broke the 3RR rule either. I am simply questioning some of the sources as seeing some edits made without valid sources to the article. I have posted on the talk pages requesting further sources and acedemic sources to see if the edits were necessary. No abuse at all here to protect the article from lack of sources and questioning the edits done to check if they have their information that's all.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

Replying to User:VsevolodKrolikov that I User:Globalstatus have not rejected any OUP sources, there no information that I did that I an object to that statement. My editing history is right here [75] and I have not been spamming the pages either. I have bought up new topics of discussions for editing done on Russia to question the editing when no sources were provided. I have replied to every comment on my talkpages and I have stayed within my own grounds to ask questions on sources. The main problem is there is editing abuse on the article Russia which I will report my information on this page for abusive editing that is a big concern to the viewers and Adminstrators. For now as my response I am not spamming and nor am I doing any 3RR either; I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Offliner comments that is simply untrue.

--Globalstatus (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here Globalstatus rejects OUP published (and other university imprint) sources without reason - those being the sources at the Great power article, which Globalstatus refuses to acknowledge (bear this in mind when s/he repeats the allegation that no one has offered sources - there are other occasions like this as well, such as here. S/he really is a bit deaf. Here, here, here, and here s/he spams usertalk pages with basically the same message. An inspection of the edit history of the Russia page will show the pattern of editing.

The basic problem is that Globalstatus does not understand that Wikipedia does not take sides in disputes - this one being whether one calls Russia a superpower or not. I don't think s/he understands the topic at all well (what is a "Great power", for example), and it's having an impact on his/her behaviour. S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu ("one of the world's most important people") on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous, being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever.

Establishing 3RR is technically messy, as it's been reverts to several different edits (in addition to fending off the POV attack, editors are also trying to excise material from a very long article), but there have certainly been at least five in 24 hours which undo other editor's work, and more edits that have been clearly against talkpage consensus. Please would an admin deal with this? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have again fixed your posts, Global, per WP:TPO; I've already explained to you that user pages exist in the user namespace, and that if you want to link to them, you must put in the User: prefix. Please either do it correctly or don't do it at all. Users pages are not articles, and are found in the userspace. It's just confusing when we all have to sort out when you are, and when you aren't referring to a user, and not an article. One reason amongst many userpages exist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I as User:Globalstatus am replying to false information by User:VsevolodKrolikov

I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov comments to say about OUP pushing, to say that changing misspelling on by correcting topic title “Requestion sources on Russia as great power from Request sources on Russia as a great power”--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) is wrong[76]? I am doing him a favor by correcting the title so it can be read properly and that’s all. Second when the discussions pages have been ignored on sources to ask under Russia talk pages about “Requesting sources on Russia being a great power” [77] but the editing is going on the article at the same time with no sources to the article about Russia being a great power and no one is answering to the facts. The viewers have no information on Russia being a great power because this is no information there, nothing! I posted a topic on the discussions pages first here[78] but no one provided any sources. I asked User:VsevolodKrolikov the same question here[79] but nothing, no answers. I asked User:Offliner here[80] but nothing either. I asked User:Nsk92 here [81] and nothing not a single answer. I even asked User:Greyhood too but he didn’t provide any academic sources or any sources either. The issue is that User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have all called Russia a great power but none of them have provided any sources to the article Russia but when I gave them some examples of my own sources they all rejected them for some reason. Hearing User:VsevolodKrolikov in his complaint about me above by supplying one of my own sources on Russia being a superpower by Prime Minister Netanyahu on a visit to Russia in Feb. 16, 2010 in this media statement source why Russia is a global superpower, here is the source I provided here [82] but reading User:VsevolodKrolikov his disruptive comments above in his complaint here - S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu (one of the world's most important people) on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous. What a hurtful comment on a valid source and then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on to say here - being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. That is false too. If you look at the massive editing history on Russia ‘s article here [83] you will notice the massive changes in the last few days, especially by User:Greyhood who is editing and editing on the Russia article and doing so with not much sources to his edits. But then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on and says here - Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to User:Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever. - Again this is another false statement completely. Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have been engage together on Russia article saying Russia is a great power without a single source of information and they refused to believe Russia is a superpower, refused the facts with valid credited sources, all refused to corporate with this matter. But when the terms were switched from Russia is a superpower to great power edited by User:Greyhood here [84] which editors User:Offliner , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 they all defended the article and refused the sources otherwise that Russia is a superpower. Even today when I tried to add a new area of Russia being a space super with this source [85] and what happens 3 minutes later User:Nsk92 erases it here [86] and says - stop your superpower POV pushing already! I find that very offensive because I edited a brand new source under a different area of the article and I am being threatened by User:Nsk92 which he even writes here on September 18 this comment here [87] which is really uncalled for. I have never called any of these editors anything but asked questions on facts but now I have been threaten by Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 because of asking for questions on needed sources to the article Russia and they have all denied the truth. This is really uncalled for that the article Russia is being called a great power and they refuse to change the content and they refuse to give sources why. This is extremely unfair and I feel it is bullying the article because they are misrepresenting the article to the readers reading it and I am simply doing the right thing by asking for their sources and they will not provide anything. It is like they do not want to answer anything in regards to Russia being a great power but they take so much offensive for Russia being called a superpower through when the sources say that. I am a strong believer of sources in this matter and because the sources on massive general note what is mostly common source of information on Russia is that it is being called a superpower today in the media and not a great power. Here is a library of several sources of over 90 sources that say Russia is a superpower of the 21st century, here is my information right here to read my sources: [88][89][90][91][92][93] [94][95][96][97][98] [99][100][101][102] [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144] [145][146][147][148][149][150]

I remain defending myself here and I speak the truth of my questioning the article and I have done so in way to properly ask but this guys User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have treated me with no respect in this matter to ask for the facts. I think personally the article should be closed for editing for a while until we can the facts sorted out but also the disruption of these editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have caused to the article and is simply unfair. Please if you can make some time to read my sources I have provide above and then read the intro section on article Russia under great power to see my point why it is completely misleading that should be fixed as there is no sources at all supporting it. Thanks--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Will an uninvolved admin PLEASE take a look at the situation? The disruption and relentless POV pushing by Globalstatus is causing significant problems at the Russia article, in the middle of GA reassessment. A block for tendentious editing is long overdue. Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reporting User:Nsk92 to admin for harassment and for making false accusations to this complaint, seems he is hiding the truth here and is contining to this disrupt edits and is lying by making false accusations on POV pushing. User:Nsk92 has been undoing edits and making threats to editors on Russia and refusing to work on consensus among editors. Requesting a block on User:Nsk92 for disruptive conduct on Wikipedia.--Globalstatus (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent to Nsk92's statement here, Globalstatus has placed a warning for edit warring on Russia on user:Nsk92's talkpage. This is a clear abuse of warning templates. Nsk92 has edited Russia twice in the last three days. It would be really, really, nice if an admin could address the issue of Globalstatus' behaviour. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image from GA with no explanation.

Hi. I was just wondering if anyone knew why File:Cheryl cole 3 words video.JPG was deleted, even though to my best knowledge it was properly accredited. It would be appreciated if when images like this from the music video section are deleted from GAs or FAs, someone makes it a point of courtesy to inform the user who took the article to GA. If not for this reason its at least good, for a user such as myself who contribute to lots of articles, to know the error for future reference. In no wat I'm I having a go at whoever deleted the image, rather the opposite. If there was a genuine issue its useful for me to know for the future when uploading images. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons, not here, so we cannot see the reasons for its deletion. Better to ask an admin there. Rodhullandemu 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it was moved to the commons. Thank you anway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm now not so sure about that; I can find no reference to that image even in your deleted contribs; but neither can I find any deleted uploads from you of similarly-named images. Do you have diffs to show that the image ever existed? Rodhullandemu 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Local log shows it deleted by Fastily, who is now retired. The specific reason he used was "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." If someone wants to dispute this further, an admin might as well undelete it; I don't think it's a huge deal if it was used in the appropriate section of the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really rotten screen grab of a video. I really can't see what value that could possibly add. Out of curiosity why are we promoting articles to GA if there are issues about the use of non-free images in them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA has guidelines but not fixed criteria. Promotion is up to the people who conduct GA reviews, although it is subject to later review if there is disagreement. In any case many GA's have issues of one sort or another -- GA means good article, not perfect article. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I enjoy seeing as many images as possible of girls that look like that, the article looks fine as is with the other images. It might have been polite to give a heads up to the other projects that it was being deleted but these things happen.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're having a laugh aren't you Spartaz? We've promoted articles to FA before with non-free image issues, let alone GA. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether fair use images are used in a GA or FA, it's whether their use is appropiate and within policy. Exxolon (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That was Black Kite's point too, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Hence the word "issues". Clearly no-one is saying they should never be used in a GA or FA, that would be ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an image expert, but I don't think this was a speedy case. You could take this to WP:DRV for discussion if you were so inclined. My guess is that it would end up deleted anyways based on Spartaz's comments, but it might be worth a try. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

either way this shouldn't have been made into a big issue. The image was present for a long timeand it was used in the music video section as a visual representation of Cole's platinum wig which features prominently in the music video of the song. Whilst i respect comments made about articles being promoted to GA and FA without images or when images have issues it is frequently brought up by reviewers, who often say "Why is there no image of the music video"? I think the current guideline is not clear enough. The judgement of "whether the image adds contextual significance" is subjective to each individual reviewing editor. What constitutes a contextual significance? surely "Cole dressing up in a platinum wig and using make-up to portray a pale complexion" has contexual significance because in the video she looks different to who she normally looks in real life. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

Ajona1992 has a long history of copyright problems and personal attacks on other editors, not to mention WP:OWN issues on the Selena article. He was blocked from 3rr a few weeks ago, and he refuses to listen to other editors advise. Now comes this edit, in which me and SandyGeorgia agree he should be blocked for that. He's just going to disrupt even more, especially once the Selena article gets unprotected. A block is warranteed, and a topic ban as well. Thanks Secret ^account 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you, Secret... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

She was attacking me. I only attack people if they attack me. First of all those pics belongs to my family and me just becuz u guys found 200 of the same pics on google.com doesn't prove your right. AJona1992 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"They did it first" i not an excuse. IMO there's an inferable WP:TOV in the diff provided, and would support a block at least. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a "threat of violence", I'm quite sure. It's a little "heated", but no way is it an actual threat. A block may happen for other reasons, however... Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly I do take other editors advice! esp when people wanted to help me I LOVED it I was happy that they wanted to help me on wikipedia I needed it after being attack by all you guys telling me that my pictures are in violation, my magazines are fake, etc, etc. Once someone asked me if I needed help I always say "yes" except to you becuz all you do is this, I add a source from a magazine and all you do is REVERT IT becuz YOU don't have it or know about it. AJona1992 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I am having issues with her on here (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1). So maybe this can help you guys decide weather or not I should stay here. Also you guys should look at my contributions as well. AJona1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes also she keeps talking about me and the magazine that is not currently listed as an unreliable magazine, that's all she AND you keep bringing up. AJona1992 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has come across AJona1992 more than I want to remember, I'm not surprised to see that his behavior hasn't changed a bit, nor his has his editing habits. His continuous addition of copyright violations text here on en.wiki and copyright violations in image form on en.wiki, Commons and throughout several other different language Wikis that have yet to be deleted is just the beginning of this user's edit history. His astounding immaturity and complete negligence of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as his overall intolerance to admit he can be and is often wrong on multiple levels with multiple issues, whether is being sourcing issues, categorization, policies, etc., really makes me wonder if he'll end up being blocked indefinitely before the new year. His claims that his grandmother took these pictures are utterly ridiculous, as many of the admins who work with images and copyright here and on Commons are well aware of (note in point, he claims this image was taken by his grandmother and the quality of the picture is attributed to being scanned, yet this higher quality, high resolution and uncropped version was somehow published before the supposed scan, huh). You can offer him all the help in the world, but once he disagrees with you, he resorts to naming calling, personal attacks, incivility and the typical "HAHA lulz". Even with all this problematic behavior, I still haven't even begun mentioning his block for sockpuppetry and 3RR, as well as his attempt of meatpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing to push his Selena WikiProject proposal through. The community is simply wasting far too much time on this one individual. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppetry as well, and claiming copyrighted photos was part of her family collection wow I'll endorse a indef block of the user right now, he's more trouble than he's worth. Secret ^account 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CHICOGAGA should be blocked indef as a meatpuppet of Ajona. Secret ^account 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you is "wow" I tried asking advice from you, yea I bet your saying again "stop the mellow drama" but I was really asking for some advice. Anyways I understand where your coming from but the thing is my grandmother/mother really did take these pictures I mean I am not going to let you guys get away with the comments you have said about it either. The sock thingy I only did ONE TIME and I didn't know about the rule to begin with. Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards. I do have anger issues and nor should I talk about my life here becuz it doesn't involve in this. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). AJona1992 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm another thing here the people who helped me and encourage me, I never disagree with them and even if I did we never argued! you can ask every person who was willing to help me and and I accepted it I got along with them very well, you know why? becuz they never talked to me the way you guys are, they are more calm and more pleasant to talk to they don't go around here sticking their heads up in the sky thinking they run stuff, no they actually, even though told I was trouble, stood by me and helped me. AJona1992 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in California Secret! And my IP address confirms that, so next time go do some research before accusing me of something that I didn't do. AJona1992 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards—please take a look at WP:POINT. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). Well, you're not banned. And if you do something wrong, there is a negative consequence. Your talk page shows that many people have tried to help, but yet you have continued some of the things they have asked you to stop doing, like posting copyvios. You *yawn* at it here and then again (bigger) here. That's just counterproductive. If you treat others like that, who are also here on their free time, you will not be helped and encouraged much longer. It's just rude. So yea… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read a little about it after my episode to prove that "Q-Productions" was a great external link. And what I was saying there was that I was banned from sock and 3rr and I didn't know there was a rule about socking I just only wanted to get my project approved. Yea I need to work on that but I don't want to abandon the Selena article because I feel that a "FA" should include and not limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a strong warning, such a strong warning that I had to break WP:CIVIL in order to tell him the truth, but a WP:IAR could be used in my case. But with it I think he understands the situation now. I'll work with him. Thanks Secret ^account 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Ajona: You don't seem to understand sourcing requirements for featured articles, as evidenced by a review of the Selena talk page and FAR, and there seem to be quite a few other problems with your Wiki editing. Your participation has been disruptive, and your post to the Selena FAR was certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not a WP:TOV. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and we're here to collaborate to (hopefully) produce high quality articles; editors who don't understand that might do better to spend their time on the internet elsewhere. If you don't learn and follow Wiki policies, admins will help you find another place to spend your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, folks, WP:TOV "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." See WP:VIOLENCE - do you think the local authorities should be contacted because of this "threat"? "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a 'real world' threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to authorities." It's not a real world threat with genuine intent... Doc9871 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doc, again SandyG I only edit the page Selena if I find something that should belong there (most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, Best Latin artist of the decade, best 1990s singer, now don't you think these belong on a article?) with sources from Billboard. If it's to revert to prove a point than yea I have done that but I was only doing that becuz I had sources and everyone was just dead against me expanding the article which is kinda dumb (in my point of view) becuz I believe that a FA article shouldn't limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines people have cited say otherwise; it's not just what you think is correct. Please understand that this is probably why you ended up here in the first place: not taking in others' advice. Airplaneman ✈ 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I left some "friendly advice" on AJona1992's talk page and he'll hopefully consider it: and he seems to be civilly working with the same editor who reported this thread (and who intially called for a block and a topic ban). Hopefully this should cool down quickly, and time will determine if they can't work something out. His userpage (if accurate) is very open about his RL identity, and he is a young editor who hopefully can learn policy. His bad behavior is noted, and if he's disruptive again at all it will be dealt with swiftly, I'm sure. One more chance, maybe? Just my 2p... Doc9871 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest mentorship to Ajona1992. Perhaps that will help. It's a tool that I think sadly doesnt get used often enough, especially for those people who seem honestly desiring to contribute, but simply cant grasp that things on Wikipedia are different than how one would write about or discuss them in the "real world" (wherever that is). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992 has accepted my mentorship on 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC). He's got an article up for GA review (that he turned from a 3K stub into an article nearly GA ready), and I've spent a few hours tonight working with him on it (providing input here and there) and going over guidelines and such. A very productive night and I feel strongly that he'll turn out to be a valued editor. I've also written this for my adoptees (I've got two) and they are following along with it fine (anyone is free to comment or contribute to it. already made some revisions based on other editors and admins feedback).

Back to the ANI at hand, at this point, I cannot claim uninvolvement as I'm AJona1992's mentor, so my recommendation should carry less weight I would presume, but my feelings are this ANI can be closed as resolved with AJona1992 being mentored and productive with me available to help him avoid any difficult situations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: I have seen users banned for far less than what has been going on with this user and that somewhat troubles me. Not that this user has not been banned but how quickly other users are for doing far less. In general this user has consistently "threatened" editors with variations of "You better watch out". One perfect example is when an admin tried to explain about OTRS in relation to the Grammy photo, and how to include a scan of press passes that would have allowed their grandmother into the media room. The issue actually started earlier when the image in question (File:Selenagrammy.jpg) was tagged with an {{otrs pending}} and a search turned up nothing. (File permission problem with File:Selenagrammy.jpg) The discussion quickly saw AJona1992 re-purposing the header by renaming it to "This user who is deleting the photo loves it as a hobby", and resorting to statements such as And she's not going to that at all because that's her personal information, oh well I guess the photo is going to be deleted, such a shame that Wikipedia is so lame HAHAHAHA.; I gather that your stupid; forgive me if no one told you that if ANYONE dares to talk shit or says something to me that is offensive then I will attack back.; Oh well no one told you that I dont back down, if you want to talk things through lets do it other wise I'm not going to let some girl I don't even know talk to me like I'm a peace of shit.; I don't take shit from no one if you want to talk then talk, dont come on my talk page bringing your useless comments. and I have been trying to show proof but f*** this you was coming at me very rudely. I will just upload a new picture another day. (August 21, 2010) That conversation alone would have gotten most people blocked, but combined with repeated like comments such as Talk:Selena#Merge_discussion: Also YOU need to know that YOU should NEVER threaten me EVER because I don't play fair nor do I back down from ANYONE as you can tell on my old talk page. I know theres rules and stuff like that but once you cross me I can be just as mean as anyone maybe even worse *laughs to the floor OUT LOUD*.; Formal Copyright warning: *yawns bigger* well this is my talk page and I understand the poiclies that you guys made up but if someone is going to attack me, don't think for one second that I am not going to respond.; dont cross me DA:I want to tell you off so freaking bad but I am going to tell you this, I am the type of guy that you don't want to cross... and Review commentary: re:...if the magazine said the funeral held more than 100 million so be it, so argue with them and not talk s about me.) I agree with Explicts summary of the situation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Resolved

 – The socks have been dealt with. Also, Pfagerburg has agreed to a complete interaction ban with any socks of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and will focus on editing articles instead. Reports about socks can be made to the appropriate venue, after which Pfagerburg will disengage so other users may deal with the problems. Any violation of this interaction ban will result in an extremely long block up to an indefinite one. AniMate 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently, PaulFagburg (talk · contribs) was created as an impersonation and harassment account, see for example [151]. A sockpuppet investigation revealed that the account was probably a sock of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and revealed several other co-located socks.

What can I do to expunge the account that was used to harass and impersonate me? Can I force a username change of that account through WP:CHU?

More importantly, when are admins like SlimVirgin and JzG going to stop trying to tie my hands when I deal with repeated ban evasion? At the time of SV's message, I was reverting 2-year-old edits from socks of a banned user, and SV, JzG and Rkitko stepped in. That same rationale would not apply to the fresh edits I just finished reverting; "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." Pfagerburg (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know little of the case, but have been musing on a solution to this. I will post on the talk page of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask a crat to rename the impersonation account. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the request is pending. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not free to revert any edits you please, as has been explained to you on your talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument there, which derives from opinions on a talk page, is incorrect. By policy, banned users are not allowed to edit, and any edits identifiable as being in defiance of a ban are subject to reversion or deletion, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've been getting at - there are admins on here who believe that I'm not allowed to revert edits by banned users, and are willing to threaten me and misquote me to make their point. Pfagerburg (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, you misrepresented what I said. I was pretty sure I was clear that I was addressing a violation of policy, in one of the few instances where one does not need to be an admin to act. I'm an equal-opportunity WP:BAN-reverter; if I see a sockpuppet of another banned user, I'll revert them, too. It has nothing to do with whether I dislike the banned user in question here. Pfagerburg (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also notice I said identifiable. Obviously, if a sock goes to some new area to work, and behaves himself, he'll stay under the radar, and theoretically wikipedia will benefit. But socks usually can't resist going back to the same places that led to them getting banned, and some way or another they make themselves known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like you said, "if a sock ... behaves himself," and that's the key. If he had kept his head down, instead of impersonating and harassing me, then an SPI would not have uncovered the apparently unrelated sockpuppet Aporocactus.

As you can see from comments on the talk page, Aporocactus has promised to come back again in defiance of his ban. And it looks like Petri Krohn will help him evade his ban, even though "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." [152]

Petri Krohn has gone in and restored content that the banned user created after I reverted it per policy. To me, this looks like editing on behalf of a banned user, and by an admin who should know better, no less. I would like to see Petri Krohn admonished for helping a banned user evade his ban, and prohibited from restoring that banned user's edits back into articles. Pfagerburg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

Petri Krohn is not an admin, and any threats he's leveling against you are a bluff. It is within policy to revert any entries by a banned user, regardless of the alleged "quality" of those entries. And if Krohn is acting as a proxy for a banned user, he needs to stop it or he himself may have to face some consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I thought he was an admin. He sure acted like one. Well, then, check his contributions and see how he restored almost everything I made to revert out the banned user's edits. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a few diffs of some of Petri's acting as a proxy, then I would think this is a good place to start the process of a formal complaint. If he won't stop, then other levels of complaints can be brought against him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See history of articles below. If I go back and re-revert the banned user's edits, wouldn't that be edit-warring? Pfagerburg (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would probably get us right back here, so it needs to stay here until some actual admins weigh into the discussion. I've also asked Petri to come back here, because he's got it wrong. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will leave the banned user's content (through Petri Krohn's restores) in-place for now, until/unless we get a resolution that the content should be removed. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is something wrong with the content, there are multiple ways you can flag it for review. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The content is not relevant to the discussion. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] Pfagerburg (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Pfagerburg for pointing out the previous AN/I discussion. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#IP sock of Jeff Merkey active again. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This Merkey character was indef'd two years ago the 8th. Assuming he was also banned, edits he made prior to that point, if legitimate, could stand. Any edits a user makes once he's banned are subject to deletion regardless of their supposed quality. Arguing that a banned editor's edits should be allowed to stand, under any circumstances, is wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He was banned, see User:Werdna/JVM Block. I never reverted anything he wrote prior to being blocked (by Arbcom) and then banned (by the community). Pfagerburg (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He and you were both banned for a year, 3 years ago. He's indef'd, but is he banned? The two are not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that your edits serve no other purpose than a personal vendetta against Merkey. You are not allowed to edit in bad faith. As was pointed out to you last time, you can only edit Wikipedia if you aim to improve the encyclopedia. Besides, considering your ever more apparent conflict of interests you should stay away form anything associated with Merkey. If you really think there is something wrong with the articles or the edits, there are multiple other ways to alert the community of the problem. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong that reverting edits of banned users serves no purpose. It does serve a purpose: It enforces policy. Banned users are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"No other purpose?" Yes, I have made a lot of edits regarding this banned user's evasion. However, I have made plenty of other edits over the life of my account, and even now, I am not exclusively editing in relation to his ban evasion. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, you're mixing up two separate issues, and you're dead wrong on the one. If Pfagerburg has a conflict of interest, then that's an issue. However, if Merk is on a permanent ban (and I'm waiting for evidence on that key point), then he is not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged quality of his edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:List_of_banned_users and search for "Merkey". Pfagerburg (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he was permanently banned on June 29th. That means any edits made by his socks since then are fair game for reversion. Unless he was under a different ban prior to that point, I would recommend leaving the older edits alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I have not (and will not) reverted anything made by that user when he was not under a block or ban. Even the 2-year-old edits I was reverting this summer were made under IP socks of the banned user at the time he was blocked. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify - I am lobbying to revert only the very recent edits by socks of this banned user. Even though I believe that the 2-year-old edits are still "revertable" under policy, it has caused too much disruption to the project. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful Petri will come back here at some point and explain why he thinks it's OK for banned users to violate their ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And if he continue to stonewall the discussion, I would recommend that an RFC/U be filed against him, for proxying edits of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not say so. I said, it seems like Pfagerburg is acting in bad faith. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits of a banned user. I did this without reading the contribs, because it's policy that banned users are not allowed to edit. You restored those edits, also wholesale, which implies that you didn't care about the content, just preserving the edits of that banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and this is enforced by reverting their edits on sight. The end. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did review the content. However that is totally irrelevant. My actions are not under discussion here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what you think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Merkey case, or why Pfagerburg is so fixated on him, but I noticed in July that the account was being used almost entirely in pursuit of Merkey, so I advised Pfagerburg that if the situation continued, I would consider blocking him indefinitely. He agreed to stop, and more or less stopped editing, and now I see it has started up again. Given that he's already been banned for a year by ArbCom in connection with this, I've applied an indefinite block to the account. Whatever the fixation with Merkey is about, it's not good for either party or for Wikipedia. If Merkey's edits need to be reverted someone else can do it.

I've left a note on Pfagerburg's talk here. If any uninvolved admin wants to review and overturn the block, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since banned users are not allowed to edit, should I take your comment above as permission to revert the banned user's edits? And are you going to also block Krohn for proxying a banned user's edits? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, now look what you have done! Your continued trolling has lead to your friend being indeffed. I was about to warn you, but that would have looked like I was proposing it. I strongly suggest that you end now, or you too may be facing sanctions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the author of this mess. You had no business restoring the edits of a banned user. And belay the threats. You have no ground to stand on. I never heard of either you or Pfagerburg until today. But it is YOU that continues to violate policy. However, I take SlimVirgin's comment to be permission for a disinterested party to revert your policy-violating restorations of edits that cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my post to say anything it didn't clearly say, BB. :) My own view is that the edits should be left alone if they're good, and reverted if they're bad. I realize that others take a different view. My only involvement here is that Pfagerburg's account was almost a single-purpose account used in pursuit of Merkey and that had to stop. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You said, "If Merkey's edits need to be reverted..." Well, they do need to be reverted. Banned users are not allowed to edit. "Your view" is incorrect. Banned users' edits cannot be allowed to stand. That's the rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". We don't keep only the good edits of a banned user who has resurfaced: it defeats the purpose of banning them... Doc9871 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Thanks for reiterating that. And that's the green light. I've reverted a handful of Petri's policy-violating restorations, and I will continue that process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues, Doc. A banned user must not edit at all, and any accounts should be blocked. But that doesn't mean his edits must be reverted no matter how good they are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If one can't even break 3RR by "reverting actions performed by banned users" (says nothing about the "quality" of the edits), I'm not quite following. Banned users can make "good" edits under a ban that we should consider keeping, but not bad ones? Why are they banned from editing? So they can't edit at all. I've seen WP:DENY arguments used to revert any edit from a banned user/their socks on sight...Doc9871 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. So if they do edit, their edits can be reverted. And by re-posting them afterwards, a user such as Krohner flaunts the rules. He has been quoted this rule over and over, and won't pay attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the items that were specifically on Pfager's list. I have also posted a note on his talk page opining that the block was improper, and that if anyone should be blocked, it's Petri, for flaunting the rules. I don't expect that to happen. But Pfager needs to be unblocked, and Petri needs to stop stalking him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So how on earth do these articles ever get improved then? If a banned user corrects a typo, then must the typo stand forever? Is anyone who corrects the typo then breaking the ban? How different do you want the content? Much of the material is pretty straighforward biology and uncontroversial. I am happy to 'swamp' the changes in an overall improvement of plant articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles get improved by editors that aren't banned. If a sock of a banned user sticks to grammar corrections, they might never be detected. When they are, we revert any edit to deny them recognition. That is how they remain effectively banned... Doc9871 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There's an additional factor to be considered: as Bugs and Doc have said, a banned user's edits can be deleted without respect to their quality. But if another editor chooses to re-add the information in one of those edits, then that editor takes responsibility for the edit themselves. The edits of a banned user are poisoned, but the information is not, if it is (essentially) vouched for by another editor. If there's a pattern of an editor doing this, then the edtor can be sanctioned for proxying for a banned user, but that doesn't hold for an occasional or incidental edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - According to the banning policy, typo and vandalism reverts are not required to be reverted, but it is presumed. While Pfagerburg should have checked the edit summaries, he was completely in the clear by reverting those edits. While there IS a conflict of interest here, I don't think it deserves an indef unless the ArbCom stated that he was to have NO contact with the banned user. Ishdarian|lol^wut 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an indef here is absolutely appropriate, as indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If Pfagerburg agrees to not revert any more edits by Merkey's socks he should be fine. If he spots any edits, he can report them here and a neutral editor without a conflict of interest can revert them. Continuing their dispute in this way is not acceptable, and he needs to disengage. AniMate 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion of an interaction ban between an editor and the sockpuppets of a banned editor? Is that even possible? You mean edits of "past" socks or "potential future" socks? Sockpuppets of a banned editor shouldn't be continuing a dispute on WP at all... Doc9871 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the same question I have. I do not understand why an editor that reports and identifies a banned editor that is using sockpuppets in violation of an indef ban is blocked. Illogical to me. To go along with DENY and BAN, the sequence of events here and the actions of admins really has me confused. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's say it started with a "brilliant scientist" who had and article about him on Wikipedia. The scientist was not Pfagerburg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where you're going here. Please, continue... Doc9871 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Searching the web for Merkey brings this page as the number 2 result. I do not know how Merkey is related to the SCO / Linux disputes, but it sure the hell has nothing to do with cacti -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" are you unable to understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion as a third party: indef block was not necessary. Strong warning followed by first 24 hour block would've sufficed. And definitely should not have been blocked by an admin listed above by the user as being involved in the issue.

Further, Petri Krohn's repeated threats (eg "I strongly suggest that you end now, or you too may be facing sanctions") here are unacceptable, especially from a non-admin. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any way involved here. My first and only previous interaction with Pfagerburg was in July when I warned him he risked being indefblocked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merk had already been banned by June 29th. Any edits Merk made after that were subject to removal, and if you threatened to block Pfager for such removal, you were in the wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Strange Passerby, Doc9871, Ishdarian, Dave Dial, et al thank you for your support. I have resolved this issue with the blocking administrator, and no further comments are necessary. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Qwasty

Qwasty (talk · contribs)

Does anyone have prior experience with this user? Goes on bizarre campaigns of "reverting vandalism", dumps unsigned final warnings on my talkpage[169] (and apparently others[170][171][172][173][174][175][176]). Fails the Turing test: apparently revert-wars based on byte-counts (reducing article size = vandalism), does not appear to be willing or able to consider the issue or the argument presented.

Probably just an overzealous kid, but imho it's an ANI item because of the bizarre final warnings and the silly cries of "vandalism". WP:BATTLEGROUND. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing seems like a content dispute. The only problem is that User:Qwasty ignores WP:AGF and WP:DTTR. Instead of attacking everyone who reverts his edits, he should be told to bring his dispute to the talk page first. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of dispute it is. So far, hundreds of edits that aren't even mine are being reverted without any justification (mostly bot formatting edits). Verbal abuse similar to the above does not constitute discussion: "Fails the Turing test", "overzealous kid", "silly", etc. It's tough to assume good faith from a fountain of insults and mass destruction of hundreds of edits from numerous editors, with no edit summary. Dbachmann SEEMS to have concerns worthy of discussion, but I haven't been able to get him to discuss them in the appropriate talk page sections. Qwasty (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your complaints about the US and UK undue weight tags, they were discussed above your new sections.

Also, all the examples given of the improper use of warning templates, while inappropriate, are from four years ago, except for Dbachs. Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The undue weight sections weren't discussed. They were created immediately after the tags were placed, and they are still almost entirely empty. After that, the tags, the sections, and every edit in the days prior which were done by myself, the approved bots, and other users were all mass reverted to Dbachmann's last edits. What little "discussion" there is consists mostly of personal attacks and red herrings about subjects other than mass revert. No one has been able to focus on a single relevant topic of discussion yet. Dbachmann even went so far as to try to consolidate the discussion topics I created under a heading "Qwasty", which I find to be merely further flippancy that does not aid discussion. In essence, the only clear message I'm receiving from Dbachmann is his desire to dominate the article, including in such minor areas as bot formatting edits, by reverting all edits made after his own. The rest of his communications are so rife with angst and vitriol, it's difficult to extract further meaning from them. Qwasty (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not super-impressed with the accusations of vandalism and verbal abuse, nor the edit warring at witch-hunt. So far most of the discussion seems to have been about the abusive actions of dab rather than the edits themselves. It's possible the edits are justified and the references are there to support them, but so far I've yet to see them. Dab's actions are perhaps slightly controversial, but not outrageous and certainly not vandalism. I repeat here my suggestion made to Qwasty at talk:witch-hunt to calm down, present sources and discuss. It is possible there is information that could be included on the page, but that depends on the sources and I've yet to see them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, there's been little to no complaint about statements that are unsourced. On top of that, I have been doing the research and adding sources on my own. That process was halted in mass reverts. Dab/Dbachmann has provided no avenue of resolution other than to insist on destruction of all edits. Each communication from him is provocative in nature. Hostile, minimal communication immediately precludes a presumption of good faith, and combined with groundless wide-ranging destruction can reasonably be construed as vandalism. Perhaps vandalism targeted to me personally, or the bots, or the other editors affected - but still vandalism. Qwasty (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read the definition of vandalism. Seriously, you are quite, quite wrong.

I have now complained about a lack of sources. Dbachmann has engaged on the talk page, now it's up to you to do so as well. Despite claiming hostility and ridicule, the comments aren't particularly offensive - especially given your own behaviour. Please calm down, and assemble the best sources to substantiate your point. Then present it for discussion to the three people who are waiting to see the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This diff seems like canvassing. Ishdarian|lol^wut 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing complaint

I'm going to be away from my computer for a while, so can someone please look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barry Wellman where there is an outing complaint and the edits and edit history of the IP there and what I assume is the IP's account MultimediaGuru (talk · contribs). I think there's a case for some rev/del and possibly a block, which I would support (and might have done myself had I more time to check again) unless there is compelling evidence not to block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I redacted the info that attempted to out an editor, and then had to rev delete 2 days' worth of edits to that noticeboard. What a mess. :( -- Atama頭 17:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking into MultimediaGuru's editing history, I see outing of this particular editor going back to 2008. This is a huge mess. This editor has also attempted to out another editor as well. I'm going to clean up everything and then I'm indefinitely blocking the editor, I'll look into the IP in a bit too. This is unacceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cleaned up Talk:Barry Wellman from MultimediaGuru (redacted stuff and did some revision deletions, 2 years' worth in fact) and cleaned up what the IP did at both WP:BLPN and User talk:Antiselfpromotion. I blocked the IP for a week. -- Atama頭 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And even more at User:MultimediaGuru and Talk:Virtual community. I think that's the lot now. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, I was afraid I might have missed something. I've never deleted so many revisions at once before! -- Atama頭 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you both for this, sorry I wasn't in a position to help. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the IP there is outing someone. Sigh... I'll zap that one too. Thanks for pointing that out. Let's see how many more revisions need deleting to get rid of that one... -- Atama頭 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is 10, 10 more revisions deleted to hide the info. -- Atama頭 15:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

Prior AN/I, which failed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo

I am User:Steve Quinn. User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Several other editors are invloved. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other.

First encounter with Stevertigo, here: [177] where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. Please see edit history statement. Next, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement, [178]. In addition, it is mostly incomprehensible. Also, this part appears to be cited, but some other editor had placed the this template: {{failed verification|date=July 2010|reason=much of this, the part Stevertigo sourced to "moi" (himself) is very clearly not in citation}}.

On the talk page Stevertigo had created a new section, with my User-name as the section title [179]. He quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next, is my response [180]. Also I changed the name for the inappropriate section title. Using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. It has the appearance of a personal attack. See edit history statement for my response.

My response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name [181]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [182]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [183]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [184].

I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. I ended up placing my response in another section [185].

The lede is where Steveritgo desires to place his edits. In fact, in these several articles it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede:

Punishment ---- [186], [187].

Time in physics ---- [188], [189]

Physics ---- [190]

Human ---- [191], [192] (see also "Addtion to my complaint" below)

Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

This assertion is supported by the following statement on his user-talk page [193] "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas, [194]. This is linked to his own essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization. He created this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here, [195], he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Also, the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

There is also a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, a list of concepts, i.e.,

• reality
• physical, physics
• transformation, change
• etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps Stevertigo thinks editing is about gaining the high ground when insisting on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here - [196], and here [197] It changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. This creates a battleground atmosphere.

Jim Wade removes Stevertigo's WP:OR statement. See edit history comments. [198], [199]. And I agreed with him [200]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [201], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [202]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [203]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [204]. He appears to be using a guideline to gain an advantage. However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

Before I came on the scene, this behavior appears on July 12, 2010. This lede is similar to his lede of August 2 and after. [[205]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [206], cullimanting in [207] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [215]. Outnumbered, Stevertigo finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V --- [216], [217], [218], [219], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [220]. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V) [221] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [222]. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th [223]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [224]. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th [225].

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction" [226]. He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. [227], [228]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [229]. With this Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits? Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material [230]. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: (edit conflict) As I state on my userpage, one of my main focuses for years has been on improving the ledes to articles. Examples from the last couple days include my my edits to the war, militarism and rights articles. My issues with SQ became centered at the punishment article, after my rewrite of the lede (the first edits there in months), another editor followed me there after losing an editorial debate at time, and SQ followed suit. I have been trying to get the point accross to SQ that his way of conceptualizing a concept and introducing the topic (punishment in this case) lacked the kind of cohesion and substance that I think articles require. He talks about keeping a fidelity to the sources, and I have no problem with this point. The problem is that he sometimes apparently parrots the sources such that what is being written doesn't actually make sense. I recorded a spoken audio file of SQ's introduction to the punishment article (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg) because I think when read aloud, the inherent inconsistencies (in SQ's conceptualization) become rather obvious, and this negates any value that blind sourcing brings. I was expecting SQ to respond on that article talk page, not here. I will of course substantiate my view of his writing with a point-by-point critique. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template {{subst:ANI-notice}} so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, thanks for your suggestion. If I could I would. This complaint encompasses four articles, three talk pages, one user-page, and one essay page. Furthermore, there were three or four other editors involved. The admins are only human, like you and I, and it would be impossible, and time consuming, to sort through reams of editing, edting history, and talk page discussions. Hence, this compliant is like a road map. I use one article as an example of the editing pattern for all the articles involved. Then I briefly supply diffs for the other articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I interacted with user Stevertigo on Time in physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where, against talk page consensus, and against adequately sourced material, the user was pushing (in article and on talk page) apparent original research onto the lead.

The user's first edit on Time in physics was on 30-Jul-2010. At the point were Stevertigo had given up using the talk page (on (5-Aug-2010), he added his self-created nonce-template tag (Template:nonce), to the article, meaning essentially nothing more than "I don't like the lead and I want everyone to know." It was agreed on the talk page that this was highly inappropriate, so the tag was removed and the user notified. See also Wikipedia:Nonce_introductions and this request. Both comments were ignored without a comment a few days later.

A week later on 13-Aug-2010 the user made his most recent edit, essentially restoring his first edit as if nothing had happened before. This was prompty undone by Steve Quinn and nothing further happened.

In my opinion this was an example of problematic editing, and/but I assumed that the problem was solved at this point. I had not looked at the user's contributions since then, although it seems to me that this string of recent edits to Physics could be problematic, in the sense that they seem to be altering properly sourced statements with personal POV's. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to my complaint: On August 30th, in the article Human, Stevertigo began another campaign of inserting his WP:OR [231]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [232]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [233]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [234]. As can be seen with the following diffs, an Stertivigo edit wars with at least four other editors, continuing until September 3rd anyway. It then appears to begin again on September 9th. Please see edit history. Also, a corresponding discussion took place on the talk page. I will send a notice to the editors involved in that recent edit war, so they may comment on this ANI, if they so desire. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved, in a minor way, in Stevertigo's changes to Human, I have to say that his edits resulted, on balance, in an improvement of the article. I haven't looked at much of the wall of text above, so I will note that Stevertigo does appear to have a communication issue - his original changes to the Human article were not clearly understandable, and his explanations of what he desired were also not clear enough. Nonetheless, he was correct that there was a subtle POV problem with the article, and his actions have reduced that problem, albeit with some difficulty. I would very much counsel Stevertigo to communicate his ideas clearly; the best exposition of your thoughts will be as plain as a grocery list and therefore just as understandable. I don't know how much of the above is caused by communications issues, but I hope that Stevertigo's ideas are getting a fair hearing regardless - though, again, I have barely reviewed the large amount of material above; it may be that Stevertigo is completely off-base and I simply haven't yet seen it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The issue here is probably best described as a personal dispute between SQ and I, motivated largely by my spoken audio file I made to clarify how unclear and unacceptable his writing is (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Steve is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My association with JimWae was largely at the Time article, which he has shepherded for years. My issue was that his intro was too simplistic and didn't talk about the subject in its most general terms: Continuum, change. We debated it and worked it out, and though less than what I wanted, the article now has a proper introductory sentence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Stevertigo has made extensive edits to Human generally against consensus and pushing his own, somewhat unclear, POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My issues with the human article largely dealt with its skeptical tone, which as Gavia noted above, amounted to a kind of systemic bias. My approach to that article began quite differently than the resulting compromise: I wanted a very philosophical introduction that made clear the distinction between human being and an animal creature/organism. This set up a rift between philosophy and scientific oriented editors. What resulted was that the article lead now includes a passage referring to "person." The human article had not even contained the world "person" until I came along. To further my point, I repeatedly beat people over the head with this basic fact that what they thought was a perfect article hadn't even made the connection between human and the idea "person." I continue to, apparently. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program and become a good contributor or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, the gist of your comment is: You think I'm "nuts" and that I should be stalked article to article (by anyone of your noble constitution) and my edits should be reverted "without [..] any more than the minimum" of discussion on talk. What part of WP:TRI don't you understand? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding OR is a long-term problem with Stevertigo. I can honestly say I have never seen him do anything else. There have been several discussions about this, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo, but it made no difference. He turned at Animal rights not long ago wanting to add his own opinions about sentience to the lead, though it was clear he had no knowledge of AR or issues surrounding sentience; no knowledge of the sources, no effort to find any; see here on talk. He kept the discussion going—a discussion entirely about his personal views, with not one reference to a source that I recall—from May 3 to May 24. His posts are often difficult to respond to, because it's not clear that they mean anything, e.g.

First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say "sensing"), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is "taken for granted" is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of "sentience" that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood.

At some point we may need to bite the bullet and start applying blocks, or perhaps go to ArbCom, because he's harming quite a lot of articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This editor has been a problem for years, and shows no signs of improving. An arbitration case may be the best option. AniMate 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since 2002. If someone has a problem with my edits, they can always put forth their best argument, and I am more than happy to put forward mine. If SQ and other's here want to sticky this ANI and keep it going, fine.

I've dealt with these kinds of things before (WP:ANI/SV), and I'll point out that these typically act as magnets for complaints of little substance, and ultimately end in failure to achieve their goal of limiting my editing. Ive said it before, I welcome any ANI, RFC, Medcom or Arbcom case regarding any specific edits I have made.

SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.

As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of WP:DISRUPT such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, and rather quirky content positions - basically iconoclasm with fangs - summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision. If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things. Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kovac09

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as sock by Selket. TFOWR 09:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Kovac09 (talk · contribs) to use edit summaries, not mark all edits as M, and pointed him to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, to no avail. Can someone else have a go? I'm also wondering about all his category work, but they may be fine, I just don't know. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to block him as a sock of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK. -Selket ^Talk 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

KaySL behavior

While in the midst of working on Dulcis foetidus, trying to save the article from AfD, I was rollbacked by KaySL with the ad hominem edit summary "If it's false, then rewrite it properly, genius." I restored the version I was working on, with the edit summary "disruptive; please stop". KaySL reverted me a second time, with the edit summary referring to "childish hyperbole". Etc. KaySL is preventing me from working on the article at all. Surely this is not acceptable behavior? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is under discussion for deletion and should remain in its original state, otherwise all arguments become invalid. I made one revert and you accused me of wilfully and presumably maliciously disrupting your ability to edit at all. That is hyperbole, as is referring to this as if it's a long-running issue. It is not, and you didn't even make the effort to resolve the issue with me before bringing it here and wasting admin time. Opening an ANI entry on me for this is quite frankly ridiculous. My first revert summary was unfortunate though, I admit. KaySL - 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhh "The article is under discussion for deletion and should remain in its original state"? This is incorrect. AFD more often than not leads to improvements in the article that attempt to correct the shortcomings. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I wouldn't have even reverted but for the nature and quality of the edit in question[235]. In any case, this is an extreme overreaction to an event that could have been uneventfully resolved had the editor but discussed it civilly. KaySL - 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Kay, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion - David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been quite a while since I took part in deletion-related discussions, so I concede I was wrong on that point. But as I've said, I'm not best pleased about the frankly feigned horror that the complainant is projecting here. I'm fully prepared to take this to ArbCom if need be; I'm not going to accept my reputation being tarnished by this editor's jumping of the gun and accusing me of preventing him from editing, which he knows to be false, and which I would have stated to be false had he approached me civilly. KaySL - 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff by KaySL deletes an apparent good faith contribution about a tragic accident, and the edit summary mocks the contribution. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of that edit was a wholly unsuitable and of course unsourced story, and no doubt false, hence the joking summary. If you're going to dredge up irreverent edit summaries, at least find more than one or two - which incidentally were made today. Is this how you resolve disputes? Making contrived attacks on my character with the sparsest and most circumstantial of evidence? This is beginning to feel more like an attempt at character assassination than it is bringing any real grievance up, on a board which is generally reserved for serious complaints. KaySL - 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) - KaySL, you probably could've avoided this escalation by using better edit summaries - civility cuts both ways. Threatening ARBCOM is overkill and bitey. Belittling him ("feigned horror") isn't useful either. Exxolon (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He's evidently not going to give up beating a dead horse, and I don't take lightly the kinds of personal and character attacks that he's continuing to make. He's a good editor judging by his contribution summary, but I'm not going to sit idly by and allow him to slander me. Of course the summary was stupid, but not everyone's infallible or in a great mood at all times. The moment he brought this to ANI rather than making even a single attempt to discuss the issue directly, is the moment it went too far. As to the ArbCom 'threat', I meant more that I will take the matter there if the editor pursues this matter beyond ANI, or if his complaints take on much more of a personal dynamic. KaySL - 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

69, why did you not attempt to discuss this with KaySL before bringing it to ANI? Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought this here after seeing this, and seeing the treatment KaySL gave User:Dcpcall. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, you didn't feel it was important enough to try and work out with KaySL first. Seems a lot more like trying to get someone in trouble than trying to resolve a misunderstanding. Syrthiss (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• KaySL, please try to pay more attention to Wikipedia's standards of civility (WP:CIVIL) and AGF (WP:AGF). I think you're also under some misconceptions about WP dispute resolution if you think arbcom would ever listen to a case about something like this. There are multiple earlier stages of DR (you're in one now) that are basically mandatory, and they are likely to come the same conclusion: your edit summaries cited were inappropriate and you should tone them down, and stop dwelling on past errors (and don't worry too much about others dwelling on yours). It's all part of the process of gaining experience editing here. I agree that the other IP should have discussed the edits with you before coming here, but that too is a common error that's not worth making a fuss about. Just look over the resulting discussion and try to take the comments to heart. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I clarified my ArbCom position just after you made your edit. Anyway, I've admitted that those two summaries were ill-advised, and I'm willing to drop the matter if he is. I made a couple of editing mistakes, and he completely bypassed civility in his own way by bringing the matter straight here and attempting to cast my character in a bad light. Essentially, it's up to him now. KaySL - 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

KaySL seems to be using Wikipedia:Twinkle a lot to revert good faith contributions, perhaps without sufficient understanding of Wikipedia policies. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, honestly folks, I seriously think a process/step was missed, and I understand each of your reasons why. But, since we are here, and since this conversation seems to be (or is getting) somewhat civil, then perhaps both of you can stop to realize a few things:

• The article is up for deletion review: This means any (every) interested editor should be doing their best to try to prevent that by improving the article.
• Both parties seem to have an interest in improving the article: that means perhaps, through working together, you can both salvage this article from proposed deletion
• In any such situation as this: you should have opened discussion on the Talk Page and discussed the proposed reversions/inclusions before going any further. This is a simple step most people forget. One of you (either of you, not pointing fingers or picking on anyone in particular) should have dropped the other a note saying "Hey, let's discuss this on the Talk Page... and maybe even get other editors involved to come to a consensus on this"

Both of you have the opportunity to save this article from deletion. I hope you can both work together, involve the other editors who have contributed to the article, and actually manage to do that. It would probably be a better use of everyone's time than going back and forth here. If you run into disagreements, get the other editors involved to form a consensus. If one of you "loses" that consensus, so be it. You win some, you lose some. That's really irrelevant to the grand scheme of things here, as what's important is the community wins. Or even better, you may find that parts of both of your suggestions are incorporated via getting a consensus and other contributors involved; which will make the proposed contribution/changes all the more stronger.

Hope you both can work together and get other editors involved and save this article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite correct, Robert. Like I said before, I have little interest in continuing any bad blood here, though baseless allegations such as the one the editor made just before your comment are most certainly not helping. I'll leave him to edit away to his heart's content; I'm not getting involved with his personal project, as we've seen where that gets us. Whereas I'm fully content to let him get on with it, he's just continuing to engage in a slagging match against me here. I'd say that by any reasonable reckoning, this is becoming very dirty. KaySL^talk 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked RobertMfromLI's idea. Oh well. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Let's agree to let sleeping dogs lie and get on with our respective business and not further waste other editors' time. KaySL^talk 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, with no more parting shots, can we (you two) decide this issue is resolved and simply waiting on an Admin to review and close it? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's resolved as far as I'm concerned! Thanks, Robert. KaySL^talk 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When WP touches a raw nerve at an international level

For the last five days, several new user accounts and IPs have appeared with the sole purpose, or almost, to erase an information about the Council of Europe that is not exactly positive but nevertheless true (until proven otherwise): [236], [237], [238], [239]. This is not a request for semi-protection (yet) but a reminder that WP is vulnerable and will remain so to concerted attacks by well-organized and otherwise respectable people just as it is to attacks by racists or extremists. --Insert coins (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement removed seems unnecessary, and based purely on speculation by the source. Some of the other edits I'll agree were obviously biased, but the statement "As the new Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jagland is expected to steer the upcoming, drastical reduction of the Council's expenses and activities." should go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But this is exactly, almost word for word, what the newspaper article says. It has been reworded by another user now - thank you - but it was nevertheless absolutely true to the source, which is a reliable media outlet. --Insert coins (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Speculation is still speculation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourced speculation about the plans of a leader with respect to the group he is leading isn't in general a BLP violation. I would like more than one source for that to show it is a widespread belief, but that's an editorial issue, not a BLP one. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's not a BLP issue, but just a general one of this source speculating on what he's going to do. It may be "true to the source," but it's just one source stating an opinion, really. Plus, once he does implement policies, the statement will be moot (either redundant or flatly incorrect), so it'll be removed anyway. There's really no point putting that statement into the article at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

intermittent vandalism account

Resolved

 – IP blocked for three months by DoRD. TFOWR 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

the IP 216.157.214.236 (talk) seems to pop up once a month or so to make two or three obvious vandalism edits - it's been doing this for a year now. I have mixed feelings on what should be done about this: part of me wants to ignore it as a triviality in the hopes s/he will someday take a more proactive interest in the project, and part of me wants to request a slightly longer block for the IP for being a nuisance (three months, maybe, just to break the rhythm). at any rate, I'd just thought I'd toss the matter out here and see what people think. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like kiddy vandalism, ie from someone too immature to change soon, and I'd back a 3 month block, doubling if they continue this when they get off the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It might also be a school IP, but in any case, I've anonblocked for 3 months. Every single one of the edits I examined was vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a school-IP; Lansing School District in Michigan. HalfShadow 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by an anon user

An anon user has made a lot of troubles during the last week in some articles, using several IPs and probably his account. His edits have almost always to do with Piraeus, he adds or removes it in these articles according to his personal point of view, he has started several edit wars reverting any other user. The IP address he has used recently are 79.107.161.144 (talk · contribs), 79.107.65.171 (talk · contribs), 79.107.4.49 (talk · contribs), 79.107.39.246 (talk · contribs). There is a suspicion that he is Pplatis (talk · contribs), edit warring mainly as an anon user to avoid punishment. User:Pplatis has a long history of disruptive editing and edit warring in the same or related articles in the past, he has been warned a lot of times by different users (see his talk page) and his account was blocked for a while. He obviously has some kind of obsession that Piraeus is neglected in wikipedia articles in favour of Athens, while it should be treated as the centre of its own metropolitan area, not as a suburb of Athens (he has stated in the past that he lives in Piraeus [240]). He had the same behaviour in the Greek wikipedia, he used alternatively his account or IPs to revert the others in the same articles, thus his account is permanently blocked [241]. Another IP address (109.242.142.28 (talk · contribs)) helped him in an edit war ([242], [243]) and posted a weird message in his talk page [244], which means "Mate we'll upset them". The articles of his interest are:

• Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he constantly renamed the Athens urban area to Athens-Piraeus urban area or denying that Piraeus is part of the Athens urban area reverting other users ([245], [246], [247], [248], [249]), until the article was semi-protected.
• Patras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he changed the part that Patras is the third largest urban area in Greece, since in his opinion Piraeus is a separate urban area and larger than Patras ([250], [251], [252], [253]). The article was semi-protected.
• ISAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he always renamed the Athens metropolitan area to Athens-Piraeus as well ([254], [255], [256], [257], [258]). The article was semi-protected.
• Athens Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He moved in an inappropriate way this article twice ([259], [260]) to Attiko Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was eventually deleted, because in his opinion the article should be called Attiko (from Attica) instead of Athens Metro, since it serves the metropolitan area called in his mind Athens-Piraeus. The correct name of the metro system is "Athens Metro" [261], while "Attiko Metro" is the company that operates both the Athens and the Thessaloniki Metro.
• Olympiacos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He constantly removes the word "Athens" from the leading paragraph, according to his view that Piraeus doesn't belong to the Athens urban area ([262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]).
• He has also posted an abusive message here, while he named himself an expert in my talk page, both in Greek.

Could anyone help with this? - Sthenel (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Herostratus

This is an odd one, User:Herostratus has recently made this edit [268] - basically adding a bunch of smiley faces to an image of a sex act. I can personally see no reason for making this change yet the user has attempted to justify the change on the talkpage Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image in what I read as a tongue-in-cheek post (with a sprinkling of maliciousness - the user dropped in a link to some weird wiki-like site). I was just wondering if I'm missing something here, maybe it's all in my head? At any rate, the user has reverted my revert and I'm not interested in getting in to an edit war so would like some sort of intervention, though I'm unsure what options are available. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to be a bedspread. I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't read the talkpage, though, so I'd say if Herostratus wants this image maybe he could try to draw it better and then start up the discussion on the talk page then. —Soap— 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is a bedspread relevant? This is obviously an editor who is childishly trying to vandalize a sexually explicit article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think he meant well. There was also a similar discussion a few years back, anyway. I agree we should stay with the plain background image though; if someone wants to add a bed it should be in the proper perspective (which is not easy to do with SVG). —Soap— 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media on Wikipedia - this looks like another manifestation of this. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is this not an ANI matter. ANI is not generally used for discussion of details of article content, and ANI is not RFC for content. Don't you folks have enough to do? If not, I would be glad to direct you to some backlogs and stuff where admins are needed. I am surprised that you didn't direct the poster to the dispute resolution process (beginning with, say, a note on my talk page before going to ANI). I have responded to the poster on his talk page, and I would suggest that anyone interested in this article go to the article talk page.

Thanks a bunch for the dig, Exxolon. I would ask you to explain your remark, please. Can you show me a diff that supports your remark? Of course you can't. In my opinion, the fact that the admins let mooks like you hang around here and pollute this board -- and render it practically useless for its intended use -- is beyond my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off, "mooks like you ... pollute this board" is a personal attack, and any editor may post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll knock it off when he knocks off uncited remarks like "ha[s] issues with sexually explicit visual media", OK? Yes any editor may post here. That does not mean any editor can post anything here. I hope. If you people were doing your job you would have told the original poster to at least, I don't know, drop a note on the article talk page (or my talk page) first, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Herostratus...I'm going to ask, then, what are you at here? First you change it to what really doesn't appear to be anything that's particularly relevant, and then when someone objects, you remove the image entirely, claiming it's in "dispute", though you never really did seem to dispute the original image (just changed it some). It does seem very odd, and it does look like it's already been discussed on the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove the image, another editor did that. I agreed that while the content of the image is in dispute this seems like a reasonable move. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to explain my remark Herostratus - your recent posts on Talk:Gokkun on the RFC about using an image on the article where among other gems you called me "catspaw for this ongoing campaign to disgrace and degrade and the Wikipedia and damage its reputation (and drive away women and young people to boot" because I supported having an image in the article (and linked catspaw to useful idiot as well in a veiled attack), cited Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas in your argument and accused me of bad faith by wanting the image there. "Mook" and "polluter" now - that's nice too. Given your stance on Talk:Gokkun and your strange edit to the image discussed above I think it's certainly arguable you have issues regarding sexually explicit media here. Exxolon (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's you. You are still mad that the RFC you initiated didn't gain the result you wanted? It happens. You have to move on. As to the rest... look, let me give you a bit of advice. It's a free world and free internet, and we have freedom of speech (and, in America anyway, the First Amendment), and the Wikipedia is not censored. However. None of that means that normal people are going to like you if you are a pornographer. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be welcome in my home, and you probably wouldn't be too popular in my town generally. But that's OK. I'm sure I wouldn't be welcome with the sort of people that would find you admirable. That is called "life". If you don't like being called a pornographer, the solution is simple: don't be one. But if you want to be one, don't worry about people like me. You're free to revel in it if you like. Get a T-shirt, whatever. You are never going to get the approval of everyone in this life. Choose whom you do want the approval of, and act accordingly. I'm sure that users 75.88.127.62, 24.143.15.253, 68.34.31.108 and so on would think that you're a fine fellow. You're never going to be short of friends like that if you push stroke pictures at the Wikipedia. So don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raises Eyebrow* - The RFC is still running, and I'm quite happy to abide by the result so that charge is spurious. The images is question are not for titillation but are designed to aid understanding of the subject - they support our core aim of encyclopidic articles on all relevant subjects. Trying to sidetrack the issue by suggesting I'm a pornographer is poor form. Maybe I do work in that industry, maybe I don't but it's not relevant - my aim is to have illustrative images on sexual topics that help understanding of the subject. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Exxolon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The image activity and comments on the article talk page and here on ANI constitute disruptive behavior - disrupting Wikipedia to attempt to prove a point. I AGF that Herostratus didn't intend to push to the point of blockable behavior, but he's bordering on that at the moment. I have left him a final warning on his talk page. This needs to stop. Activity like this is supremely disrespectful to the other editors around. One can argue the points of whether the image is appropriate or not and useful or not without playing silly buggers with content or with other editors'. Chosing to make the point disruptively is not OK, and has never been. If it happens again I will issue a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned Herostratus for violations of WP:NPA both here and on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over cleanup templates

Resolved

 – User:Mcorazao blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.

Mcorazao (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over the addition of a {{globalize}} cleanup template on Ancient Greece. He continues to add it to the top of the article against consensus, despite multiple editors removing it. At this point, it has been reverted and re-added a total of seven times in the last few days. The other editor who has been removing the cleanup template, RJC (talk · contribs), asked for a third opinion at WP:3O a few days ago. I provided the third opinion and clearly explained how the {{globalize}} template doesn't apply to the problem that Mcorazao has with the article. I asked Mcorazao to stop adding the cleanup template to the article, and suggested the {{dubious}} template as an alternate way of expressing his objections in the form of a cleanup tag. The dubious tag was removed by RJC (probably rightly so) as being irrelevant, and Mcorazao re-added the globalize template again. He continues to characterize the removal of these templates as "vandalism" (he has even gone so far as to post a vandalism template warning to RJC's talk page).
Mcorazao's complaint about the content may or may not be valid (although I haven't seen anyone agree with him yet). It has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page. The issue regarding the cleanup templates has been discussed at Talk:Ancient Greece#Revisiting Western bias. Instead of continuing the edit war, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at it and ask/force Mcorazao to cease the edit war, leave the cleanup tags off the article, and continue his content discussion on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thanks. SnottyWong ^yak 22:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins looking into this: If you are looking for a past case to refer to, a similar tag warring event happened over on ADHD a year or two ago. Disagreement around the need for article tags was part of a set of issues that led to an arbitration case. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The activities mentioned here have already been brought up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-18/Ancient Greece. I honestly have no idea why SW is bent out of shape about this and why he continues to advocate violating Wikipedia policy. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. For the record SnottyWong technically was the one who engaged in edit warring but I did not choose to file a complaint. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao has reverted the article nine times since 15 September. The discussion at Talk:Ancient Greece#Revisiting Western bias makes clear he does not have consensus, even if it were not obvious since a variety of different people have undone his tag. Since he is an established editor (2006) he can be assumed to be aware of the WP:Edit warring policy. I have notified him that he may still avoid sanctions if he will undo his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please act in good faith here. The discussion has only just started. There is no basis to artibrarily shut down the discussion prematurely regardless of any individual's opinion. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be clear 3RR applies to content reversions. Cleanup banners cannot be reverted as long as they are placed in good faith and there is a discussion being solicited in good faith. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mcorazao, please take a deep breath and take a look around yourself. In the past few days, three different editors have reverted your addition of the {{globalize}} cleanup tag. You have re-added the template nearly a dozen times. Every editor (so far) who has looked at the situation has come to the same conclusion: the cleanup template is irrelevant, inappropriate, and unnecessary. No one has sided with you, and I would hope that you could be more mature about this. The focus of your efforts should be your content dispute, not the cleanup tag. I would urge you one last time to stop your disruptive edit warring behavior, but continue your content dispute until consensus is reached. If you're unwilling to take that advice, then I would like an admin to judge whether a temporary block would be appropriate. SnottyWong ^express 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • SnottyWong, ask yourself why it is so important to you to close down this discussion. The very purpose of the "globalize" template (as is the case for all of the cleanup templates) is to invite discussion. I don't know your background but I can tell you from experience that when talk page discussions turn acrimonious, as is the case now, many editors who would otherwise want to participate in the discussion stay away. Look at the discussion. Almost none of it has actually discussed the issue (I appreciate that you finally attempted to actually talk about just now). Ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia by making threats and accusations on that page. All I ever asked for was a discussion and instead I've had to defend my right to ask a question.
  • As I've said before, Wikpedia's policies are there for a reason. I understand the frustration with seeing a banner you do not agree with. I have had people do that on articles that I was working on (RJC did that to me before) and I had to grit my teeth and accept that I had to leave it there while we discussed the issue. The reason for the prohibition against individuals arbitrarily removing cleanup banners that they do not agree with is explicitly so nobody can choose to limit a discussion they don't like. Discussion is the very basis on which Wikipedia is founded. Ask yourself why you are so desperate to change that. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I have been very clear that I want the content discussion to continue until a consensus is reached. Therefore, I am not trying to "close down this discussion". However, the content discussion has been effectively railroaded by your insistence on publicly labeling the article as defective in some way, despite the fact that there is no consensus that the article is defective in the way you describe. Furthermore, the template you have used to label the article as defective doesn't even match up with your description of how the article is defective. The only things I'm trying to "close down" are the superficial things that are disrupting the actual content dispute and pushing it off on a tangent. The harder you push to keep the cleanup tag on the article, the more everyone is going to focus on the cleanup tag and not even discuss the perceived problem with the article. So, please stop adding the cleanup tag, stop making false accusations about how I'm "threatening" you, and just continue the discussion about the content of the article. SnottyWong ^speak 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Any admin may lift the block if M. will agree to wait for consensus before placing any more templates on the article. The alternative is to allow any editor to place a tag, and maintain it there for several days by reverting, even when that person is alone in their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP user 74.170.0.95

Resolved

I know this is the wrong place, but there's a back log at WP:AIV. The IP user has made three acts of vandalism after their final warning. Two of those have been to my user page after I gave him/her two warnings for vandalism. Could someone please take a look and block them? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Has been taken care of now. ([269]) Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please delete and forever purge this article >>> Río Bayagan

Resolved

 – Redirect created (thanks, DuncanHill!) TFOWR 09:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Río Bayagan is a duplicate of Río Bayagán. Please note they were both created by the same good faith editor on teh same date and time. The correct name (and thus, article) is Río Bayagán. I will be working on expanding Río Bayagán. The incorrect Río Bayagan should be deleted. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've made Río Bayagan into a redirect to Río Bayagán. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request review of Sal the Stockbroker

I dislike semi-protecting talk pages, so wanted to request a review of my actions at Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The talk page consensus was to convert to a redirect about a year ago. Since then, IPs have repeated edit-warred over restoring the content, and vandalizing the article talk page. Both have had protections applied for this, the article multiple times.

I haven't yet blocked any of the IPs - I'm suspecting a range block would be most effective for most of them, but I'm uncertain how wide of a range to address, or how heavily the range is used by legitimate users. Additional eyes and input would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and protect both the redirect and the redirect talk page. A redirect doesn't really need to have a talk page of its own. Any discussion of the redirect or consensus to undo it should instead develop on the target page's talk page. If such a consensus does emerge, then tl:editprotected or wp:rfpp should be able to get the protection handled. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are also hitting other pages, so I've begun doing short-term blocks as they continue. If others determine a longer-term proxy block is warranted, I don't object to a change in the durations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Incredibly Obese Black Man

Two days ago, Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a request to rename My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. After receiving some oppose !votes, he comes back and posts a long, abusive rant where he says "fuck you" to everyone who disagrees with him. Can somebody block him? Thanks. jgpTC 03:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If anything, that would be a block for a mass personal attack, but since it was two days ago, it would be punishment at this point in my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you directed him to WP:NPAand WP:CIVIL? As a relatively new user, he may be unaware of Wikipedia's policies and conventions and perhaps it would be good to refer him to those policies? Except in the really eggregious cases, we generally don't block without warning. His rant is certainly inappropriate, but is it inappropriate enough for an instablock, with no warning or chance to fix his behavior or apologize? --Jayron32 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits by User:Incredibly Obese Black Man were not made two days ago, but were in fact made three hours ago. I recommend a block for a mass personal attack. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...didn't realize he was new. jgpTC 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Overt troll...probably a previous ban...see "first edit"...doesn't even know how to fudge a new user account.--MONGO 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user about NPAs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Might want to alert him to this discussion...maybe he'll come here and make nice-nice like he did earlier.--MONGO 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do believe he is aware, he has posted on my and User:Jgp's talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jgp had already warned him. David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I;m aware. Not a troll. I started to contribute to KMFDM's discography and some other bands. Even wrote some software to help. I wanted to contribute to a topic that a lot of people aren't familiar with. Sorry you guys disagree. Maybe I'll put this behind me in a month and finish contributing to the discography I was working on. Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See, the deal is, we want your contributions. There's nothing wrong with them, on the balance. What happened here is that you made a suggested change, two people disagreed with that suggestion, and then you went off on a curse-filled rant over what was essentially two good-faith opinions over your proposed move. That was way out of proportion to what was going on there. There's no need to pitch a fit, and its counterproductive to working with others when you do that. If you have things to add to Wikipedia, please do so, but you can't say "fuck you" to everybody as soon as they disagree with you. You just can't. Try to be more civil and try to work with others, not in opposition to them. --Jayron32 04:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not a troll; he was editing as an IP for a week or two, and I suggested he get an account to edit with. He's been a good contributor, and has done a lot of tedious clean up on a lot of pages in the last few weeks. Definitely no need for a block. He just needs to chill out and get back to productive editing. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Wiki Historian N OH

Ferocious osmosis (talk · contribs) About an hour ago User:Wiki Historian N OH was indef blocked under this SPI. The user is back under the User:Ferocious osmosis account (another SPI pending) creating POINTed articles in violation of his block. Could the articles be SALTed, the account blocked and a rangeblock put in place? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear; he's been found guilty of sockpuppeting two accounts already [270] and shows no sign whatsoever of letting up with his agenda. KaySL^talk 04:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Someone else can block after they confirm the SPI report. Just as a minor future note, please keep all sock reports for the same individual under the same title, in this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Historian N OH. The two cases noted above should be merged with the older report. --Jayron32 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to request a retrospective review of my block back in January for edit-warring with this user, who was persistently and disruptively introducing contentious material into Socialism?

Two articles I've started

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. Good advice from Neutralhomer: Use {{cleanup}} etc. TFOWR 09:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please clean up and fix 2 articles I've started: 1. A lGBT centre in Vancouver Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmunity. 2. A autistic group in Gibsons Canada. Naturally_Autistic Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You should add {{cleanup}} to the top of each page and someone will come along and help out. This doesn't require immediate admin assistance. ANI is just for problems that require assistance by an admin like vandalism, sockpuppetry, and the like. If you do need help, please add {{helpme}} to your talk page with your problem and someone will be along within a couple moments to help out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Found Errors

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. Good advice provided by Someguy1221: WP:Help desk is a wonderful resource. TFOWR 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whom to contact for errors that I have found, please email contact info to email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.149.149 (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're unsure of what to do with something, or how to do it, leave a message about it on the help desk. We do not get back to people via email, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What determines backlog?

Currently I have set {{AIVBacklog Notice}}(this was awhile ago) to show the bottom-left notice box if AIV is 6000 bytes or more. Should this number be lower? I'm asking you all here, because it affects you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RevDel on Saxo Bank ?

Note sure where to request Revdel, but this edit and its edit summary looks potentially libelous as it contains an unsourced allegation against a named individual, together with unsourced allegations against the bank. (I've reverted the edit). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits on that article, I sense the presence of ducks, I can certainly hear quacking... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fowl has been throttled. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is the place where you request Revdel, because I just deleted all those revisions. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs)

Vandalism Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs). Sthenel and Sv1xv removes from Piraeus, ILPAP, ISAP, Olympiacos F.C. etc the Athens-Piraeus urban area or Athens-Piraeus metropolitan etc. There isn't Athens urban area where included Piraeus urban according to laws of Greece State (ΡΣΑ and 3852/10 etc). Sv1xv also made troubles in article ILPAP together with a anonymous user, even if Zappeio is not written on the trolleybus and in official ILPAP website 21-trolley-[271].--79.107.161.144 (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev Del request

Could an admin please look at [272], I believe this qualifies for RD#2. Thank you for your time - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've zapped it, but I think that it's also oversightable. I've already submitted it, but for future reference, oversight can be requested via oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive activity at AfD by User:Figmentary

Figmentary (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account adding almost textbook-case against-policy and deliberately vague (or even nonsense) !votes to AfDs: they've hit 3 AfDs with the only three contributions they've made, at the time of this writing. For example, they said that wikitruth "only lasted a couple of years and did nothing important" and that Goatse Security "only ever did one thing, and even the article says that was hardly newsworthy", which is patently false upon reading the article. The user appears to be a troll, and given their familiarity with AfD, may also be a sock of another user. I'm not sure what exactly could or should be done about this, but perhaps someone else is familiar with another user that this might be a sock of. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• ITT: My name is Giftiger Wunsch and a person is making votes that are different from mine and instead of talking to that person I am assuming that person is evil and running to the mods to have them banned. And also WAAAHH! Figmentary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Revision deletion

This revision [273] on Diego Forlán would seem to fall under the RD2 criteria for revision deletion, as it's grossly offensive and degrading material. KaySL^talk 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Selket ^Talk 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone with a button, help

Can someone please rev-delete this edit summary? There may be more than meets the eye there as well, but I don't have my reading glasses with me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I notified the editor--though there isn't much discussion possible here, I think. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• And the editor notified me of the same content on my talk page. Should that be stricken from the record as well? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I revdeled the edit summaries. I wasn't sure it could be classed as "grossly insulting", but it sure wasn't anywhere near civil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. Since some otherwise perfectly sane folks left me some notes on my talk page I'm being extra careful. BTW, it's fascinating how this ethnic stuff plays out on Wikipedia. Things would be very boring if it hadn't been for the nineteenth century and its rise of nationhood. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Distruptive user making too many controversial edits

Based on his personal POV, User:JCAla has made so much controversial edits here, here, here, and here. I tried but was unable to verify his information because nearly all the sources he cited are ambiguous, invalid and lacking verification. I tagged the 2 sections that he named ("Islamic State, Foreign Intrusion and Civil War" --and-- "Taliban Emirate/Pakistan against the United Front") on the Afghanistan page but as soon as he was unblocked he again is removing the tags.[274]. Without explaining why, he is removing my edits which are well sourced.[275] I don't mind him being a strong follower of Ahmad Shah Massoud but his behaviour and edits are not helping Wikipedia. Being a part-time analyst on the current Afghan situation, I followed JCAla's edits very carefully and it appears that his agenda is to bash the Sunni sect of Islam, the states of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Pashto-speaking Mujahideens (Gulbuddin and Haqqani), and on the other hand, praise Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance group of northern Afghanistan. Your help will be very appreciated, thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The same issue again ... Everyone just have a look at WP:ANI: Afghanistan article vandalism by user Jrkso and WP Content noticeboard: Afghanistan. Every source (mostly academic, Human Rights Watch and media reports) has been provided there in all its detail including page numbers. Thanks for wasting our time again, Jrkso. You are the only one pushing an agenda here based on ... well, based on what?—JCAla (talk) 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev-delete needed for personal information exposure

Resolved

 – already done. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

[276] delete this rev please. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of derogatory term to describe Irish Catholics

Resolved

 – Editor in question has pledged not to use such language here anymore. No further action seems to be required. –xeno^talk 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please ask User:Marknutley to stop referring to Irish Catholics as "Micks", which is a derogatory term according to among other sources The color of words: an encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States.[277] Here is the history (on Talk:Libertarianism#The Workers Solidarity Movement):

• User:Marknutley: ... they are a mick anarchist group.[278]
• User:Iota: Mark, what do you mean by the adjective "Mick"?"[279]
• [my comment]: It is a racial slur for Irish and I am removing it.[280]
• User:Iota strikes though the word.[281]
• User:Marknutley removes strike through with no comment.[282]
• User:Marknutley: No it`s not TFD, i` m a mick. Do not assume to speak for my people, thanks.[283]
• User:Iota: Mark, I'm sure you didn't intend any offence but please think again about using that word on talkpages. A random reader of this page would just see the ethnic slur, and would have no idea that you're Irish, until you were challenged and pointed it out.[284]
• User:Iota strikes through word with notation "Refactoring ethnic slur"[285][286]
• User:BlueRobe: As for marknutley's use of the term "mick", I am certain that he was using local colloquialism and intended no slur (especially given that, by his own admission, he is a "mick"). Let's not be too precious about our language in here. We already have enough things to argue about.[287]
• I redact struck-through word.[288]
• User:Tmorton166: Can we call this point made. Mark may have not meant harm, but here on the internet with no way of verifying any claims about oneself it is best to shy away from controversial terms.[289]
• user:Marknutley restores word in capital letters with notation, "do not redact this again, i am fucking proud of my heritage",[290] and writes on my talk page, "Oi Do not edit my comments again, we do not need anyone to take offence on our behalf and should i wish to describe myself and my people as micks then i will. Any further editing of my comments in violation of TPG will result in a report to ANI."[291]

Some other editors had also observed that the use of the term was unhelpful. I see no reason why mark nutley needs to use this slur, and even if he is an Irish Catholic, it does not excuse disparagement of them.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD you do not have the right to take offence for the use of mick on behalf of the irish people. If i want to describe myself as a mick i will and it is my god given right to describe myself as i see fit. That is all i have to say on the matter mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So if I were discussing things at the Black Panthers talk page, I could refer to them as "a nigger anarchist group" and get away with it since I am black? Tarc (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on board with your right to not take offence, but what exactly gives you the right to decide what others might take offence too? There's no free speech, or god given rights, here. Are the words you choose to use necessary for article improvement? --Onorem♠Dil 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, it is a derogatory term and should be removed. Mo ainm~Talk 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutely, you weren't "describing yourself as a mick." Instead, you called another group of people a "mick anarchist group". Claiming you have a god given right to use an ethnic slur in such fashion makes it obvious that you're the user with the attitude problem here, not TFD.

(edit-conflict)Agree with Tarc and Onorem, just because you take no offence at using the word doesnt mean that there arent possibly millions who do. I'm not Irish, but I am Jewish and I would be highly offended if someone used the words "kyke" or "JAP" (Jewish American Princess, has nothing to do with a Japanese person!), both words were begun by Jews about other Jews (kyke by German Jews refering to Russian Jews whom they felt were less educated and backwards and with a totally non-Western culture). There has been alot in the news lately about the Jersey Shore and other such shows using the word "Guido" for Italian-Americans, this is a national debate about ethnic/racial groups and how they coopt hate words for pride. A group self-identifying does not justify the use of the word. Especially on Wikipedia. Which it has rightly been pointed out- we do not have a freedom of speech nor does the US Constitution's First Amendment apply to us (Wikimedia Foundation is a non-governmental entity, a private non-profit organization). I dont feel any derogatory words are necessary to refer to any group, whether you belong to the group or not. If there is not at least a guideline that spells this out perhaps we need to bring this before the Village pump and start along the process of discussing the merits of adding that to WP:Talk page guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon a slight digression, why did "Catholic" gain a seat at this particular table? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to the original complaint using the word "Irish Catholic" I am not sure but it may stem from American's hearing the word most commonly used against those Irish that are Catholic and less likely to hear it about Protestants (from Ireland or N. Ireland). Historically in the 1800s during the large waves of Irish immigration starting with those to Upstate NY to build the Erie Canal in the 1820s to the building of the eastern section of the Trans-continental RR in the 1860s and the Potato Famine and such, the Catholics tended to be the ones who assimilated slower due to ethnic discrimination "No Irish need apply" signs in NYC as example. Those that were Protestant assimilated quicker because in America the discrimination against Irish tended to be because of American's (and English/British) long-standing anti-papist sentiments. (See: Al Smith's presidential run in which Long Island was burned end to end with crosses; the KKK's anti-Catholic sentiments, even the fears of Americans that JFK would "take orders from the Pope).Camelbinky (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes:

together with the explanation in OED that mick is 'applied jocularly to an Irishman' and '[a]lso sometimes applied derogatorily'...This occurs most frequently in OED, where many essentially 'negative' words (e.g. mick, clot, bird, hussy, minx, jade, bounder, skunk) are said to have also a playful, jocular, friendly or familiar application.

— 

The hurt inflicted is all the more painful when the individual is a member of a minority or suppressed group. Chink for Chinese, Wop for Italian, Spic for Hispanic (Spanish-American), Yid for Jew, Mick for Irish, Hunk for Hungarian—all are words more or less insulting. The newer dictionaries have, in fact, accepted this viewpoint, and now, if they list such words at all, indicate that they are offensive.

— 

For example, in the United States, a list of DELs [derogatory ethnic labels] would include the following, among others: “beaner,” “camel jockey,” “chink,” “frog,” “gandhi,” “gook,” “guinea,” “honky,” “jap,” “kike,” “kraut,” “mick,” “nigger,” “nip,” “peckawood,” “polack,” “spic,” and “wop.”

— Smitherman, Geneva (1988). Discourse and Discrimination. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814319581. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Therefore, while it is understandable (per the first quote) that Mark might not find the use of the word "Mick" offense, it is also unrealistic to assume that other editors will not. (A black editor referring himself as a "Nigger" might be a similar analogy). Therefore, I would strongly advise Mark to refrain from using "Mick" to describe himself or anyone else. NW (Talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I already said on my talkpage [292] i will not use it again. A fact TFD was well aware of when he posted this complaint here [293] mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Except you came to this AN/I and said it was your "God given right" to continue to say it. So please understand if we were a bit confused.Camelbinky (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the removal of the racial slur Xeno? Mo ainm~Talk 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky i said it was my god given right to describe myself as i see fit, i said on my talkpage i would no longer use mick. See the difference there? Mo ainm, it is not a racial slur mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It may not be in your eyes, but it is in the eyes of others. So yes, don't use it again, and yes, any usage that isn't specifically referring to yourself gets removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, I listened to right wing fascist arseholes in England use the term to describe me and I for one am not happy with its use to describe a group of people from Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)