Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Leatherstocking at Lyndon LaRouche

I would appreciate administrative help with this. I'm posting this here rather than at AE as it may get more attention here, but I can move it if people think that page is more appropriate.

Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. The article is in poor shape as a result of around 1200 edits over the years from LaRouche accounts. Will BeBack and I recently started trying to get it into shape. This involves removing material sourced only to LaRouche if it's unduly self-serving, and restoring or adding material from mainstream secondary sources. We're also tidying refs, fixing the writing, and generally trying to make the article more policy-compliant.

Leatherstocking is reverting my edits as I make them, ignoring the in-use tag. He has posted complaints about me on AN/AE, AN/3RR, the BLP noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard. He wants to retain or add material sourced only to LaRouche, and remove or reduce material sourced to, for example, The New York Times. One example of his reverting is this. It concerns the period where LaRouche moved from being a left-wing group to becoming, in the view of The New York Times, a far-right group with extensive commercial interests. Leatherstocking removed the names of the companies LaRouche was associated with. He removed the details of the training camps LaRouche members were being sent to.

I feel this is unacceptable editing that violates all the LaRouche ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too early in the morning for me to do anything but protect the page for 1 day while sort out what if anything is to be done about Leatherstocking and stop any more disruption meanwhile - my first reaction given his forumshopping is that action should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is that Leatherstocking seems genuinely unable to understand the policies, or apply them to LaRouche. He wants LaRouche sources to be treated on a par with academics and mainstream high quality newspapers. He removes The New York Times information about LaRouche's commercial interests and anti-terrorist training camps, but restores that LaRouche was given the key to the city of a town in Mexico, and wants to go into great detail about some interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting a feeling of deja vu here? Wasn't there another user recently that was doing the same thing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to closely examine the recent edit history of the article. SV wants to own the article. She and WBB are tag-team edit warring. See also here and note two things; a) Leatherstocking had the courtesy to supply links documenting the edit warring, while SV makes vague charges with one link, and b) anyone who isn't hostile to Lyndon LaRouche gets dumped on and ridiculed.

Finally, regarding the 'key to the city of a town in Mexico' and 'interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China', we should all endeavor to counter systemic bias. Just because something happens outside the United States doesn't give SV the right to delete it. --ZincPlatedWasher (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The above courageous redlink was created 12 minutes before filing this complaint, or 1 minute after I made my comment above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious sock account to me, it's now blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, a "leather" stocking??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!, I was trying not to go there! :) If any admins disagree, feel free to reverse the block. Dreadstar ☥ 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited a Larouche article in my life. You people are paranoid. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least not under that IP address, this being its first entry ever. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S., your paranoia is now being discussed here. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not paranoia, it's more like a puzzle or mystery to be solved. Kind of like a game. Which is also what it is to many socks - a game that abuses wikipedia. And the reason we are "so bad" at finding socks is because we give far more latitude to those sock game-players than we probably should. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zincplatedwasher may not be Leatherstocking, but should we check? Yeah, maybe just another troll, but if it is a sock of Leatherstocking, that would simplify matters. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You could check that IP address while you're at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That duly noted, regarding Zincplatedwasher and Leatherstocking: Unlikely . Vassyana (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, I am not "a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche." This appears to be an attempt to initiate the WP:9STEPS. When I first began to edit here 2 years ago, I watched the POV wars at the LaRouche articles because I found them entertaining. Over time, I grew more annoyed by the tactics of the anti-LaRouche team than by those of the pro-LaRouche team, in part because the anti-LaRouche team seemed to have an unfair advantage (again, see WP:9STEPS.) However, until last month, it had been my practice never to actively edit a LaRouche-related article; I confined myself to adding tags, or reverting edits that I felt were in violation of policy. I only began to edit some "LaRouche" articles after engaging in mediation with Will Beback (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement.)

• Regarding the one diff that SV cites as an example of my alleged misbehavior[1], there is already a separate article for U.S. Labor Party, which would be the appropriate location for an extended summary of a newspaper article about that organization. However, even at that article, I don't believe that it is necessary to include every minor detail, such as how much the alleged training costs per day, in which states it allegedly took place, or that U.S. Labor Party members were employed at a company that allegedly printed high school newspapers. For readers who are interested in such minutiae, we have external links. SlimVirgin herself has deleted substantial amounts of well-sourced material, and she has dismissed objections by saying that the article is too long and she is "trimming" it. However, the "trimming" seems to be POV-based, and there seems to be some simultaneous "fattening" going on.

• SlimVirgin complains about being reverted. She has made over 140 edits to this article since August 28, and she has reverted virtually every edit made by other editors during this period. On top of that, she went so far as to revert the NPOV tag I posted[2], which as I understand it is a policy no-no. I would also like to point out that when I do revert, I include an accurate edit summary. SlimVirgin mixes her reverts in with other, more innocuous edits, and then disguises the process with a vague edit summary along the lines of "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Comment: Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indeed been quite disruptive on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche in a manner contrary to multiple site policies. (Examples: WP:BAN: Restoring banned editors, WP:EW: Blocked for edit warring on Views of Lyndon LaRouche, WP:FORUMSHOP: Forum shopping). Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban of the account from related articles? Cirt (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "forum shopping" rule, and I promise not to breach it in the future. I simply assumed that since I saw evidence of several policies being violated, I ought to report each type of violation at the relevant board. I won't make that mistake again. As far as being blocked (once) for edit warring, I believe that block was improper, and I said so here. And regarding the "restoring banned editors" charge, I have made my opinions known at Wikipedia talk:BAN#call for wording. I have no problem correcting any policy mistakes I have made. I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Leatherstocking writes above that he first edited a LaRouche-related article last month. That's very far from the truth. His earliest edits in 2007 show an interest in LaRouche-related people. His 15th edit was to add a detail to Dennis King, [3] LaRouche's biographer, someone the LaRouche movement regards as an enemy. By his third month—and he hadn't made many edits so this was early in his history—he had started posting in LaRouche's favor at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. [4] In October 2007, there's a complaint that he's altering bios of people opposed to LaRouche. [5] His top-edited articles are all LaRouche-related, [6] and his edits are invariably pro-LaRouche: removing critical material no matter how well-sourced, adding material from LaRouche publications, reverting, adding NPOV and other tags and reverting if anyone tries to remove them.

He has made 782 article or article-talk edits overall. Of these, 408 have been to the main LaRouche articles or their talk pages: Lyndon LaRouche, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Kenneth Kronberg, Dennis King, and Chip Berlet, and many of the rest to pages LaRouche is tangentially involved with. All or most of his edits (173) to project space have been about LaRouche (BLP noticeboard, AN/I, RS noticeboard etc), trying to prevent LaRouche accounts from being blocked, trying to have other editors of the articles sanctioned.

The main problem is that he seems not to understand NPOV. He appears to believe that material from e.g. The New York Times is on a par with material from LaRouche, and that the article must reflect LaRouche's views in the same proportion as it reflects everyone else's. He also believes that everything LaRouche says and does must be added to the article, the result of which was that it had turned into a vanity page and a platform. He fights to keep, "LaRouche flies to Moscow, is welcomed at the airport; LaRouche given the keys to Sao Paulo in an elaborate ceremony; LaRouche thanked in the Mexican parliament," invariably sourced to LaRouche himself, while removing or reducing material from mainstream newspapers about LaRouche's commercial interests, or violence against opponents, and so on.

It is going to be difficult to get the article in shape with Leatherstocking continuing this behavior. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I said (not what SlimVirgin says I said.) My practice was to add nothing new, either positive or negative, to "LaRouche articles," but to tag or revert when I believed I saw policy violations. SlimVirgin says I made an edit Dennis King, which is correct, but the inference that it had something to do with LaRouche is incorrect. When I first came here, I knew more about Dennis King than I knew about LaRouche, because of my interest in the Youth International Party. King runs with that crowd, and the webmaster of King's website is A.J. Weberman (see my recent post on this board about Weberman.) SlimVirgin would have you believe that I am adding all sorts of pro-LaRouche material to the Lyndon LaRouche article; this, too, is incorrect. I am objecting to deletions of material that I think unbalances the article, combined with undue weight given to newly added material sourced to obscure critics. The "LaRouche articles" were battlefields for such a long time, and they finally stabilized in a form that I thought was an honest compromise between the two teams, and there was peace in the valley. Now I see SlimVirgin, with some assistance from Will Beback, on a major POV re-write campaign, and I think that it does a disservice to the project. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles had not stabilized. What happened is that people (except LaRouche editors) had largely given up on them, and the focus was only on how to stop them from getting even worse. What you call a "compromise" is, "On the one hand, The New York Times says this, on the other hand LaRouche says that," but that is not what NPOV means. And the people you are calling "obscure critics" (e.g. Antony Lerman) are mainstream writers with mainstream views of LaRouche, who write in scholarly journals. Lerman's view, which you have tried to remove, that LaRouche's ideology is too extreme and bizarre to characterize easily, is the majority view.

This is why I wrote above that you seem to have problems understanding our NPOV policy. The article must reflect majority and significant-minority views in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. It must not allow the tiny-minority views of the LaRouche movement to dominate or be presented as on a par with the majority view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make one thing clear about Lerman. Although he specializes in anti-Semitism, he is strongly opposed to defining that term so widely that it catches people who are simply anti-Zionists. He opposes the concept of "new antisemitism," and has been criticized by Jewish groups for so doing. So this is a very mainstream scholarly writer, not someone with extreme views in any sense. In addition, the view we're using him as a source for—that LaRouche's ideology is too bizarre to describe easily—is very much the majority view of LaRouche. Lerman is a good example of using a mainstream expert, whose article was published by a scholarly journal, to express the majority view, and adding the name only to make sure we had in-text attribution. Yet still you remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until you authored it[7], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche. Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has. However, his contribution on LaRouche to the anthology that you cite as a source is all of 4 pages long, and consists simply of an uncritical summary of the material in Dennis King's conspiracy-laden tome. Inserting Lerman's quote in the lead adds no new information and serves simply to amplify the already-existing "extremist" claim. WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states that criticism must be written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These articles have had significant problems with LaRouche related single purpose accounts doing things our policies and principles really don't agree with. We've had quite a number of accounts blocked over this over the years, and a couple of what appear to be persistent recurring sockpuppets.

Leathersocking has been participating for some time and has managed to generally rise above that - he's got a LaRouche associated viewpoint, but has on review generally been found to be acting reasonably (with a possibly COI viewpoint, but not hiding that and listening to criticism etc) in the past, and has never been tarred by association with the sockpuppeteers as far as I have seen. In many contentious fringe related articles we have nobody from the fringe's point of view who makes an effort to play by the rules here and represent that viewpoint fairly in consensus discussions - this set of articles has in a way been lucky to have Leatherstocking, in that sense.

I am concerned by the current reports, but I urge everyone involved to assume good faith - I can believe a change in behavior, but I also can believe a non catastropic accidental butting of heads where consensus can be discussed out given time.

I am not in a position to spend a couple of hours or more on diffs on these articles tonight - but, in general, I urge patience and good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just back from a long weekend away from the computer, and I have plenty to add about this matter. However I won't be able to spend much time on it until tomorrow at the soonest. (It's gonna take me an hour or two just to catch up). What I can say now, and substantiate soon, is that Leatherstocking is a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly restored material added by a banned user and who has edit-warred to add LaRouche theories to Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't have "a LaRouche associated viewpoint," and (I'll repeat for Will Beback's benefit) I haven't added "LaRouche theories" to anything. I have simply opposed what I saw as POV deletions. I have also been the only voice objecting to the attempts of Will Beback and SlimVirgin to control these articles, as if they had never read WP:OWN. Both sides of the great divide have their respective sins; in the case of the LaRouchians, it is a tendency to make overly grand claims on behalf of their leader, with inadequate sources. I am also told that they engage in sockpuppetry, although I have come to suspect that this card has been played a few times too often. From the other, anti-LaRouche team, I have seen a fair amount of abuse of process that is consistent with WP:9STEPS. GWH is correct in saying that I make an effort to play by the rules here, and I regret having run afoul of the forum shopping policy. It still appears to me, however, that SlimVirgin has an extremely cavalier approach to the rules. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48

I think I've tried hard enough to resolve this, but it seems that User:Domer48 is simply unwilling to address the issues I've raised with him. My most recent attempt (which summarises the issues) [8] was met with this response. The background to this is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question which led to an WP:RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48), which failed due to lack of certification, though (as admins can see from the deleted page) not due to lack of concern on the part of others about Domer's behaviour. (And one user has since said he would have certified, but was away.)

At this point I'm not really sure what to do. I think the points I raised [9] are not really negotiable as principles, and some of the reasons why I asked Domer to acknowledge them can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question. But he seemingly refuses to do so, and even on the trivial point of indenting comments properly, seemed unwilling to engage (User talk history), even making an anti-correction here (removing a colon when he should be adding one) which looks rather like flipping me the finger - which prompted me to do the RFC.

So, now, I'd like one or more uninvolved admins to comment on this situation and on Domer's behaviour, and suggest what the hell to do. If the outcome of that is that it's all in my head and I should apologise, so be it. Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge and collapse comments which led to premature archiving
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Whilst im no fan of Domer, i dont think formatting is really that important although its helpful if its done correctly, i know i dont always do it right. I think this is going to be another classic example of an attempt to take some form of action over a trivial matter which will produce no results at all except see another admin come under fire and Domers position strenghtened. This really is becoming an alarming pattern, i can think of atleast 3 other admins recently that have taken action or pushed an issue with different editors whos overall conduct clearly justified some form of action, but they do it in a bad way or use the weakest reasons to justify their actions and it leads to internal fighting between admins and the editor walking away being able to claim they are being unfairly treated and carry on with the same attitude. Ashame really :| BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC) The formatting matters, but only a little. It is a little bit disruptive to conversations and an experienced contributor shouldn't be doing it consistently wrong. But what matters more is the consistent refusal to follow practice when it's pointed out; and the fact that on even such a minor matter Domer has refused to respond constructively and discuss the issues people have with him (which, for anyone completely new to this, go well beyond the indentation issue - see [10]). If you will, it is (a la Watergate) not the crime, but the coverup. Rd232 talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I totally understand your reasons Rd232 and i dont agree with the comments which im sure will follow about you and your actions. I think your intentions are good, but the response you will get on this page will be the complete opposite of what you were intending or hoping for. Its going to get nasty, it always does sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Well Domer basically backed me into a corner by refusing to discuss the issues. I was totally prepared for him to sooner or later say "yeah, OK, whatever" and then carry on more or less as before, but not for a complete lack of engagement. Rd232 talk 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) User:Rd232 The hounding is getting ridiculous now. If this admin can't step back from his relentless pursuit, then I think some sort of restriction may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I see the fireworks have already started. I cant wait to see what the regular defender of Domer and certain other editors have to say when he arrives on the scene and finds out this is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Oh good - CoM's contributions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question were so helpful, he's decided to comment again. Yay. Rd232 talk 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) And in case it wasn't obvious from the phrasing of my original post, this thread is an attempt to get out of this death spiral where Domer essentially refuses to discuss these issues with me. Perhaps he will with others. Rd232 talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) You are right to raise it, considering the RFC failed only because nobody else seconded your concerns about the very specific issue, Most responders agreed with your views on Domers actions or attitude in general. Although i see that RFC was deleted so people cant even view what took place on that page now where there were alot of good comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC) There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) merged unconstructive comments - see here for original context Have you ever thought that is might be the way you engage with him that makes him unwilling to deal with you. I know I certainly wouldnt last 5 minutes with your nonsense before I blew a fuse and got blocked. Brush that chip off yer shoulder and be a man for God sake.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC) If you could tell me what exactly you think I did wrong that would be more helpful. Rd232 talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC) wow, reverse psychology - yer some bhoyo MacNee!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Need a tissue?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC) *(I'd point out the irony here, VK, but wow...) HalfShadow 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Have you just taken to repeating yourself? User:Rd232 is acting like a spoilt wee brat and you are just backing him up because you are generally opposed to him. Grew up the pair of you. Is it any wonder any decent editors leave this stinking shithole?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) WP:NPA, VK. You know better than this. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Tentative solution Based on their mutual sniping, insults, accusations of bad faith, and incivility in the thread above, I'm inclined to block all of the participants in the discussion above, for at least 24 hours. As an independent admin with no knowledge of any of the parties, I would welcome some sort of clear, concise, polite presentation of why that wouldn't be an optimal solution for Wikipedia. During their break, perhaps they could go read Unclean hands. Right now, I'm utterly unimpressed by the postings here by Rd232 (talk · contribs) Vintagekits (talk · contribs) HalfShadow (talk · contribs) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) Seriously. If any of the parties are intersted in resolving a dispute rather than fanning the flames, act like it. Otherwise, get off this noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Blocking isn't an optimal solution. Just archive the discussion, and if they persist in reopening it... well we can always block then. AniMatedraw 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. And I cannot see one good thing possibly to come out of blocking an admin. Blocking seems like a knee jerking measure, a last resort if you will. Attempt resolution to all ends before going in with guns-a-blazing. –túrianpatois 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Umm can someone please explain what rule i broke here? so i know not to do it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Not everyone broke rules above. It just isn't a productive discussion and has zero chance of becoming one. AniMatedraw 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to accept the premature archiving, because that way madness lies. An admin asks for a review of a sticky situation, a few people comment not terribly helpfully (two pretty disruptively), and that leads to the thread being archived as irredeemably unproductive? No. Alright, since apparently part of the reason there was no comment on the substance was that I only linked to it instead of putting it here (ANI is always big enough anyway, I was reluctant to do so), I'll paste a summary below, taken from the deleted RFC. This summary of the dispute was endorsed by 7 users. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Details

Statement of the dispute I have no wish to go through the rigmarole of an RFC, but Domer's response here, and his response to my comment at Talk:Irish Volunteers suggests a determination to force a confrontation. I have come to this topic (PIRA and some related articles) with no prior engagement and little interest, and I have tried my best to move things forward, including sanctioning some problematic editors (one partly at the request of Domer!). It did not initially seem that Domer was a problematic editor, but as I've seen more of the topic, it's become evident that in some respects he is; although in view of a record of some useful contributions in what I've seen, and a very long history on Wikipedia (2 years, 13k edits), I'm very much hoping these issues can be resolved. Here are the problems I've observed. This is from a recent, limited period, and I can't comment on how long-term these issues might be.

Desired outcome Domer to

• follow community indenting practice (see guideline Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation and clarifying essay Wikipedia:Indentation which is linked from Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout)
• acknowledge that comments on his user talk page which imply the need for a response or acknowledgement do normally merit a response of some kind, either on his talk page or on the poster's. Deletion of such comments without response (especially without edit summary) is permitted by WP:Blanking but will often be considered a violation of WP:civil.
• acknowledge that his user talk page is the primary way for editors to communicate messages specifically to him, and that asking people to stop using it is inappropriate
• acknowledge that deleting others' comments from article talk pages is highly unusual, and that where personal attacks on him might merit deletion, he should not delete them himself (rather ask the poster, reply to the post appropriately, let others remove the comments, or ask for help).
• acknowledge that he should not take offence at good faith suggestions, even if they involve criticisms of his actions
• acknowledge that citing policy generically is not a substitute for substantive content discussion, and that generic citation of policy discussion participants are aware of is unhelpful and can be considered aggressive. This contrasts with specifically quoting policy where it is necessary to clarify particular points, or raising policy participants seem to have forgotten or may be unaware of.
• acknowledge that when in content discussions people repeatedly raise questions they characterise as key to the issue, then dismissing, evading or ignoring those questions is not constructive.

Description

1. Not sufficiently engaging constructively in discussion on the basis of being open to changing his mind. This takes the form either (eg Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting) of ignoring key points made (in this case, that the first meeting of a group can't precede the publication which inspired it - in an argument about dating the first meeting), whilst repeating variations of his point, making the whole thing rather circular; and when the position becomes untenable, retreating into sarcasm and tendentiousness. Or else bluntly refusing to engage (and declaring an editor "a troll") [11] or else just not engaging substantively with the issue (Talk:Peter_Hart#Article_is_entirely_unbalanced; eg in that discussion)
2. Engaging in wikilawyering, citing policy that everyone is evidently aware of, to some extent in lieu of actually responding to points others make. Example: [12] Or (citing WP:NPA in a very formal way without obvious reason [13].)
3. Responding to attempts to discuss his behaviour (not always perfect) by seeking to find equivalent faults in others (no doubt not always perfect either) - even when this is clearly unhelpful and hardly more successful than a distraction. Example: a reversion of his deletion of another's talk page comments led to this unedifying exchange about a previous exchange where he'd left me a comment on an article talk page, and I'd removed it as the substance was recorded elsewhere and it wasn't relevant to the article, and responded to his point on his user talk page. This had satisfied him at the time, but suddenly it became an issue!
4. Taking offence at nothing. For example a reminder to indent replies [14] was deleted without reply or comment, but the fact of having reminded was used as part of this comment accusing me of "being very hypocritical" (because I'd remarked that his previous citation of sourcing policy was unnecessary). When I responded to the deletion without comment, he claimed "harassment" [15]
5. Telling people not to contact him via his user talk page [16]
6. Deleting others' talk page comments. [17] Albeit the comment accused two editors (including Domer) of gaming the system, I considered deletion inappropriate and unconstructive, particularly by one of the editors in question. My reversion of the deletion (together with a "let's move on and AGF" reply) was met with this outburst.
7. Failing to indent talk page replies appropriately, as demonstrated by this thread - WP:AN#Question (one of many examples - it is a fairly consistent pattern, despite repeated reminders, eg [18]), and then by this anti-correction (removing a colon when he should be adding one) seemingly demonstrating every intent to continue in this way.

Well I guess that's it - and that's basically from a few days at just three article talk pages (Talk:Irish Volunteers, Talk:Peter Hart, Talk:Dunmanway Massacre) and his user talk page. I hope that at this point Domer can do some soul-searching and appreciate a certain need to be a bit more forgiving, a bit more open-minded in terms of being able to change his position in the face of evidence, less eager to seek fault in others and and generally more willing to be collaborative. See desired outcome above. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC, however, failed due to lack of certification from a second user, which seems a combination of confusion over scope (see the deleted talk page of it) and an editor being away who would have certified. Afterwards, I tried again to engage Domer [19] in acknowledging that there were things he could do better, to no avail [20]. Since an editor refusing to acknowledge his faults - faults which are violations of various policies - isn't sufficient reason to ignore them, I wanted to bring the issue, for someone else to take a look at the situation and suggest a way forward. That might involve warning or sanctioning Domer. It might involve telling me I was wrong to pursue these issues, or that I was right but I should give up now anyway. Archiving the issue unresolved, without any comment on the substance, as happened earlier today, I cannot accept. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you're attempting to resolve a large number issues involving this user's interactions with other editors (including yourself). It also appears that there's a nontrivially-complicated background behind all these. Finally, it's not entirely clear what administrator action you're asking for us to take in your statement of desired outcomes. It strikes me that this is best suited to another forum; AN/I doesn't work well for extended discussion. If the RfC wasn't certified solely because a) it was originally drafted with poorly-defined scope and b) editors who should have participated were unavailable, is there any reason not to refile with a clear scope and in coordination with other certifying parties? Looking at the 'desired outcomes' you've specified, some need to have some additional explanation before I would be comfortable with endorsing them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take another crack at RFC as an outcome here (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48), though I would have preferred an outcome that allowed me to walk away. Would it be permissible to undelete the old RFC (better if someone else did it) and get it certified? Or at least to userfy it temporarily to save people re-typing their comments? There were a number of comments and it would seem a bit bureaucratic to insist that these comments have to be made de novo. Rd232 ^talk 07:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you know what, it's suddenly hit me that the amount of mental energy required to pursue this is incompatible with my current RL situation. I'll come back to it in future at some point if it's still necessary then. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded behaviour on Dark dune spots page

User:BatteryIncluded has proposed a merge of article Martian spiders under Dark dune spots (see Talk:Dark_dune_spots#Merger_proposal). I was practically the only editor who came out, and while thinking that covering the two subjects under a same article could have been a good idea, I opposed the merge under that name because the nom showed no scientific consensus of Martian spiders being the same thing of Dark dune spots, or a subset/subfeature of these features -see discussion. Incidents were as following, in order of concern:

1. Closed proposal and merged article, claiming consensus for his own motion even if no consensus was achieved : Discussion on talk page was ongoing however more or less normally, while he arbitrarely decided that discussion was closed with full support for his motion [21] and proceeded with the merge, declaring that I agreed with his merge even if no such consensus was achieved on the subject and only two editors (the nom and me) were involved in the discussion.

1. Deleted comments by User:Cyclopia on talk page : After discovering that, I promptly removed the closed discussion template [22], asked for explanation and clarified my actions [23] [24]. As a result he [25] deleted my previous comments insisting that "discussion was archived", in violation of WP:TPO.

1. A very minor incident was nom !voting on his own proposal [26] reiterating arguments of nom. I found this misleading and confusing for other editors potentially interested in discussion, giving superficial impression of more support than really it is on nom proposal. I tried to reformat (without deleting or modifying any content) his comment [27] to clarify discussion, but he reverted [28]; I didn't further revert but clarified my position. Discussion on this with nom can be found here.

In short, my personal impression has been that BatteryIncluded has basically ignored discussion and WP:CONSENSUS: while we all know of WP:BOLD, a merge between two established and well sourced articles is a risky and complex (and in this case controversial) action that would have warranted more discussion. He also misrepresented my views, claiming they supported his motion when it unambiguously was not so. He single-handedly declared a discussion closed while it was not, and, most concerningly, he decided to delete my comments while I asked for clarification and reasons. There is also a strong WP:SYNTHESIS problem on content, but probably this is not the right place to discuss. I ask admins to review the situation and advice/decide how to proceed. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the only 'main editor' of both 'Dark dune spots' and 'Martian Spiders', which I found and developed both from one-liner stubs to full size, so I know the science reports, and since they shared the exact same references (which i provided) for both, I proposed a merge -not a rename- back in August 11. Cyclopia showed up several days later -in the negative- only after I voted against him on a survey to rename the article Planetary habitability[29], in a move that resembles stalking and vindictive behavior from his part, mostly because it is painfully obvious that he has not read and/or understand the referenced material and continually changed the point of his opposition: At the beguining of the discussion he denied there were scientific references suggesting that they are related phenomena: "If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that." [30]

When i pointed at the references, he produced a second excuse to not merge: What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that."

When I indicated to him that several publications stating the same hypothesis, is 'scientific consensus', he changed his objection for third time: he wanted to see a "review paper stating a general consensus that DDS and spiders are the same thing" [31], which of course, nobody would write as they are two separate components of the same geological system.

A large 'spider' feature apparently emanating sediment to give rise to dark dune spots. Image size: 1 km (0.6 mile) across.

Sunlight causes sublimation from the bottom, leading to a buildup of pressurized CO₂ gas which eventually bursts out, entraining dust and leading to the dark fan-shaped deposits.

When I said that even one research paper stating their relationship would be enough for the merge, (WP:Truth) he objected again: No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. [32], and also: "You linked a lot of articles which seem all to converge on the possibility of a relationship, but still very vaguely, nor there is any indication that these articles do represent the majority viewpoint."[33]

It was at this point that I realized it was all about his POV and that he was not reading the papers I presented to him, or discussing the science in them, he has been making up objections as he went along, effectively disrupting a simple merge process that has a vast supporting material from high quality references to grant it. Cyclopia has been only expressing his POV, not the science in the articles. It was at this point that I decided to quote to him Wikipedia:Truth and remark that his POV can't compete against the references cited and proceeded with the merge (migrating data) as he has not been reasonable in making an effort to either read/understand or produce supporting material for his POV.[34]

Then he invented yet another excuse to oppose the merge saying that he approved it but must be done only done under a different title.[35] Again, my proposal was about a merge, not a rename, that can be done later if granted.

Regarding the article's name, sources indicate that Dark dune spots are small CO₂ geiser-like systems which are fed gas by the spiders' sub-surface channel network. How is the volcano WP article named: Volcano or "Conduit" How is the geyser article named? Geiser or "column"? They are not synonyms but components of the same system, and like the Dark dune spots, those articles are named as Volcano and Geiser -respectively, not by their underground channels.

Anyway, Cycolpia did agreed to the merger and asked me to choose the page name, he wrote: "That said, I think that a merge is a very good idea because there are indeed enough sources to justify treating the features in the same article. What I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one. --Cyclopia" [36] So I did the merger and chose the name most used in the scientific literature cited: Dark dune spots, as the fundamental objective in naming articles is to choose unambiguous titles that readers will most easily recognize, and because articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.(wp:COMMONNAME) My revert he mentions is because he tried to to undo the merge, [37] despite he agreed to it and is now archived and redirected.

Having said that, I don't mind a move (rename) as "Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars" or "Spider and dark dune features on Mars" per (wp:COMMONNAME), and I object to the false name he invented and he is pushing for: 'Planum Australe albedo' features because 1) most readers do not know what albedo is or that Planum Australe is on Mars, 2) because his empirical take is not the name used in ANY news release or scientific publication on this geological formation. Lastly, I don't think there was a "controversy" in that discussion as he claims (maybe a 'debate') as the scientific literature I am referring to, and quoting in the article (& discussion) has been published and bears more weight than his POV. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I am not here to debate the merge itself. I am here to debate your behaviour in managing the merge: declaring closed a discussion that was not and deleting my comments on a talk page. If you want to debate the merge, do it on the article talk page. As for me "making up objections", my objection has always been one and only, you know perfectly well. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references", is not a valid reason. (WP:MM) The history of Cyclopia's excuses (unreasonable interferences) is archived for anybody's review. The only reason this landed on ANI is because Cyclopia is unable/unwilling to understand the references cited; in a nutshell: Spiders are under-ice channels that conduct dust and gas to the surface, upon eruption, the expelled dust and gravel accumulates on the surface creating a dark dune spot. I don't care if he won't read the references or if he is not a believer of the science models, as almost 40 high-quality scientific research papers (all with inline citations) disagree with his POV. The article has plenty very relevant references supporting the statements in the article, and that is that. As I write this, he is again in the DDS talk page challenging the verifiability of statements (e.g. spiders are gas channels that feed the geiser-like vent), when it has inline citations right next to it!

Cyclopia does not only deny the science, he does not read it before denying it! This is harrassment pure and simple, and it has to stop. I am asking now to please ban Cyclopia from editing the page Dark dune spots (and its talk page) or whatever other name it may been given in the future. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not engaged in acts of policy violation on the Dark dune spots talk page; you instead violated WP:TPO eliminating my own comments and misrepresenting my opinions. My edits to the Dark dune spots page were all minor and none of them challenged your editing. So your rationale for a page ban is really unclear. As for the content of the article and the science, please talk about that on the article talk page, not here. Here I am asking for opinion on your behaviour, not on the article content, which warrants an entirely different discussion on itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed to answer this accusation: Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references" is not a valid reason. I want everyone to notice that I believe and understand the references, absolutely. The references explicitly propose speculative hypothesis. See Talk:Dark dune spots#Requested move for details. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed this one too: he tried to undo the merge. Have you a diff confirming that? I never tried to undo the merge, I only objected to it. What I undid was keeping the discussion as archived and closed: it was (and it is) not. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first a disclaimer -- I'm not an admin. Second, it was clearly improper for BatteryIncluded to declare consensus when there was only one support and one oppose. Third, the only people involved in this dispute so far are the two of you. One-vs-one disputes are usually intractable, especially when the parties get annoyed at each other. The only way to get anywhere in the long run is either to find a way to deal with each other, or to bring some third party to the table. Admins are not going to decide the content issue here. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that it is a one-vs-one dispute, but there has been repeated disruptive behaviour and, especially when I saw my comments (which were on-topic and polite) deleted from the talk page, I felt entitled to ask for admin's advice on the situation. As for the content dispute, I am trying to untangle it on the appropriate talk page (despite the other editor trying to bring it here, which is not the correct place AFAIK). --Cyclopia (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this this deletion by Cyclopia:[38], on the exact same basis I could claim then that he indulged in 'bad behavior' when he deleted my entry in the form of merge header and footer. I repeat: Cyclopia could not impede the merge simply on the basis of his ignorance of the subject and/or that he does not believe the scientific models are worth of being used as references (POV). Please notice that now he has reverted to his excuse #1: He declares above that I used 'synthesis' to reach the conclusion that this phenomenon is geyser-like, with spiders being the channels that upon eruption produce the black spots. Again, if he does not have the training required to understand the subject, he should not try to get involved with only his POV. Simply he does not understand/aknowledge the science articles cited and therefore his oposition to the merge was always unreasonable. I do not expect the administrator to go read the 40 research papers cited, so I will quote two easy ones verifying the geyser-like model:[39] (just look at the image!), and this one: "These observations are consistent with a geyser-like model for spider formation.[...] Also consistent with such venting is the observation of dark fan-shaped deposits apparently emanating from spider centers." [40]. I don't care if Cyclopia does not believe the scientific references, because: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.(WP:TRUTH)

Now, for respect to the administrators, I won't go over all 40 scientific references, which believe me, have a consensus on this model, except where indicate in the WP article. Of greatest importance is to understand Cyclopia's refusal to aknowledge these references have no intelectual or WP legal weight on whether the merge was justified or not. I have not done "synthesis" on the geyser model as I showed above, and I gave him ample time to express his negative views, which turned out to be unreferenced and insubstancial to reasonably impede the merging. I have absolutely no reservation with the faithfull representation of the geophysical phenomena presented in the WP article as they all are supported by scientific references, and if "behavior" is an issue in this ANI page, there is a lot to be said about Cyclopia's demonstrated ignorance on the subject, his refusal to aknowledge the role of the scientific articles perfectly placed as inline citations, and his disruptive and inflamatory behavior in the Dark dune spots page. I did not do the merge 'just because', but relied on the scientific references cited weighed agains his POV. Again: his excuse that he doesn't "believe" the references cited, was never a valid reason to have impeded the merge or even having prolonged the circular discussion any longer. Finally, I already demonstrated that he agreed to the merge and even conceded to me the choice for the article name, [41] which I did according to the scientific literature: Dark dune spots. I still request that Cyclopia is banned from editing this article and its talk page as his disruptive interference seems to be vindictive (see my fist post).

I hope I am clear, and am willing to take questions from the administrators. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Please, both of you - stop attacking each other and assume good faith.

This is going to take time to review. I am familiar with planetary science in fair depth (I know some of the authors of the sources for this article), and even so, you've put forwards a body of reference material which is intimidating to have to review independently in this.

I'll look in to it, but you have to stop provoking each other. ANI is not a club to win content disputes. You have an uninvolved administrators' attention now, who is familiar with the subject area, and you'll get a review. But if you keep swinging ANI around like a club you're going to swing it right into your own noses. Try to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we expect you to be adult and collegial in your discussions here, assume good faith, be civil and polite to each other, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. I am personally sure that the other editor is in good faith, despite our disagreements and my concerns with his behaviour. Thanks for taking the time and patience for reviewing this. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

At Sea Shepherd Conservation Society there is trouble with an anonymous user who disagrees with what has been a long-standing consensus: while there are notable accusations of "eco-terrorism" against the organisation, it is not NPOV to claim that it is eco-terrorist. In particular, the IP disagrees with the argument that due to the analogy Sea Shepherd/Eco-terrorism ≈ Psychoanalysis/Pseudoscience Category:Eco-terrorism (which would be misread as saying that Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist, even though it might be applied on the basis that Sea Shepherd is important to the eco-terrorism debate in the same way that psychoanalysis is important to the pseudoscience debate).

I am not sure whether the long-standing consensus still exists, since two other editors (Mdlawmba and to some extent Cptnono) agree with the IP. But there is clearly no consensus to apply the category, either, and the IP is trying to push this change through. Since 11 August the category has been applied to the article 12 times by the anonymous editor and once by Mdlawmba. It has been removed 6 times by Tranquillity Base, 4 times by me, twice by Cptnono, and once by Craftyminion.

The anonymous editor (previously always as User:68.41.80.161, but today when for the first time doing a 3rd revert in 24 hours as User:69.213.86.67) has been leaving bogus warnings on editors' talk pages. For example when I removed the category and left a long explanation on the talk page, I got a warning not to "remove content" without explanation. The most recent incidents of this kind (both today) were a bogus vandalism warning [42] against Tranquillity Base and a warning I received [43] for an admittedly borderline comment [44] on the Sea Shepherd talk page. The editor is aggressively whitewashing their two IP talk pages and even censored [45] a comment of mine with the misleading edit summary "Removed comments about myself. Discuss the issues, not me plz." (I can understand that the anonymous editor doesn't want to be reminded of their edit warring to misrepresent a key source of the article, but surely it would have been enough to remove the last relative clause rather than the full paragraph.)

I would appreciate it if an experienced admin or two could watchlist this article. Hans Adler 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for disruptively editing the User talk:68.41.80.161 page. However pardon my confusion on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article, but if notable sources have called it an eco-terrorist group, then why not call a spade a spade? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are advised to tread lightly using such terms.  Skomorokh  20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since it's transparently the same user and the IP in question seems to be a static one, I disagree with the reason for the block. (Not with the block itself, though.)

Regarding your question (which is off-topic here, has been discussed on the article talk page and perhaps should be discussed at WP:NPOV/N as well): It's not NPOV to call a spade a spade based on cherry picked sources that do so, if other, equally good sources call it a club or a diamond. Perhaps you didn't understand my analogy, but the most important experts on "pseudoscience" generally call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, and yet Arbcom found in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that we can't call it one. This is now policy in WP:PSCI. Both terms have similar demarcation problems. "Eco-terrorism" also has additional problems, since the term has transparently been coined to make "violence" against property sound more dangerous than it is and thus make extreme action against harmless idiots more acceptable to the general population. Since this is part of a general trend to make the definition of "terrorism" more and more inclusive it's hard to tell whether "eco-terrorism" is terrorism. Also note that our best source for the connection, an FBI person's report to the US Congress, does not say that they are eco-terrorist but only appears to imply it. I am sure that this is no accident, since the same 2002 source also implied that eco-terrorism is terrorism and it would have been strange that Paul Watson wasn't put on the No Fly List if both statements were true. Hans Adler 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Were that strictly the case, then I suspect that Category:Eco-terrorism would be an empty category. However I wonder what gets Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front added to the category, while Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is excluded. Certainly all three have been described as "terrorists" by Western governments. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories are intended as search tools, not as vehicles for making assertions, although they are frequently misused that way. The question is basically whether a reader of the article might be interested in locating other articles that have been associated with eco-terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question is easily answered by a quick look at the three articles. Sea Shepherd is a legal non-profit organisation incorporated in Washington. Earth Liberation Front is an illegal organisation; being suspected of membership in it seems to be a sure way to see the inside of a prison. "Animal Liberation Front" is a label used for a certain type of criminal activities. I am not sure where your confusion comes from. It seems the drama we are having here on Wikipedia is mostly related to a sympathetic programme about Sea Shepherd that currently runs on US television. Is there a similar programme glorifying the Earth Liberation Front or perhaps even Al Quaida? Hans Adler 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree 100% with your final two sentences. It would seem to me that an organization could be legitimately added to Category:Eco-terrorism if any WP:RS reported that a government had declared the group to be "terrorist," regardless of if that government were the United States (Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!), United Kingdom (Justice Department), or Iceland and Japan (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society). — Kralizec! (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. We only tag an organisation with a disparaging label when it is NPOV to do so. This is because a category inclusion can't be qualified with "according to the Japanese government" or "we don't mean they are eco-terrorists, just that they are sometimes mentioned in that context". So long as it isn't NPOV to call the previous US president a war criminal, it's not NPOV to call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. Hans Adler 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with uncontroversial categories. If there was wide acceptence that what they did was terror (or a self catagorisation), but if we go based on what one or two people say, then we could just as equally put Japan or Iceland in the category based on Paul Watson's claims. To be honest the entire term smacks of meaningless news speak designed to dehumanise and trivialise a debate (and sell copies, of course), and while we should cover the term (it is wide spred) I'm not sure how much value we should be giving it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been forced to link PETA to the "terrorist" word in the lead, with in-text attribution, even though they're a charitable organization with an all-star cast of members such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. But if even one lone American senator or FBI official uses that word in connection with a group Wikipedians tend not to like—even though no other country in the world uses the term so lightly—then immediately the claim has to be added to the lead or the article to certain categories. I ended up having to write it into the lead myself at PETA, as I recall, just to make sure it was properly written and sourced, because people were constantly adding it. The attraction of these "boo-hurrah" terms (e.g. terrorist, pseudoscience), as philosophers calls them, represents one of the ongoing failures of how we apply NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, if a consensus of reliable independent sources call a spade a space, we want to be reflecting that in our coverage and not whitewashing things.

The organization has damaged property, sunk ships (and has sinking kill markers on their own vessel), and threatened lives (their own, and those of some of the whalers), though they seem to be trying hard not to get anyone actually injured or killed. They're trying both to change public opinion with PR campaigns (the TV shows) and direct action (they've used explosive mines against whaling vessels in the further-ago past).

I don't want to conflate them with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but "Environmental terrorist" is the current commonly used english word for those who take direct action in the name of environmental causes. It's applied to organizations which many of us support to some degree (PETA, and Sea Shepherd), some we find extremist (ALF, ELF). But it's the category in use in the real world.

I want my free-range whales to be harpoon free, too, but they match the definition of the word, and they blow things up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We are currently working on the question whether there is such a consensus of reliable independent sources. It may surprise you, but it's not even totally clear that there are more than perhaps one or two reliable and sufficiently independent sources that openly call them terrorist or eco-terrorist. And before we can talk of a consensus we would need to consider sources of comparable quality that disagree, or possibly other evidence that points in the other direction. Hans Adler 08:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem edits on three different IP ranges

Lately I have been coming across edits from three separate ranges of IP addresses all performing the same edits. For the past several months, IPs from 32.178.0.0/16, 166.203.0.0/16, and 166.217.0.0/16, have been adding original research (either adding color names to where they were not before or referencing actual species where they were not before) to the articles that I edit. Semiprotecting all of the possible pages where these edits could take place seems out of the question and would require semiprotecting entire categories of articles. The individual seems to hop about to multiple IP addresses in a day (the first four I list have all been used in the past 24 hours), and does not respond to any talk page messages.

• 166.203.145.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.123.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.97.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.199.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.23.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.109.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.149.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.82.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.173.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.65.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.15.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.249.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.71.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.153.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.202.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.200.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.214.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have been putting the IPs on WP:AIV whenever I come across them having been recently used. The work put in to clean up after these vandals (I had made an edit notice for one of the articles) is relatively too large when blocks which may disenfranchise users of mobile hotspots/mobile phones/similar items.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one comment -- if this is a user (group?) on a range of dynamic IPs, isn't it a bit off to indefinitely block one? — neuro^(talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I removed three of these from AIV so that they could all be addressed in a more uniform fashion. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortened the block to 31 hours. Enigma^msg 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not make that request to indefinitely block. I merely pointed out it was a long term vandal. It is definitely one user on a series of dynamic IP ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• 32.178.215.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP was just used not less than five minutes ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep finding more IPs in these ranges having performed the exact same edits going as far back as April. Surely with all of these, more narrow ranges can be found to be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked that IP. I don't have experience performing rangeblocks, but I would think a rangeblock would be appropriate here. Enigma^msg 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Asked Nishkid64 to drop by. Enigma^msg 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's too much collateral damage. A narrow rangeblock would seem ineffective, since this person's IPs come from all over the /16 range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure about the collateral damage aspect? He just seems to be assigned new IPs in these three ranges that have never been touched prior.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. If you look at the IP contribs from that range, you'll see what I mean. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check any of the other edits on the ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

32.178.201.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is yet another IP address used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeni and the Lincoln page

I had worked out a clear compromise on the Lincoln page between those who want to redirect Lincoln to Abraham Lincoln and those who barely want to mention Abraham Lincoln at all--mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. At least one other editor signed on to this compromise, and provided ample justification as to why. Then Jeni and another editor come along and undo our compromise with just one little mention on the talk page that attacks us and accuses us of being America-centric. When I tried to enforce the compromise, Jeni started an edit war and accused me of not knowing POV and threatened to take me here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a feeling this user would do this when I let him know that I would bring him here if he continued his POV pushing edit war! This user is making edits without consensus and has been reverted many times by a selection of editors, yet he won't take the hint that he needs to generate consensus before making such controversial edits (You'd think the reverting may just be a hint!) For what its worth, I don't mind bowing to a consensus either way, even if I disagree with it, its just that there is currently no consensus for the changes he is making! Jeni ^(talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeni. You have to allow for others to join in. Not make a quick one hour discussion and change. Continuing to revert only escalated the matter. Reach consensus and then change. –túrian^patois 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, I think the problem is that you had worked out what you wanted as the compromise......and one other editor agreed with you. That's not the same as consensus to support the compromise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When you've got both people and places with the same name, what's the normal protocol? Most if not all of the American cities called "Lincoln" were named for Abe Lincoln, so putting him afterward seems a bit out of sequence. The dilemma there is that presumably the British locations were named before Abe came along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agree with me, Bugs. For the record, the original compromise was between:

1. People who want Lincoln to redirect to Abraham Lincoln (several people)

1. People who want little or no mention of Abraham Lincoln (Jeni and a couple of unknown IPs)

The compromise was to mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. I am merely managing it by reverting anybody who a)doesn't explain edits on talk page; b) vandalizes (which has happened at least once); or c) uses poor grammar (one editor left out commas). At least one of those reverts I made was vandalism or trolling, and none of them were discussed on the talk page. Also, remember that Abraham Lincoln is much more visited than any of the articles mentioned by a ridiculous margin Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The only part of it that is actionable here is the edit warring. What stands out for me is Purplebackpack89's 10 reverts in a few weeks, including 3 in 25 hours on 3 September, and 3 in less than two hours today. Hesperian 03:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Can I remind Purplebackpack not to bring the ins and outs of the content dispute to ANI, this isn't the place. I have started a discussion on the Lincoln talk page for that. Jeni ^(talk) 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Also note that another user has got involved with the edit war, continuing to edit against consensus. I am unwilling to revert anymore as I think that may take me past 3RR. Jeni ^(talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "agree with" anybody, I asked what is the normal protocol for a page where both people and places have the same name? Or is there a protocol? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reaching a agreement with extremely limited participation and then revert-warring to enforce the position is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination and reflects poorly on your judgement as an editor. Until you can demonstrate clear broad-based support for some alternative introductory lines, I suggest that the long-standing intro line remain in place (simply Lincoln may refer to: -- with no other elaboration). older ≠ wiser 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(multi-ec)Purplebackpack should not have gotten sucked into an edit-war (note that Jeni is equally guilty), but is correct on the content issue: it's idiotic that the dominant link by a margin of over 10-1 is hidden inside a table deep down the page. It is arguable that policy says the proper solution is to redirect to Abraham Lincoln with a pointer to the disambig, but pointing to the dominant article in the lead is a reasonable compromise. Hiding the link that 90% of visitors want is taking paranoia to an extreme. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute itself. Generate appropriate consensus on the talk page. Jeni ^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(more ECs than I can count) Seriously. This is no more than Argueing over the color of the bike shed. This is quite a WP:LAME issue to be worrying over. Its a disambiguation page. Insofar as Abraham Lincoln's name is on it, anyone looking for that article is one click away, and should have no trouble finding it. Otherwise, the level of concern on both sides devoted to this page is rediculously out of whack with the importance of said page to the encyclopedia. We could all use some tea, and to call the Mastodons back home and climb down from the Reichstag and take off our spiderman suits. --Jayron32 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at the talk page, I see no consensus or even a "happy medium" as you mention, Purplebackpack89, to make this change. Even if there was, a "happy medium" does not allow you to make any change. Even then, the amount of reverting taken place should have told you that consensus is clearly not for or against it, which means you guys should have discussed about this more before putting on your battle dresses and heading for the undo button. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(2Xec)This is more about the actions of the user, rather than the content itself, as I said, I have an opinion but I'll bow to the consensus, when reached. Also worth noting is that the user had the intention of edit warring from the start, per this diff.[46] For that reason I'd propose a short sharp block. A mentality like that is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia in my opinion. Jeni ^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's so much reverting going on, everyone is liable to be getting blocked pretty soon.

Then I can redo the page my way. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly had no intention of entering into an edit war, on my final revert I stated my next actions should it continue (which was bring it here). I merely reverted per the WP:BRD discuss cycle. If however, my edits are deemed to be inappropriate, I will take any sanctions made against me appropriately, but I feel I was acting appropriately in the circumstances. In retrospect, I perhaps should have bought this here one revert sooner, but we aren't perfect. Jeni ^(talk) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 12 hours. This is getting ridiculous, and since there are other editors involved in the reverting as well, I think this would be best to allow (more like force) discussion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the user has started inappropriately WP:CANVASSing on WikiProjects. I have no issue with him letting WikiProjects now, but he should do in a neutrally worded manner,[47][48] as I did while notifying WikiProject England.[49] This user is seriously starting to become disruptive now. Jeni ^(talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"A few Brits are saying that...."[50] If you agree, comment".[51] That's pure gold. :-D The sheer clumsiness of it just beggars belief. Hesperian 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni's is WP:CANVASS as well,because she notified an English one without notifying an American one. That's partisan audience. If she didn't like it, she could've counter-commented. And did somebody do something to my talk page? The archive is on the talk page, and the new points from the last few weeks are gone Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that it is not possible to tell from her post where she stands on the debate. She is asking for people to join the discussion, whereas you are asking people to come support your side of it. Hesperian 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention this with my "canvass". Thus justifying it. I would now like to see this user blocked for continued disruptive editing. Jeni ^(talk) 03:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see clumsiness rather than malice here. It may suffice for someone to point out to Purplebackpack89 that they are behaving like a complete goose. Hesperian 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how much clumsiness is involved, as he refused to reword the posts when I bought him up about it. Jeni ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you could counter-comment. Besides, Hessy already fixed them.

Great. How long before this descends into "Soccer sucks!"... "No, American Football sucks"... "Cricket sucks!"... "No, Baseball sucks!" The last thing we need is ANOTHER pointless naming debate drawn along nationalistic lines... --Jayron32 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called "Association football" you scoundrel! :-) Hesperian 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for us, you Brits would be living under the Third Reich ;-D Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) loves jokes

Maybe it'll create political tension between UK and US? Rubs hands together excitedly ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cricket is a fine sport - lots of scoring, continuous action (except for the tea breaks) and plenty of intrigue. Soccer is... well, soccer is watching a bunch of guys in shorts kicking a ball from one end of a large field to the other. Tiebreakers are great. They should skip the 90 minutes of kicking the ball from one end of the field to the other, and just go straight to the tiebreaker. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if a successful compromise has been reached among the "warring" parties, on the Lincoln talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On another note, can somebody explain to me why all my talk page edits since August 20, when I last talked about Lincoln on my talk page, have been rolled back? They even tossed my archive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not rolled back, they're simply gone. Admin attention is needed here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins, please hold off on unprotecting the page until a larger consensus has been reached - as per discussion on the page. I'm feeling like Abe's messenger boy here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Purplebackpack89, there are no edits to your talk page after 20 August, as the history shows (unless they have been oversighted for some unknown reason) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right...I got that page mixed up with a different one Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a sockpuppet, huh? Hesperian 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like "Plaxico" is just around the corner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My interactions with PBP89 haven't been pleasant at all. I have to say, PBP89 is again continuing his POV pushing and edit warring. He has done it in other projects as well. He doesn't care for consensus and the edit warring and this thread is a poor judgement of his decisions. IMO, he should try and cool down rather than going about and reverting. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Give another example. And how the heck is this POV pushing? I just want a guy with 10K hits a day who's in the core biographies to be at the top of the page. If I was POV pushing, Jeni was POV pushing in the other direction, especially on the Franklin page, which nows looks like the consensus on the Lincoln page (She accused me of breaking consensus when there hadn't been a talk page edit in yrs). And you guys forget that, among other things, I had to clean up typos and vandalism that included, "Lincoln was three feet tall and gay". PMLine, you're making baseless accusations that are practically WP:NPA. And Hessy, the "other page" is my page at Simple English Wikipedia. I also have pages in Simple Wikibooks and the French Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously false. There is no source that asserts Lincoln to be 3 feet tall. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. (I can't believe I just answered to "Hessy".) Hesperian 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

This really isn't an incident, but Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs) has a history of adding nonsense to articles and having it removed (see add & revert, add & revert). He's been warned o f t e n about this, but claims to not understand. Is there anything that can be done? Deserted Cities 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about those bands. Is there any evidence of edits which are actually nonsense and not just apparent confusion about genre or addition of redundant text (such as a sentence fragment about a song being unreleased when it is on an article titled unreleased songs by blah). Like this? Are those the correct tour dates? I'm not seeing disruption here. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is just someone without a great grasp of English trying their best to improve an article (and failing), such as in this series of edits. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, that lack of language skills means they don't appear to understand when people try to communicate what they're doing wrong. Black Kite 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue is, as Y2kcrazyjoker4 put it Chris is "utterly incapable of following directions or making a constructive edit". As I mentioned, he's been warned to stop adding stuff (generally genres but other stuff as well). The issue here is that Chris does not respond to most warnings on his talk page and doesn't discuss any changes he makes. But yes, some of it is absolute gibberish. Deserted Cities 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sidenote, someone should look over his userpage. There's some personal information on there which may not be a good idea. Deserted Cities 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. I just couldn't really pick out what the immediate problem was from the posting or a quick glance at the contributions. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I would just like to point out that all of this could have been solved long ago. The Laws of the Universe, clause 42 clearly states that "an individuals potential contribution in any field is inversely proportional to their expressed appreciation for Coldplay". The user has at least 6 userboxes expressing said sentiment. This rates about 8 on a scale of one to Gary Busey. --M^ask? 08:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like the user is very young. He claims to be in the 8th grade in the US school system which, as far as I understand, means he's probably about 13 years old. That could account for his failure to understand what's going on as well as his poor grasp of written English. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a student in the 8th grade of the US school system should not at all explain a poor grasp of written English. If someone doesn't understand how to write properly by 8th grade he probably never will. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement indicates that you haven't graded many papers from 8th graders recently. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Will-I-Am Shake-Spears (NO RELATION TO BRITNEY) wus a early righter in english of poetry and plays and rightings that is wellknown for her many many rightings who are published a long time ago and even today still". Yup, did an article once on basic literacy skills between US and Canadian students. Good news is that US kids know their history a little bit better. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Need an Opinion

Resolved

 – Deleted them all, Snow--Jac16888^Talk 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:I am a jedi has created a "game" on his userpage. Found this while doing some Recent Changes partols. While it is on the user's userpage, games like this have been frowned upon in the past. Should this be nom'd for deletion or left be? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NOM NOM NOM. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell 'em about the various free wikis out there. The game can be linked from the userpage. Grandmasterka 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you always die at the end. Good waste of time though. Deserted Cities 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note left...now to OM NOM NOM the pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages NOM'd, user ain't happy about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly consolidate them into one MfD? That'd make !voting and such a bit easier. Javért  |  ^Talk 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how....I don't do many XfDs. If you know how to consolidate them, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this user was blocked for edit warring last year and apparently got himself embroiled in a dispute or two..then basically contributed a dozen edits in the next year and came back for this.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Homer, tell you what. You get rid of all the discussion pages for the other xfds, and I'll help you list them all on one page. Just make sure not to delete the primary one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bulk of the MfD noms leaving the main page. You can take it from there. I, of course, can't delete the other MfD pages outright, you will have to find an admin for that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There, fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles

• Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last week Racepacket had removed a statement and a reference that stated that the University of Miami was commonly referred to as "The U", which was supported by the original link, citing a discussion on the talk page that had occured in April 2007. Another editor found the removal, undid it and added a new reference. Racepacket for the past two days has been editwarring over the exclusion of the words "The U", despite consensus being against him on the talk page of UM's article and at WT:UNI, where an ongoing discussion concerning the usage of the shorthand names continues for reasons I can't ascertain. He continues to assert that common names or short hand names or nicknames are slang and violate a precept of WP:NOT.

His disruption of this article (removing references, removing non-controversial common sense statements, filling an entire paragraph with {{fact}} tags) has moved onto other articles relating to the University of Miami (Miami Hurricanes and a {{notability}} tag on Iron Arrow Honor Society). The straw that broke the camel's back was when he removed the 3 references that supported what he was questioning [52] and then a little over an hour later removed the statements entirely [53], including undoing many formatting changes I had made to make the article easier to read. This accompanied with his inability to work with myself, DroEsperanto, and other users who have been trying to make the article meet his strict sourcing requirements is getting tiring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U (University of Miami) might be informative, here. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Uncle G, your reference is helpful. Obivously, User:Ryulong's claim is not true. I did accidently remove some changes when there was an update conflict which I immediately added back. The problem is that User:Ryulong has an emotional ownership in the article, as evidenced by his discussions on the talk pages. I am trying to get concensus while removing redundancies and reorganizing the article to conform to other university articles. I appologize for any inadvertant deletion, but I try to add stuff back as soon as I can examine the diffs that occured while I was editing and saving. When one gathers related sections of text that is scattered, one must edit the entire article and not just one section at a time. There are content disputes galore here. User:Ryulong (who is an undergradute student) has strong, but mistaken ideas about how the Graduate School of University of Miami and its Business School are organized. When I started fact checking the article, I found many comparative statements without any citations, such as the University was the largest employer in Dade County and that it was "the youngest" university to ever conduct a $1 billion fund raising drive. (The source said it was "one of the youngest....")

The problem with the deleted references is that they do not support the claim that the University of Miami is commonly referred to as "The U." The references are merely examples of websites where people are quoted as saying "The U" after laying down a context or antecedent. If there was a press report of a sociological study or a trademark strength survey documenting that people (beyond the campus) understand "The U" to refer uniquely to the University of Miami, I would support including the footnote in the article. The footnotes offered are either local, school specific, or not on point. We have had many inches of discussion on this where I have explained the concerns and I offered several compromises or alternative formulations. None of the cited works discuss or conclude that "The U" is in widespread use as a replacement for the University of Miami. (There is already enough confusion between Univeristy of Miami and Miami University.)

The reference to WP:NOT was explained earlier in full when I quoted from it that Wikipedia is not "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." I think a little "Assume good faith" can go along way here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/achievements_and_traditions/traditions/ and scroll down to the the 6th boxed area, titled "The U". For that matter, use any of the other 657 g-hits on miami.edu or 89 g-news hits. If you still don't believe it, five minutes of watching the FSU-UM game tonight will show you that they are often referred to as "The U". --B (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:B, thanks for the research, which again shows the problem -- even on the official Miami website (which is a primary source), "the U" refers to the split-U logo, or the U-hand-gesture or the University-as-a-whole. The question is whether there is any reliable secondary source, that is not just local coverage, that shows that "the U" is generally understood to mean that particular university. It is not like UNLV, SUNY, Cal, etc. I have given examples on the talk page that there are several schools that use "The U" in their own locality and 1) Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to document the geographic and demographic scope of particular nicknames and 2) it has proven to be impossible to find verifiable reports that people generally understand "the U" to mean the University of Miami. I have offered as a compromise to move it down to the ahtletic section of the article were it can be discussed next to the school colors, team mascot and athletic logo. But it does not belong in a parenthical equating itself to the name of the school in the first sentence of the article. Thanks for your help. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that single example is referring to the logo, plenty of instances are unambiguously referring to the school, eg [54], [55], [56], [57]. Even the news media says the school is known as "the U" [58] This was a generation that grew up rooting for Miami, the school known as "The U," which won 34 straight games from 2000-02. Miami is one of my three least favorite teams (UVA and WVU are in there somewhere), but it is what it is. --B (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know there are no reliable sources involved, but whenever a Miami alumnus announces on national football broadcasts what school they attended, they invariably say "The U". So to claim that it isn't called The U is simply wrong. Any more than claiming that Ohio State isn't called The Ohio State University. It's just something they do. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC

While I somewhat agree that it requires a bit of original research to look at the usage of "The U", I think this may be a case where Ignore all rules applies and where adherence to WP:V is borderline wikilawyering. Racepacket has also asserted that calling a school "The U" is just like saying that I'm going "to campus" or "to school", which I believe is an illogical comparison because "The U" is used as a proper noun and is only applied to some universities, not all. The use of providing context about which school they're referring to before saying "The U" and the fact that "The U" may not have the singular meaning of "University of Miami" are irrelevant: people often omit "University of" when mentioning their school (e.g., "I studied physics at Maryland" or "Have you applied to Chicago yet?"). — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that someone can remove all of the references to the lead (in the first diff) and then decide to remove the text entirely. I can only assume good faith so far. The wikilawyering and the continued removals of the references is going too far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As is the nonsense text he added to further disrupt the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• With all due respect, summarily reverting changes without discussion or offering alterntiaves is being "disruptive". I've made many proposed solutions, which I don't think are perfect, but it is impossible to come to consensus unless people discuss where to go from here. I think that discussion on the talk page or WT:UNI is more productive than trying to discuss it here. If I am "borderline wikilawyering" I am sorry, but I don't know any other way to consensus. Bullying is not a solution either. Racepacket (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket is continuing to argue against the inclusion of the text on the talk page of UM despite consensus being against him here, on the talk page of UM, and the talk page of WP:UNI. Someone else's intervention would be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Would getting a third party mediator help? We need to get past the hostility here. Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(To reply to both points): You have summarily removed the references and statements regarding the content on this page more than once in the past three days. There have been multiple third party mediators on every page where the actions on the article are being discussed. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that you are incorrect in your removals of the text regarding the alternate names, and there have been multiple people saying that here, Talk:University of Miami, and WT:UNI. I have done all I can to improve the article in its coverage of the shorthand names, but you have thrown out every reference shown to you or have been saying that they do not show that the name is used, but it shows uses of the name. Your wikilawyering over this point has made me lose my patience in dealing with you. And I have stopped assuming good faith after you purposefully have been removing the references used from the article and then used that as an excuse to remove the text entirely.

You have stated that you want to create a new policy to cover these alternate names and it is clear that you have been using University of Miami as a case study. This content is on every article on a college or university. I am tired of arguing this same point over and over again. "UM" and "The U" have been proven on every possible chance that they refer to the University of Miami, at least in the context where the University of Miami has already been stated. People from the school refer to it as such. This point has been hammered in so much that you can't use the claw end of the hammer to get it out. I want to move on, but every time I check the page again you have found some other reason to expound that the content should be removed, which you then do yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a point I bring up above, Racepacket is suggesting that a mediator (a la WP:3O) be brought in despite there being multiple opinions brought here, on the article talk page, and on the WikiProject talk page. I am confused as to why he thinks an umpteenth opinion will change anything here. The horse is thoroughly dead and beaten after six days of this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think were are near consensus. For the first three days, you just summarily reverted the edits without comment or justification. I then make some proposals and you asked me to wait to have others comment. Since this ANI was posted, I have proposed two different compromises, and User:B has posted a third and you have summarily reverted his changes as well. I have tried to get more input from other editors at WP:UNI and all we have learned is that "The U" / "The University" problem exists on other pages as well. The University of Virginia acknowledges the problem in a footnote, but you won't agree to include the Virginia disclaimer in the Miami footnote. We need someone to get the discussion to focus on the problems at hand -- the footnotes not supporting the article text and misleading the reader that there is a widespread "common" belief that "The U" means the University of Miami to a large number of people. From what I've read above, you might want the article to discuss the phrase "The U" and the strange U-shaped hand gesture along with the Athletic Logo or in terms of some branding scheme launched by the Athletic Dept in 1973. But the current parenthetical in the first sentence with the misleading footnotes is very strange and a disservice to the reader. A mediator would require you to write down what you are trying to say with that parenthetical and then we could figure out how to incorporate it into the article. Perhaps you are reluctant to do that because no verifiable sources exist regarding some of it, but it is worth the effort. I will bide my time and comply with the 3RR, but we are far from a consensus, and I am looking for an avenue to work toward one. By the way, leaving profanity or curses on my talk page does not move things along. Racepacket (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything by B. There is no need to address the text in an extensive footnote as is featured at the University of Virginia page. There is no "problem" with "The U"/"The University". Only you see it as that. There is no need to express anything extensive about these alternate names. They are merely annecdotal references that need not be expounded upon in prose as you suggest, and there are no "misleading footnotes". You have been the only person to express any concern about these items (the thread on the talk page where you have reinitiated discussion was about a lack of references on these terms). There is currently a consensus against the various suggestions you have been making. And there is nothing that another mediator in this process will do anything about. You have been removing citations from the article which is practically vandalism. Multiple editors have been disagreeing with your changes (MiamiDolphins3, B, Do be good man, myself). Why can't you get the freaking point?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have reverted B. You are also engaging in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. Please reread the discussions and my comments. I get your points about "The U", but when an author drops a footnote reference it must match the statement in the sentence. The footnote just has references that quote someone local saying the "The U". That does not proved that "TheU" is "commonly referred" to mean Miami. Let's leave out the footnotes unless they prove the point. The talk page has a number of alternative formulations, but the phrase "commonly referred" is just weasle words that does not tell the reader what you seem to want to say about "The U" phrase.

That was not a revert of B's edits. And I'm tired about the semantics about the references. And "commonly referred" is in no way a weasel word/phrase. You are continually suggesting that there should be an extensive discussion of the name "The U" in the article, which I doubt I would find anywhere online (you continue to assume it refers to the Split-U logo or the gesture depicted in the article by the mascot based off of said logo and not because it is "the University of Miami"). I do not indiscriminately revert your edits, as I have not gone through and undone everything you have done to the article. Some edits I disagree with and undo and then change things to match your issue. Throughout your editing of this article you have shown zero knowledge of the subject matter as per your comments on the talk page and your inference that "The U" is a common noun and that Iron Arrow Honor Society is not notable for inclusion, when there was a Supreme Court case concerning the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, the proper noun/common noun distinction was from DroEsperanto. I said "The U" is like a pronoun in that it needs a context or antecedent for meaning and pointed out that the Univ of Minnesota also uses "The U." If the Athletic Dept. is trying to build a tradition around it and is encouraging football players to introduce themselves that way, you can write about it in the article and people will understand that it is an on-campus, insider thing. If you want to use UM or The U as an abbreviation in the article, we can put it in a naked parenthetical without a footnote. But please do not claim that it is "commonly referred" without explaining the geographic or demographic scope of your claim of use. "The U" is too redundant with other schools to have world-wide meaning, and it could mean the school, the athletic logo, or the hand-gesture. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest anything you are stating about the single instance of "The U". It is merely an abbreviation and in no way a pronoun that is used to refer to different educational institutions, depending on the context already established. There is no way in my opinion that any of your requests can feasibly be filled because of your incorrect insistances. Why are you bothering with the semantics on the use of the word "commonly" in the lead and why are you insisting on requiring extensive sourcing behind the usage of the phrase? It's pointless and aggravating to everyone else. I think I had attempted to remove "commonly" from the lead paragraph, but then you brought up a completely different issue about it and it was eventually added back. Every time something is done to satisfy your requests, you bring up another issue with the same part of the article. You don't bring up the same issue on other articles (Florida State University, University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc.), especially when we have found multiple sources and shown them to you here, the talk page of the UM article, and WT:UNI. This is why this thread is here, because I feel that you are now disrupting the editing of the article through your constant requests, deleterious edits, and apparent lack of knowledge of various aspects of the subject matter (and how nearly all of your edits in the past week have been to or related to the article).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sedna10387

I'm getting tired of dealing with Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), who seems intent, despite all the good advice he's got from other editors, on introducing into WP inappropriate articles about various aspects and institutions of his hometown. His most recent creation is Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings, which I've nominated at AfD; but previous articles of his have been speedied, AfD'd, speedied after recreation, and deleted as copyvio. There's also the problem that he uploads numerous nonfree logos to place in his articles, which then have to be tagged for deletion after the articles themselves are deleted. I think the kid is editing in good faith; but he seems unwilling to comply with WP policies and procedures, and I think the time has come for a block until he agrees to so comply and shows an understanding of what he's agreeing to. (If anyone thinks he hasn't been sufficiently warned or that other editors have not made an effort to educate him, trawl through the history of his talk page, most of the messages on which he's blanked at various times.) Deor (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, he's moved Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings back into his user space in an attempt to short-circuit the deletion discussion. (He did this before with Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge.) He seems to think that if he can only store everything in his user space until no one's looking, he can slip it back into article space without addressing any of the material's deficiencies. I've undone the move (not sure whether that was the right thing to do, but I'm rapidly losing what little patience I had left). Deor (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD notice says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Moving the article into userspace is de facto blanking the article. It needs to be evaluated on its merits, not userfied and restored to article space when the danger is past. I think moving it back was right.

My message to him is among those which has been blanked in the past; I informed him of some copyright concerns, including with images here. His only response was to remove the {{npd}} tag from the images, File:2nd building.jpg & File:Frank and mary's.JPG, with his IP. (No guesswork or outing there; see [59]. That & contribs make this a gimme.) This does seem to reflect a history of hoping problems will go away without addressing them directly. Not sure if a block is necessary (it may be, but I haven't looked extensively at recent edits), but if this kind of tag removal to preserve content out of process continues, it certainly will be. I believe he's working in good faith, but communication is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that there is more than one city in America called "Pittsboro", so even if the article were notable (as opposed to being an advertising tool of the chamber of commerce), its title would need to specify which Pittsboro it's referring to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Being stalked by a user

A while back, I gave a 3O on an article about International Baccalaureate, and since then, I've got swept up into the conversation. One editor, ObserverNY (talk · contribs), has been particularly tendentious in her edits, and it's gone on for months. Yesterday morning, I read about Van Jones in the news and went over to the article and corrected a problem in one of the sources. I didn't realize Observer was active on that page, so I was rather surprised to see a snarky welcome from her on the talk page there, and a less than civil comment on my talk page. I participated in the conversation over there for awhile until it turned into a forum, and then I went away. I just checked the talk page of another discussion I'm involved in, and Observer has shown up there, more or less admitting that she followed me over. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive about this, but I'd rather not be stalked around. Can someone comment on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANI - please be advised that the editor HelloAnnyong is engaged in a "conspiracy" here: [60] to have me banned. His/her sudden arrival at the TALK:Van Jones page subsequent to my posting that I was having no problem interacting with editors of extremely diverse POV on an extremely controversial article, was evidence to me of HelloAnnyong's WP:Stalking to bring back "evidence" to build users Candorwein and LaMome's ridiculous "case" against me. Sure I checked out HelloAnnyong's edit at Kitchen Nightmares. It appears another editor there, Roman88, is engaging in WP:Canvas, exactly what LaMome and Candorwein have done.

I don't believe in running to Wikimommy everytime somebody disagrees with me. Certain editors here simply have "control" issues. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My first edit on the Van Jones article was 9/6; yours was 9/1. I promise you that my intention on getting involved in the Van Jones article was only because I had read about him in the news - not to try to get evidence. If you read the conversation on the other article you linked to, you'll see that I haven't added anything about the Van Jones article. Others may have, but I don't control what comments they leave. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for establishing those dates, HelloAnnyong. For you see, on 9/5, you said: "Now you need to take it to the next level. Without someone watching, the articles are just going to turn into garbage, basically undoing months of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)". And then, all of a sudden, the very next day, you miraculously woke up to read the news and didn't happen to read the history or talk page of an article you decided to leap into. Hopefully the ANI will see through your duplicitous scheme. ObserverNY (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've blocked ONY for 24h for incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Having blocked ONY twice by myself, I would recommend blocking ONY indefinitely. He's got an axe to grind and is a net-negative to the project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible block, IMHO. Hopefully it was rectified.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal info posted

I have a concern that in the creation of Kristine kvalsnes, personal information (a phone number) was posted. I do not know if the information is legitimate, but I imagine it would be prudent to have this deleted from the archives just in case. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted now; if you feel it needs to go further, WP:OVERSIGHT is thataway. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea, frankly - just wanted to give y'all a heads-up. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

Comments removed. Craftyminion blocked for 48 hours for outing and edit warring by Tanthalas39. A stern warning to all those involved to remember to focus on editing the content and not on who some editor may or may not be. NW (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure WP:OUTING should be applied in cases that are completely obvious to all involved, perhaps someone would like to step in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to end the blanking of comments, etc. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Absolutely. Comments have been rendered in good faith. Downright unsporting to have numerous Sysops reverting them. Crafty (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty unreverted the comments again.[61] Ikip (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody's arguing with your good faith, Crafty, but the tone is coming across as quite vindictive and the identity of the editor who created the articles should, in theory, be irrelevant to the debate. The comments add nothing and have been remove by three different editors (myself included) from both sides of the debate. Try to focus on the content, please. -- Vary (Talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see any real reason these comments should be removed. Tan | 39 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion about this on Crafty's talk page, in which several editors are warning Crafty, and he is ignoring those warnings. Crafty's absolute statements sound a hell of a lot like User:The Land Surveyor, who was just blocked a couple of days agao because he was a sock of User:Peter Damian I will let a couple of editors who revealed User:The Land Surveyor look at this, if Crafty is in fact not a sock, he has nothing to worry about.Ikip (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Looking through the contribs, the personality and topic area is quite different from Peter Damian. I've never known Peter Damian to be so invested in reverting vandalism, and he is more sarcastic than angry, which the above comments seem to suggest anger at a user potentially violating CoI than biting comments against an encyclopedia that may or may not have failed at appropriately dealing with a user who produced quite a bit of content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Otta, I consider that issue closed then. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Vary, such wording as "we shit or get off the pot" only enflames things, let alone the last thing we need is the imagery of people going to bathroom. It is about as bad as the trend I have noticed in films lately that for some off the wall reason has to show people vomiting. Who needs/wants to see that? How does it actually advance the story other than just gross people out? Well, similarly here we do not need to use toilet talk. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) "Shit or get off the pot" is common slang, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the mental imagery they produce. Tan | 39 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) None of this is vindictive. The editor created the articles about himself and he (not to mention his choir of supporters) needs substantiate to the community why they should remain given that sound reasons for their deletion have been offered. The editor surrenders his right to privacy not because he publishes this stuff, rather because he cannot cover his own tracks. For the record I welcome a sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Not censored seems to apply more to articles than conversation. In civil, academic discourse (and I have attended multiple actual academic conferences), people do not evoke such imagery. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Strawman argument? This is not an academic conference. This is Wikipedia, and we don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the imagery. Tan | 39 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't we aspire to be academic? And what disturbs me most is the taunting "I'll out the bugger once more". Since when is it okay to out other editors? I have editors, whose real names I was able to figure out, swear at me and send me blustering emails and yet I have never saw fit to provide their real names on wiki to anyone else and certainly not in a mocking manner. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Deindent. Crafty is now in violation of the three revert rule, with five reverts in just under two hours: 1 2 3 4 and 5 He was notified of his near-violation shortly after his third revert and again after his fourth. Since the issue is already here, do I need to bother with the edit warring noticeboard? Crafty, will you self revert? -- Vary (Talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Reported to 3rr.[62] Wikipedia should have no patience for such editors. It is obvious that he is here on a personal vendetta "These comments will stand".[63] and there is no comprimise in this vendetta. I fear as soon as he gets off block his behavior will continue. Can an admin block him longer than the typical 24hr for edit warring, for his attempted outing too? I need to look into his edit history, maybe a community ban can be considered. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Given this is a matter of principle, I regret to say I'd rather chew through my own leg. My edits stand. Crafty (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I just protected the page for 1 day. You other editors were basically just baiting Crafty to violate 3RR. If some other admin wants to block Crafty for this, fine - but I won't. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty will take his strapping like a man. Crafty (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PP applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles. It is perfectly acceptable to protect an AfD for a short period in the event of significant edit warring. Your issues here were clearly not so much about the alleged OUTING as a witchhunt to get Crafty blocked - bringing up unsubstantiated sock accusations, baiting for 3RR, etc - even censoring for "tone". Tan | 39 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Tan, when you have one editor who has reverted five times and four others who have each reverted no more than twice, the least disruptive action is to block the editor who has violated 3RR, not to protect the page with his/her preferred version in place. This is particularly true when the page involved in the dispute is an ongoing AFD which you have now put on hold for 24 hours. I'm also not appreciating what looks like an assumption of bad faith on the parts of the four editors (again, myself included) who've found the comments disruptive and in violation of WP:Outing. Your comment here puzzles me: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to apply here: while one commenter in this thread did point out that the metaphor was unnecessarily icky, that's not the reason the comments were removed. -- Vary (Talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bring it on Ikip. Ban my tuchus. Marshal the numbers right now. All my behaviours are available for the community to see. Crafty (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) He now posted a message on my talk page, outing the same editor again.[64] Tan, by letting Crafty get away with this, you are only encouraging it. Crafty's edit history shows that like many editors here, he will continue to push the line, and abuse editors as much as he can get away with. By protecting the page Tan, you are not stopping the drama, you are only reinforcing it, and emboldening Crafty. Ikip (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC) AfD unprotected per Risker and discussion on my talk page. This action is not an endorsement of any editor here - I still feel most of you are acting disingenuously here. Tan | 39 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Tan, that is why you are an admin, and I will never be, you seem to have much better judgment :) Ikip (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Tan. Just thank you. :D Crafty (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Per Tan, I think we can all act better and more sensitively to the issues involved. I've removed my own comment, which I think was unhelpful, and I hope everybody will allow that. Crafty hasn't said anything new, but I do dislike the tone. My apologies if I offended anybody. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan | 39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz.  Skomorokh  23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Crin Antonescu and Crin Antonescu

A user who signs Crin Antonescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Crin Antonescu article for a while now, turning the page into a resume and repeatedly removing referenced info on other areas of his life, while adding some peacock terms. WP:COI is a strong possibility - not necessarily him, but someone in his staff (note the picture upload), which is a pretty serious WP:POV concern, given that Romania is about to enter a presidential race. Granted, the article he replaced was not great, but how does this help? Can someone check and enforce the appropriate measures? Dahn (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Might want to consider taking this to WP:COIN; I'm notifying the party involved Cheers, I'^mperator 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Cheers, I'^mperator 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's okay :). Anyway, I notice the editor in question has stopped after my warning, at least for now. If this resumes, I'll follow your advice and go with COIN. Regards, Dahn (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kcusseibbutelet

Kcusseibbutelet (talk · contribs) this user's only edits are to tag a bunch of accounts as socks, does this smell fishy? Triplestop x3 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the editor is tagging his own socks. Not sure whether that's good or bad. (Note that the account name is "teletubbies suck" spelled backward.) Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan, probably. The usual behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the "I Hate <Insert TV show>" vandal. WP:RBI. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh, I get them confused. My bad. → ROUX ₪ 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Child's information not wise to be displayed in Wikipedia?

Resolved

Other wikipedians have decided to let the child keep address and information on Wikipedia. Finland 203 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The child hates his school mate, Lewis Hamilton. His school address is displayed. Should the user's mommy be contacted and given a suggestion to remove the address? The user is User:RuleOfThe9th . Finland 203 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's not in the same class as Lewis Hamilton. No opinion on the school's address.--Atlan (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified User:RuleOfThe9th about this thread.Shinerunner (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the school's address -- after all, it's not exactly secret. If you want to argue that he shouldn't mention the name of his school, that's more useful, but I don't think it's really defensible either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking by User:24.37.41.212

I would like other eyes to consider the continuing pattern of overlinking by 24.37.41.212 and determine if a long block is in order, after short blocks had no effect to either get the overlinking to stop or to get the editor to discuss the issue. Wikilinking is an important part of Wikipedia's functionality, but overlinking makes an article hard to read, and can if persistent enough be considered disruptive editing, i.e. vandalism. The editor has shown a pattern of linking to random phrases, to disambiguation pages, to articles other than the intended one, to common words, and of repeatedly linking to the same article. Their edits have been reverted by several other editors: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] and they have been warned on their talk page by other editors. After a final warning, I blocked for 24 hours. Then the behavior continued. After another final warning, I blocked for 72 hours. Then the behavior continued, even after another final warning: [70] shows the addition of multiple links to the same common words, such as "oak," "dove" and "spring." In [71] overlinking included linking to "hemotologist" repeatedly in the article "Hemotology." In [72] multiple links were created to "rudder," as well as redlinks to random phrases, and links to disambiguation pages such as Figure. The IP editor has not communicated on his or my talk page. I have requested that he read Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinks. I hate to block at all for overlinking, but it is impractical to follow the editor around and undo all the bad links, leaving only the few good ones added. Since the editor does not communicate or indicate a willingness to stick to just adding useful links, nor has made any effort to change the manual of style to make the overlinking an accepted practice, I suggest that a long block is in order. But I would like someone else to make that determination, since it is better to have consensus. Edison (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have informed 24.37.41.212 of this discussion and invited his/her participation. Edison (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've reverted some more of the indiscriminate wikification. This person was linking things such as
  • "on the coast west of Dodona",
  • "the first founders of places of divination in the aforesaid countries",
  • "brought on the calamities of ill fortune",
  • "endothelial disfunction" in one paragraph and "endothelial disfunction" in the immediately following one,
  • "decreased surfactant production",
  • "A higher mean pressure cycle-wide",
  • "which further impairs oxygen delivery",
  • "the surrounding skin", and
  • "topical vitamin E".
• This is completely indiscriminate — linking without even paying attention to the sense of the words and sentences being wikified. I've had no qualms about using the vandalism rollback tool on these edits, because this appears to be linking just for the sake of it, with no attention to appropriateness, style, or even meaning of the text being edited. I note, from reviewing the editor's contributions history, that others have reverted other similar edits as simple vandalism, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• 24.37.41.212 is prolly just inflating his edit count so he can request adminship! But to be serious, the question of a long block is surely just a matter of how much collateral damage it would cause. If none, then go for it by all means. A really long block, for wasting people's time (and causing them to inflate their edit count). Little Stupid (pretty smart today) splash! 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

I am really tired of reading "they're just trying to inflate their edit count". Let's declare a moratorium on the use of that term, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that request for a moratorium really necessary, are are you just trying to inflate... oh, nevermind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Edit warring

71.139.27.252, who then hopped to 71.139.17.190, 71.139.19.254, and currently 67.188.158.240 has been persistently edit-warring on the article in the "Errors" section, and has been having a case of WP:OWN.

Two errors were on a single page, so I just added 'Additionally, on the same page (70)' instead so that 'On page 70' would not be reiterated. Well, this guy keeps changing it back and does not discuss on the talk page. I told him SPECIFICALLY to discuss because of his engagement. But he keep reverting me about 20 times.

Is there a way to stop it? Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The information was so trivial, I deleted it - I hope this helps. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eek, what a bunch of OR! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a vandal

Resolved

 – Advice handed out, no admin action necessary Tan | 39 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One of my edits has been reverted and called vandalism by User:Deserted Cities. The diff is here. Furthermore, he marked the edit as minor, perhaps hoping to escape notice? Even further...um...more, I think he might be stalking me after an exchange I had with a different editor on the talk page of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", a page that Deserted Cities undid me on this morning. I got to "The Ox" by hitting "Random Article" and copyedited to the best of my ability, something I do here and the same way I got to "Weeps", and this guy whom I'd never met before comes shooting in and reverting with a vandal accusation. What does a Wikipedian in my position do now? I'm notifying the other party. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment and this comment (both on the talk for WMGGW), you show a clear lack of regard for consensus in regards to capitalization of band names. So to me, ignoring consensus constitutes vandalism, which is what you did on the Ox. It was marked as minor automatically because I used twinkle, not because I did it on purpose. Deserted Cities 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See me on my talk page if you want to discuss consensus and the like. This page is for the vandal accusation and the suspicion of stalking. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They go hand-in-hand. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. There is a time to defy consensus, whatever consensus is. I'll admit I don't have a very clear idea of that aspect of the Wikipedia experiment. If a clot of zealots squat on an article and come out of the woodwork and revert whenever some editor tries to edit it and shout him down when he tries to reason with them, is that consensus? When a gang of hobbyists decide that their pet thing merits some special consideration in defiance of long-standing convention and common sense and gruffly warn all comers to do it their way, is that consensus? I'm not saying that that's what's happened here, but I have run into things like that. When our friend John from WMGGW mentioned the Beatles group, I did go look at the project page for the guideline concerning capitalization. I couldn't find it. I have checked project pages before for such details, notably the botany and biology pages for conventions concerning nomenclature and reference names. John said that consensus was currently in favor of capitalizing the "the". I looked under "Guidelines", a reasonable attempt, I think, but nada. I tried the talk page with the hope of joining the discussion—no dice. Please show me where it says that on the project page.

There is a time to defy consensus. Ignore all rules. Anyone can edit. Nobody owns an article. Be fucking nice, damn it. You seem to have strayed from some of the core principles of Wikipedia. Be cool. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pot is calling the kettle black. Deserted Cities 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that. I have done nothing to you. You, on the other hand, have reverted two legitimate edits of mine, called me a vandal, and started following me. And now you refuse to communicate. Show me where it says about the capitalization. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A) You told me to cool off, but it appears from your comments that you need(ed) to cool off. B) Here's one discussion on the matter here. Deserted Cities 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a vandal if I don't find an inconclusive discussion buried in archive 21 of a talk page merely hinted at by a rude editor and adhere to your interpretation of that discussion? Douglas Adams would have loved this. I repeat that this is not the place for this discussion. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well what exactly do you want then? Blood? Deserted Cities 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "vandalism" should only be used for edits that are intended to cause damage. Edits made in the belief that they improve an article should never be called vandalism, regardless of how misguided they are. As you can see, misusing the word makes people very upset. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the second comment I linked too, he says he'll continue to make similar changes, even though he's going against long-standing consensus; what would you call that? Also, I'm sure people don't like being called "groupies" or part of a "cabal" as Milkbreath referred to us. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the revert was right; but calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith, albeit incorrectly, is any number of things, from incivility to newbie biting to just unnecessary. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line - yer both wrong, Milkbreath and Deserted Cities. Milkbreath, welcome to the Wikipedia project; if you wish to change long-standing consensus, be prepared to take it to a talk page and pitch a damn good argument. Realize that the status quo probably exists for a reason - that shouldn't deter you from trying to change a consensus you think is wrong, but charging in and changing it yourself - however commendable from a WP:BOLD aspect that may be - is not the best idea, and trying it after you were reverted is an even worse idea. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or need some help. Deserted Cities, thank you for your vigilance in fighting vandalism and the like - but this was not vandalism, and calling it such never works out for anyone. I've seen the above situation dozens of times. Just take the tip, continue your good work, and we can all move on. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another possible ban evasion by Bambifan101

Resolved

 – In other news, the sun rises in the east and water is wet...--Jayron32 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It appears that he created another sockpuppet about an hour ago, which is just 30 minutes after his previous one was indefinitely blocked; see the relevant entries in the user creation log for details. When will this end? SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The original account was created a year ago. Eventually he'll get bored or his mom will take the internet away. Until then there isn't much we can do except block most of SW bell and wait until people complain to their ISP. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Blocked the last of those socks, and that original account was initially softblocked as a username violation - I've reblocked with autoblock enabled, account creation blocked. Not much more to do right now. ~ mazca ^talk 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Resolving. --Jayron32 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, I worked with Collectonian and semi'd about four dozen of his favorite targets indefinitely. Sucks, yes, but better than blocking fifty thousand IPs. It worked for maybe six months or so; now those articles are probably either unblocked per RFUP or whatever and/or he's moved on to new ones. Perhaps I should do some research and try that again...? Tan | 39 02:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can spot some good targets that's a reasonable idea; but I've not seen any real core of articles in his recent activities. ~ mazca ^talk 06:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How did the RSN lead you to Operation Defensive Shield? Who said User:Jaakobou was Israeli? Why didn't you ask User: Tiamut and User: Nableezy, the editors that you disagreed with, the the same question? Do you think any editor writing about the Iraq War should be asked if they or their relatives were involved in the war? I can't believe I allowed myself to get drawn into debating this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[73][74][75][76][77] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[78] which the second editor did[79] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[80][81] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[82] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[83]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[84] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) +bb, 24hrs hasn't passed Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this thread as it seems the bot didn't recognize a 5 tilda signature and archived too early. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using 219.90.234.177 (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for ([85]). This is not the first time; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you review a block for me?

99.228.164.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

99.228. apparently likes Pakistan. 99.228. apparently doesn't think much of India. Virtually all of his edits since June '08 reflect this.

He's been blocked several times in the past for edits which 'big up' Pakistan whilst diminishing India (sometimes making POV-pushing edits under the guise of 'grammar' 'wording' fixes, etc.), changing sourced data and replacing talkpage comments he disputes with POV screeds. I've been dimly aware of him for some time now, after warning him a while back against altering other people's talkpage comments on an article I had watchlisted. I noticed today from recent talkpage comments that he's still 'at it'.

So, I've blocked him for 6 months. His talkpage history shows a long record of blanked warnings from numerous users which have gone completely unheeded.

For the record, I have no particular opinions WRT India-Pakistan relations but I would appreciate a review of this block from a few pairs of uninvolved eyes. I feel that it's pretty much inevitable that I'm probably going to get accused of being the guy who's trying to stop the guy who speaks The Truth from speaking The Truth here.

Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we normally don't block IPs for that long, but in this case this has been shown to be a very long term lease on the IP, so its probably okay. However if it is shown he can release and grab a new one, this one should probably have the block reduced.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Its the IP's fourth block for pulling these shenanigans.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the banned users Siddiqui/Nadirali or Szhaider. All are on the 99.220s 99.230s in the same Canadian city YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. Normally, blocking an IP this long isn't a good idea. In this case, however, it is clear that one person is, and has been, using this IP to be disruptive for a very long time. Given the clear evidence that the IP is only being used by one person, the block seems fine. --Jayron32 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, block is justified. The address has a history, and this is their fourth time being blocked. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing problem with Indian or Pakistani editors trying to embiggen their own country at the expense of the other. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Resolved

 – IP blocked Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit to User:Jimbo Wales that had some kind of disturbing "watch my 8 year old daughter die slowly & painfully" comment in it. I suspect it is mere trolling/vandalism, but I thought we are supposed to report here any time anyone mentions death of anyone in someone else's userspace, i.e. should an admin need to make an appropriate warning or if it is persistent block or if this has any legitimacy take additional action. I apologize if bringing it to everyone's attention here violates DENY, but whenever I see the "d" word, it just gives me pause. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like regular run of the mill vandalism. Nothing to get excited about. Block, for a while, of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked for a couple of days. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Popup tool glitch?

Resolved

 – false alarm. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I use popup on User:Craftyminion, it says that the user is blocked, yet the user is able to edit. Is this a glitch or something?Abce2|TalkSign 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He's blocked. He's only editing his talk page, from what I can tell. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But he's also editing a RFA. Abce2|TalkSign 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind.Abce2|TalkSign 01:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Place TfD

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

A rather contentious TfD for {{Infobox Australian Place}} was closed by its own nominator today, as No consensus. Despite a caution which says quote unambiguously (and partly in red):

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hesperian (talk · contribs) changed the closure notice (erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn) to keep.

I was trying to withdraw nomination with a speedy keep. "No consensus to delete" I thought was formal for saying keep. I have a right to withdraw my nomination. Reporting me here shows a disregard for my attempted withdrawal. You shoul dhave consulted me and made me aware that I had not withdrawn properly. It did not need you lot and Protonk to overide but I tried to la to rest yesterday with my attempted withdrawal. I reserve my right to withdraw my nomination, I just got my wires corssed yesterday with how to do so and it was misinterpreted. With having Protonk's closure overiding my bad attempt to withdraw initially makes it look like I didn't try to lay the conflict to rest myself. I had actually removed my comments from the discussion to to avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. This ANI report and continued trouble is really very unnecessary.. Himalayan 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While he may or may not have a point about the outcome, I believe he is clearly at fault to do that, not least as an involved editor (as am I), so reverted him per WP:BRD, inviting him, in my edit summary, to use due process if not happy. Instead, he has reverted again. I believe that disputant parties after a TfD should use due process, not edit war, so have brought the matter here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn", actually the error is Matt's. He converted the original nominator's closure from "no consensus to delete" to "no consensus to keep", thinking that he was correcting me. Hesperian 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is it important that the TfD be closed as keep or no consensus? I'm just asking this because I'm tempted to re-close it as keep with a warning that participants don't get to close debates and other editors don't necessarily get to remedy that by refactoring others' comments. However if it isn't really important how it gets closed, we could just trout the users involved and let things be. That is, if this isn't part of a larger fracas. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Hesperian raised the same issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Biased TfD closure by nominator: requesting re-closure. And yes, the type of close is important as the close was clearly a case of attempting to flatter the position of the nominator. Andy Mabbett has a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future and a "no consensus" close furthers that position much more than the more accurate "keep" close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• While I voted delete and am generally in favour of deleting or merging redundant infoboxes, I invite you to provide evidence that I have "a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future", or that that is relevant to my comments or actions here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first part isn't important to me. I could care less what might or might not flatter someone's position. The second part concerns me. Would this be solved to the content of everyone involved if an uninvolved administrator simply reclosed the TfD without going to DRV and all that mess? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC again!] Anyone re-closing should note that the TfD did not run its full course, but yes; my real concern is to discourage editors from reworking closed TfDs to suit their ends, whatever they are. I don't believe that keep or no consensus makes any difference, should the matter be discussed in the future. "Consensus can change" being key. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes; that is precisely what I asked for at WP:AN. Hesperian 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC] I wouldn't like to say how important it is, but I do know that the issue has been very contentious, with a lot of accusations of bad faith and ad hominem abuse, spilling onto VP and project pages. I did view the early closure as a conciliatory gesture from the nominator to "the other side", but perhaps I'm too closely involved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy is right about one thing: the entire discussion has been very contentious. There has been a lot of ill feeling and mistrust on both sides. And to cap it off, the nominator removed most of their comments, leaving other people's replies as incomprehensible nonsequiturs and generally falsifying the record of the discussion; and then inappropriately closed their own nomination, which was clearly being thrashed, as "no consensus". I undid the removal of commentary, and converted the closure to a "keep". Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN. I don't think the accusation that I have acted inappropriately here is sustainable.

The nature of the close is important because many on one side of the discussion have a sense that the other side has been sneaky and underhanded in the way they have carried out their agenda, and the "no consensus" close by the nominator fits in with that.

Hesperian 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No you've got it wrong. I removed only my own comments initially from the discussion nobody elses to actually avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. I only removed by own comments not for disruption but quite the opposite to try to resurrect the situation as the conflict was going nowhere and I wanted to end it. Himalayan 10:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN.;": No, you reverted again, as shown in the diffs above, then went to WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't dispute it. Lest you give anyone the impression that I have attempted to deceive on this point, I suggest you go read my WP:AN post, which predates this discussion, and which ends with "Andy Mabbett undid me. I undid Andy Mabbett. It's getting messy. Could a uninvolved third party please review and re-close." Hesperian 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I closed the discussion at AN. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

. Working on the close right now. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that someone uninvolved should close this TfD. An involved editor should never close, even for uncontroversial or unambiguous closes. I would have done so as an uninvolved and neutral established editor, but it's my sense that a WP:NAC on this would just potentially make it more ambiguous and subject to more reverts. An uninvolved admin closure would be best for due process and also for less drama, per precedent and common sense, even if not necessarily required by policy. — Becksguy (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the debate as keep here. Please read that close comment before continuing to prosecute this debate. It is my hope that this issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution chain, not through the more common method of waiting and re-nominating later. I will echo becksguy's comment above that involved editors should only very rarely close debates and should never take that chance to establish some strategic advantage for later closes. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and effort you put into that. Hesperian 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that the close was very early, but given the effectively withdrawn nomination and the ancillary issues with the discussion itself, we are better off leaving the debate closed rather than reopening it. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The close is in general a fair summary of the discussion and thank you for taking on the task of the close. However, I do take some exception to your comment: "The general motivation behind the nomination--that parochial templates ought to be merged into or built from standardized underlying templates--is a laudable one. Fewer, better coded templates would be better than more specialized templates." That was the very question in point in the discussion. I am not convinced that this is the case and certainly the proponents of IS did not even try to make this case at first, deeming it to be self-evident. I would be interested to know why you feel this is the case, either here, or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement or on my talk page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I may leave a comment there tomorrow. My main purpose in leaving that comment was to reveal as best as possible my bias on the subject. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Your new closing comment looks very well thought out to me. I originally noted it as "withdrawn by nominator" when I removed the TFD tag from the template, and added the 'tfdend' on the talk page. I have appended this to 'keep (withdrawn by nominator)'. As it has been noted before, it probably doesn't matter. I was glad to see the nomination withdrawn given the heated direction the discussion was moving. I would say this particular thread can be marked as resolved (in my opinion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a comment on the VP discussion. I would also recommend that this thread be resolved if the involved participants feel happy (or as happy as they could reasonably be). Protonk (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay by me; thanks again. Hesperian 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The matter as it involves the closing of the TfD seems to have been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the matter and for your comments at the pump. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

Mattinbgn appears to have spoken too soon. Himalayan Explorer, the TfD nominator has reverted the closure and added his own comments.[86] I reverted his revert but then, he reverted me.[87]. I'm tempted to revert again but I suspect I'll just be reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you overwrote what I had actually tried to withdraw my nomination initially. I've retained Protonk's evaluation as it is a useful summary but the fact remains that it was a self withdrawal but wasn't done properly. The current version acknowledges it was a self-withdrawal by the nominator and the evaluation is given underneath by Protonk which is how I think it should be. I tried my best to appease the situation byt trying to withdraw my own nomination but the overide by Protonk and Hesperian had now made it look as if I didn't try to end the conflict myself which is completely wrrong. I just got my wires crossed with how to withdraw and somehow ended up closing rathe rthan stating withdrawal. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination. The reason why it is important that I withdrew my own nomination but so show people that I was very keen to end the conflict and ill feeling. I have aonly removed comments which since have overidden what I had originally tried to do, withdraw my nomination with a resounsing keep I've acknowledged that the right thing to do was to discuss with WP:AU, please see my posts to Orderinchaos. I've apologised for not respecting more of your concerns earlier, but at least I had the ability to apologise and try to resurrect the situation. I tried to close the nomination by myself yesertday to avoid a prolonged heated discussiion and the very reaosn I withdrew all my comments was precisely because a lot of them wer enot heloping the situation and detracted from my good faith intentions which I'm now discussing rationally with Orderinchaos. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination which is what I actually tried to do initially. The actions since has inflmaed what I had tried to put to rest myself yesterday and I was overidden on a closed debate that I started and I had ended. You just misinterpreted my closure. What I emant to say with Nomination withdrawn. Resounding strong keep I tried hard to appease the situation yesterday and end the conflict but this has further stirred up trouble unnecessarily. I actually wasn't aware with how many people were happy or connected with the template otherwise I would have spoken here first. Again I have apologised for not consulting you first but please assume good faith. This ongoing ill feeling is not helping anybody, despite the fact I respected your concerns by swiftly trying to withdraw my nomination. I don't know what I have to say for you to understand I actually mean well and would actually simply like to see good quality maps in your articles and actually try to help improve things rather than degrade them. Orderinchaos can see that actually I would like to move on discuss things constructively as I should have done initially and I've acknowledged this, why can't you? Please just accept that I withdrew my nomination with an obvious strong keep in the debate and would now like to work and discuss things with you without conflict. The template was swiftly kept, now we should discuss what should have been discussed before the antagonizing TFD. Himalayan 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Himalayan Explorer and also warned him/her about this disruption on their talk page. I am now going to mark this thread as resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Withdrawing nominations

Is it not acceptable for somebody who nominates an article or template for deletion to self-withdraw their nomination? Check out Line 122 and Line 172 of this. I clearly withdrew the nomination yesterday. I did so yesterday on an Australian place template yesterday but I got my wires corssed with how to do so so. Then I log in today and find not only my closure has been overidden but it has been stamped out and comments I myself had made which I rmeoved to try to reduce the conflict over the situation were restored and it was closed by Protonk. Since MSGD has reverted all attempts I have made to mark it as a self withdrawal which I had done before I myself was overidden which I had infact tried to do and has dismissed me as some sort of disruptive vandal. If anybody else here tried to withdraw a nomination themsevles as final and later find out somebody has completely disrespected that and overwridden it would they find this acceptable? When a user clearly makes a good faith attempt to self close a nomination shouldn't this be acknoweldged? I believed all that needed doing was to prompt me that I had incorrectly closed the nom as a close rather than an actual withdraw and it should have been reworded to indicate a withdrawal not completely overridden. Himalayan 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether, for example, there have been delete !votes. If it seems plausible that it might be deleted, self withdrawals are sometimes reverted. Seems to be closed now. — neuro^(talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know the context, didn't partake in that discussion, but normally withdrawals are only permitted in a situation where someone else hasn't also recommended delete. Once someone else does that, it removes your ability to withdraw as there are other editors advocating that course of action. Withdrawal is usually only used in situations where the nominator missed some sources, or misunderstood a policy, etc--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but it makes it look now like I didn't at least try to appease the situation. The situation indicated a resounding strong keep so I attempted to self withdraw my nomination yesterday and retracted my own comments which didn't really help addresswhat my real concerns were and would only cause further conflict, but this was misinterpreted. I'm not happy with this, worse still is the closing parties inability to inform me or discuss with me my initial closing error and to overide me. I wonder how many other people here would be happy with having their attempts to close a debate they started with a withdrawal being overidden.. Complete lack of good faithh over the entire situation. Himalayan 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out Line 122 and 172 of this.

My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??

I ended the withdrawal by saying this, "I am withdrawing this. It looks like consensus could be reached if adequate changes were made to the Australian Place infobox, namely the adding of a simple pushpin locator map and coordinates rather than having to resort to x and y pins which editors more accustomed to standard templates find difficult to use and a possible reshuffling of the order of the parameters. So perhaps this discussion could be carried on on the template's talk page or the Aussie noticeboard but in a more rational way to decide how to improve the existing template and address the concerns which prompted this nomination.". Basically I fully endorsed what people were saying and indicated my withdrawal but this somehow not good enough? I'd have been happy to indicate strong keep but somehow it was misjudged. Very bizarre, I cannot understand the thinking of why you felt that was a neccessary action to originally report me above and then my attempt to correct it disruption... Himalayan 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??" -- I'm confused, didn't you report this to ANI? — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, check up the ANI page, I was reported here last night for actually self withdrawing my nomination which was intended as an act of goodwill and to end the dispute and dsicuss things rationally from now on, see what I actually wrote. For some astounding reason it was miscontrued as further ill feeling and I was reported here. Then when I tried to restore what I had initially intended, to simply marked the TFD as self-withdrawn I get me edits reverted and overidden again and dismissed as causing disruption, It seems a pretty unfair series of events. Himalayan 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an argument against withdrawal: It implies that you are the owner of the article. Once an article is nominated for deletion, the wikipedia community has the right to decide what to do with it, just as the community has the right to nominate the article for deletion - because the article belongs to the community, not to an individual. This is different from requesting adminship and then withdrawing, or filing a complaint and then withdrawing, as those are individual initiatives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps. But if the outcome is already evident, it just saves needless work. For the record, the articles don't 'belong to the community' legally, they belong to the contributors to that particular article. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I am 100% certain I've seen hundreds of people withdrawing their own AFD nominations. I am also 100% certain that the nominator, if the nomination is clearly going to be a resounding snowball keep reserves thr right to acknowledge their nomination mistake and cancel the nomination. I've sene it happen countless times over AFDs. This is completely double standard and a very bizarre approach to a situation I'd felt I'd already solved by keeping the template. I can guarantee that self-withdrawals are accepted on here but because some people misinterpreted my clear attempt to appease the situation and end the debate myself I get overidden? Himalayan 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis may be right, but that runs counter to the assertion that what you enter in an article is subject to "merciless editing", meaning that its original author does not own it. As far as withdrawing, what's the hurry? Why did you nominate it in the first place? Why not just let the process run its course? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, as one (the only other one?) to have cast a delete vote in that TfD, I don't see a problem with withdrawing the nom. I still feel that a specially designed infobox is overkill, and that the users who voted keep did not address the point of the TfD and lost themselves in patriotic argumentation over common sense, but the discussion was probably already dead before I cast my vote. So no, I certainly won't hold it against Himalayan that he withdrew it. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to actually help the Australian articles and add a proper pushpin map to articles like Alice Springs you see in 95% of place articles on here. But I found I couldn't add one to the template making editing them difficult so I thought it might be easier to convert to a standard infobox settlement which you can easily add a pushpin map to without having to find x and y pins. I genuinely thought the infobox was redundant. However it turned out that most of the Aussie editors wanted the template speedily kept so I withdrew my nomination to save a further conflict, yet I had this overidden and dismissed in bad faith. Himalayan 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with withdrawing a nom if it's pretty clear it's going to be kept, and you are convinced by the keep !votes. Saves time, saves needless effort of a closing admin and saves the chance of starting a dispute in some cases. We are allowed to withdraw FACs, after all. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the reason for overiding my withdrawal was because of one or two delete votes, then it should have been allowed to resume and not closed it prematurely or overidden me with another close. As it stands nominations typically should last a week to give a fair turn out. This was closed within a few hours because 99% of people who voted strong keep were those with a self-interest in the template turned up soon after it being reported to protest. Hardly a fair turnout but I just wanted to end the hostility. I feel I have been mistreated amongst all this as people always assumed bad faith, even when I tried to end the conflict myself. If you look into those who actually requested speedy keep you'll find they are all AU wikipedians who turned up to protest, with virtually no neutral comments on both templates from other parties. Technically, if my own withdrawal was not acceptable, this TFD should still be open to give a more fairer turn out after the initial protest. This site at times can be very unfair. Formal TFDs and AFDs without withdrawal should last much longer than a few hours that this did especially taking into account the vast majority of those who voted. Therefore the closure procedure which has taken place since is completely against guidelines as you do not close nominations within a few hours if the majority of the votes are those self-interested in the template unless it is a self withdrawal. Himalayan 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody answer these questions:

• Is an editor permitted to withdraw their own nomination if a high number of votes indicate a certain outcome?
• If a nomination is not withdrawn, should AFDs or TFDs be formally closed within literally a few hours by another editor, especially if the vast majority of the votes dictating the given outcome are by a distinct group who have turned up to protest and influence the way the discussion has gone?
• Is it not true that unless an editor withdraws their own nomination, that formal AFDs and TFDs should last a full week to give a fairer turn out, especially if a deletion has been subject to a mass protest?

What has taken place here is a violation of normal procedures. Am I the only one who can see that this is unfair? Himalayan 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no solid answer. It is case-by-case. — neuro^(talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what Himalaya is complaining about. He wanted an item deleted, so why is he now so anxious to have it kept? On the other hand, between with Chamal said, and the "delete" voter withdrawing his delete vote, what's the hangup on letting him withdraw the nomination? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you were trying to do the right thing. The concern, however, was that while it is fine to withdraw a nomination, you not only withdrew it, but also closed the debate with a summary of "no consensus". Even if you were right, making that call as the nominator puts you in a bad position, and it did look more like a clear keep to me. While no consensus defaults to keep anyway, a no consensus makes it easier to re-nom the template later, which is a problem given that I doubt that this issue is over. As this was a contentious issue, the better move would be to have withdrawn your nomination and let someone else decide how to close it, especially as others had voted delete already. However, irrespective of that, this is a minor issue now. Perhaps it would be best just to walk away from the TfD and focus on other things for a bit? - Bilby (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually tried to change it to a speedy keep. I thought "no consensus to delete2 was a formal way of saying "Keep". However my attempt to appease the situation was overidden. My intention was to withdraw the nomination and is the only situation where such a swift closure is accpetable. As it is closure by another party when the outcome is clearly influenced by self interest of the template is deinfately not a fair closure. I have a right to withdraw my on nomination which is what I tried to doa dn would hav been happy to mark it with speedy keep, I obviously didn't make myself clear. You should not have overridden me but you shoul dhave informed me of me error and given me a chance to mark it as withdrawn. As it stands now you have a quick closure by another party over a TFD which should be lasting a full week if you take into the way the decision was clearly affected by the initial protest storm. If my withdrawal was unacceptable this TFD tehcnically should stil be continuiing to give a fair turn out. Himalayan 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case by arguing this. No one was blocked, there were a couple of warnings and a bit of confusion. It would be wise just to step back and take a breath, as this would be a minor, or even a non-issue, if it was left alone. To clarify, though, in case it helps: no consensus and speedy keep are not the same. Speedy keep says that, when we looked at it, there was no case to answer, so there's no point in continuing the debate. No consensus says that the two sides couldn't come to any agreement, so we'll let it stay, but this may need revisiting. As a result, articles where no consensus is found can be re-nominated soon afterwards, but keep and speedy keep tend not to be, and only if enough time has passed so that there is a reasonable chance that consensus has changed. As far as I can tell, you acted completely in good faith, tried to do the right things, but made a couple of errors that were fixed when the TfD was re-closed by a neutral party. Now that they've been fixed, the sensible thing would be to let it go. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You actually don't "get" to close a nomination because you have withdrawn it. speedy keep allows anyone (including the nominator) to speedily close a discussion as keep when the nom has withdrawn and there are no outstanding good faith delete votes. Both need to be true. I've made the same mistake in the past, as have many other people. In closing the TfD I realized (and commented about here) that it was very early, but I figured that the nature of the complaints and the discussion here made further debate for the sake of debate meaningless. That said, the debate is over. If you have a problem with the wording of the close or you feel that the close should have been yours to make, then your avenue of recourse is deletion review. My strong suggestion is that you let this go and work with template editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Letting it go and trying to work with editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization was precisely what I thought I had done last night by withdrawing my nomination. I am reacting over recent events which saw me reported here for trying to do exactly this and further ignited a closed situation. A little good faith from you all maybe? I don't think it was necessary to stamp over me like you did, just modify it as a withdrawal, end of problem. If you had simply accepted or modified by withdrawal as a keep last night and forgotten about it I would not be here today. Himalayan 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I chose to reclose the debate is spelled out in the section above. Protonk (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia unacceptable behavior at The Soviet Story

Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy and now has finally gone over the top with comments such as this: "Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A [Foreign Affairs Minister" and edit comments threatening "fighting to the death". This is way over the line and based on this heinous behavior I suggest administrators consider, at a minimum, a permanent topic ban for Russavia for any article involving Russia/the USSR and the Baltics/Eastern Europe. I abhor these sorts of proceedings, but this cannot be tolerated. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And we have "cry me a river" derisive deletion on Russavia's talk page of my protest. I rest my case, this is abhorrent behavior. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Vecrumba's call for, at the very least, a permanent topic ban. He has a history of serious incivility that is clearly spinning out of control. A promise to continue "fighting to the death" is a textbook violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND; given that and the WP:CIV and WP:NPA issues, I'd say the user has exhausted the community's patience by now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Vecrumba's call. Russavia abusively called me a "disruptive ass" because of a copyvio concern I had over one of his images he uploaded. --Martintg (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Combative? Because I dare demand that ALL POV be covered, and covered inline with what sources say? So basically "Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy" means that Russavia doesn't allow you to dictate what will or won't appear in articles, particularly if it doesn't agree with your own POV, much to your derision. And how is my comment about the Latvian Foreign Minister any different to what you say about other figures? There is no difference. And in regards to Martintg, what happens on Commons has no bearing on here. But your actions at File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg were of the same type - no sooner had I introduced that photo into The Soviet Story in order to provide a visual for criticism of the documentary, and you attempted to speedy it..no sooner had I uploaded it to commons as it is clearly PD-Russia-2008 (if one knew about copyrights they would have known that) and you tried to speedy it there too - instead of taking it to discussion. And my "fight you to the death" comment, it was clearly meant as humour -- see the :D right after it? Get a life you all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if my comment about the Propagandistic comments from the Latvian Foreign Minister is combative, will I see a call for complete topic banning for those who profess their belief on talk pages that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile? You all know such things have been said, but I see no call for banning of those people from the above. So yeah, cry me a river with your clear attempt to gang up on a supposed content opponent. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what policy requires that all POVs be covered in an article? And what policy gives any user the right to demand anything? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the diffs which show that Russavia's editing on Eastern European and Soviet topics creates WP:BATTLEGROUNDs and is characterized by incivility, statements such as "I will fight you to the death" also displays serious problems with WP:OWN. Additionally, the last two comments written by Russavia above clearly show that s/he doesn't think there's anything wrong with this kind of behavior - there's no apology, no admission that s/he has gone over the line and the tone is calculated to amp the temperature (per Battleground). The lame excuse that "I was just joking" ... of course if that's the case then all sorts of bad behavior can be excused, as long as an editor soon afterward claims that they were "just joking". Personal attacks? I was just joking! Incivility? Get a sense of humour! Etc. Note also that Russavia's claim that s/he just wants to have "ALL POV be covered" basically refers to inclusion of WP:FRINGE POV. Given this users block record (for edit warring and harassment of other editors) a topic ban would be a very mild slap on the wrist indeed.radek (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that now the user is edit warring on another SU/EE article and has violated 3RR there [88] (s/he spared us the incivility this time) (report filed at 3RR [89]). This is of course a different issue then the one here but does illustrate that this user's bad behavior isn't confined to one incident (in case that wasn't obvious from the block log).radek (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As someone who has had only limited (and relatively positive) personal contacts with Russavia, I have been taken aback by some of the diffs provided here. To me it looks like the user has a history of some fairly persistent incivility and a tendency to make things personal. I don't know anything about the background to the dispute and how at fault other editors may be. But as a (I hope) relatively neutral observer of Russavia's behaviour here, I would endorse the imposition of a time-limited topic ban. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Russavia has done a lot of good work in organizing Russian content. However, I'm sorry to say that where it concerns:
  1. representation on WP of the Soviet legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, and
  2. official Russia's treatment and representation of that legacy

that Russavia has demonstrated they can no longer contribute constructively. The virulence Russavia has demonstrated cannot be tolerated or excused in any way. I can only see a permanent topic ban as a solution here. That Russavia's defense is that editors aren't banned for calling Putin a sexual predator molesting children confirms Russavia's destructive siege mentality. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

In his edit notice at [90], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D." This constitutes battleground-like behaviour as prohibited by WP:BATTLE and specifically WP:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Russavia has a history of disruption in this topic area as demonstrated by his block log. In his comments above, he has not shown understanding or regret, and I find that his claim that the comment was meant to be humorous because the supposed smiley ":D" was appended to it is not credible. Under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, therefore, I hereby topic-ban Russavia from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months. I will consider imposing an indefinite block in the event of any violations.  Sandstein  13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Gamaliel has threatened to censor my talk page and has been very uncivil

Resolved

Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A short while ago, I added a quote to my user page labeled "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" (the quote being from a fellow Wikipedia user on a talk page in which he said "Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings.") Originally, I had the editor's name after the quote indicating he had said it. After administrator Gamaliel suggested it would only serve to antagonize the editor, particularly since the editor and I had been in editing disputes previously, I removed the user's name from the quote and further changed "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" to "Favorite Quote." This exchange then took place:

I have removed the arguably offensive, yet sincerely descriptive, word "funny" from the preamble to the quote, and have further removed the source of the quote's name. Thank you for your concern.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a step in the right direction. Thank you for taking it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Realizing that the latter remark was a very "smart" (as in smart-aleck) thing to say, and realizing that I had gone above and beyond what was necessary (I could have just gotten rid of the "Funniest" label, or removed the user's name as the source of the quote), I decided that I would keep the "funniest" language but remove the user's name as the source of the quote. Then, the following exchange took place (from my talk page):

Actually, it is arguably much much more than principles of "civility" would require. The only thing that was arguably uncivil about it was my labeling it a "funny" quote (which it is.....hilariously funny). Presumably, I could leave the quote up there with its source as long as I removed the funny language. The person who said it has no privacy interest in what he has posted on a public board. So, in response to your snippy comment above, it is not a "step in the right direction," it is an overwhelmingly nice gesture to another who arguably has done nothing to receive it. I find it strange that you and him edit all the same pages and you feel it necessary to come to my page and express your sensitive feelings about my posting his quote on my user page. Very strange indeed.

You haven't begun to see snippy yet. There is no privacy issue, the issue is civility, and that quote serves no conceivable purpose but to antagonize a user you are currently in conflict with. If you feel he has not followed policy in his dealings with you, complain to me or another administrator or to a relevant noticeboard. This sort of silly retaliation is not called for, and if he requests it, I will remove the quote. Gamaliel (talk) [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't begun to see snippy yet?" You are being very antagonistic and uncivil. Please stop. The quote is no longer attributable to any user. Therefore, removing the quote from my user page would be a clear abuse of your power. Again, please try and keep civil. If you continue to be disruptive and antagonistic, I will be forced to contact other administrators. Thank you for your cooperation.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above, I have removed the user's name from the source of the quote. Therefore, there should be absolutely no issue involved with this. Yet administrator Gamaliel has continued to harass me and threaten to censor my user talk page by removing the quote. I would like someone to please stop him from harassing me, and, if possible, get him to apologize for his uncivil behavior and disruption of my day. On a side note, I actually do like the quote and am not trying to antagonize anyone with it (it's awfully hard to antagonize someone with a quote when you're not naming them as the source).Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If someone were do something like that, I would be offended for the most part. I find it borderline personal attacking, since, regardless, you are trying to bring down the credibility/honor/reputation/(fill in the box) of the editor who said it. You should remove it from your page. –túrian^patois 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you bring down someone's reputation if you don't attribute a quote to him?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When people come across it, they will not know who said it.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive at the least....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can at least see the argument that it’s disruptive if it’s attributed to someone, but how in the world can the following quote – unattributed to anyone – be disruptive or capable of bringing anyone’s reputation down? “Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings." Could someone please answer that?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel said "if he requests it, I will remove the quote". Seems fair enough to leave it at that and move on? Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

My problem with that is that it allows someone else to dictate what is on my user page even if there is nothing with what is on it at the present time. You will note that it is fairly common for Wikipedia editors to include quotes from other editors on their user pages (unattributed to a particular user, of course, as is this one). Anyhow, I'm going to bed and will continue to litigate the cause of action tomorrow. Good night.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Short of banning the admin forever and desecrating his user page what would you like done? Obviously the consensus is that you have made a borderline attack. It is disrupting process here on what is not a pressing issue, the admin neither blocked you or disabled talk page comments. In short get over it, remove the offending quote and move on it is not life ending. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading....WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The username Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? seems pretty disruptive in and of itself. It screams POV warrior. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager a sockpuppet too..User talk:Fight the bias Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it says "resolved", since there are still issues. One is his false assumption that it's "his" user page. Another is his inflammatory userbox calling for the impeachment of the President, probably on the legalistic grounds that he doesn't like the President. And despite suspicions of sockpuppetry, he's not blocked. All in due time, I suppose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I see to have been involved with both of them. Small world. Abce2|TalkSign 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Both of them"? How do you tell one right-wing flamer from another? They pretty much all drink from the same Kool-Aid. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try explaining things to the "fighting" one, but I never thought it would lead to this. Abce2|TalkSign 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the username, this sounds like another User:Biaswarrior account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that's "the fighting one" that the editor above slyly alluded to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Investigation TY. [[91]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse123 still causing the same problems

I reported Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) here last week for multiple improper image uploads (uploading copyrighted DVD covers with no licence, no source, no permission and no fair use rationale). The editor has been warned multiple times for this, and also for continually adding unsourced information (about unverified future films) to various articles, especially the Steven Seagal article. Today, in spite of multiple previous warnings to stop, he has uploaded File:Blood and Bone.jpg without any of the necessary licenses, sources or fair use rationales, and has also added more unsourced information to articles (and been warned once again). The editor has been completely silent and refuses to respond to queries, warnings and pleas on his talk page to engage in discussion. He/she continues to engage in the same behavior they have been warned about multiple times. Warnings and attempts to engage in discussion are obviously useless and this account should be blocked as they are not contributing positively or engaging in discussion. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: He also uses the IP 24.26.78.133 (talk · contribs) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse (talk · contribs) is a probable sock also. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this mic on? *tap tap*... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan

Upon my request, a recent admin exerted effort in temporarily protecting the Soviet war in Afghanistan article, but a user (apparently, this user appears to log on using a vast array of different names as exemplified by his recent edits) continues to repeatedly spam and/or make the same unwarranted edits. [92]; [93];[94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]. Scythian1 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to link it? All I see is the edit for the reversion above and no SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Investigation link...[[100]] sorry wasn't quite complete with it yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The duck quacks loudly at 11:11pm PST. I'm going to indef the rampaging horde of socks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have them all added....I think/hope Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BankiSun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Groober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be involved as well. I have added a checkuser request to the SPI. I have not blocked those two - their account creation times and interests match the problem period for the sock farm, but they also have edited a bunch of other unrelated stuff. They could be uninvolved, or they could be the actual root account of this vandalism / edit abuse spree. Behavioral suspicious but I'm not going to block on the little those two did so far on the article. But it cries out for a CU check... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 98.227.203.33

98.227.203.33 (talk · contribs) probably a sock. Blocked but abusing talk page, what do we do about an IP abusing their talk page? Just change the block? I see that the probable sock is also editing as 98.227.201.60 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Setting the protection level on the talk to 'autoconfirmed' if the IP continues is the best plan of action, the 'prevent from editing talk page' setting for blocks is mostly used, for example, Grawp socks. — neuro^(talk) 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New and unregistered, right? Part of the problem is that they are harassing DivaNtrainin (talk · contribs) - I've protected Diva's talk page for a day and will tell her to post here if the problem continues. This seems to related to problems at Copwatch. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of wikitools

Resolved

 – Twinkle removed, then blocked 24hrs, then blocked permanently as a sock of Princeofdark07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

A wikipedian user Sarangsaras is misusing the twinkle tool. i request admins to takeback the tool from him. he is reverting all my edits as vandalism which is clearly not. please see his contributions Special:Contributions/Sarangsaras please note that he is previously banned editor, i am very much sure that he is sock of User:Princeofdark07. i added sock tag in his talkpage, but it is removed by him without explanation [101] C21K^talk 06:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over the edits and while I am not an admin (they are normally sleeping right now) I can say that Sarangsaras is clearly misusing TWINKLE. He reverted to this edit which is barely readable and called it a revert of vandalism. That wasn't vandalism, that was cleanup. Sarangsaras should be blocked for disruptive editing and his use of TWINKLE revoked and monobook page protected so it can't be readded. Just one editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• User notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

what shocked me is, he reverted my 13 edits in List of people from Karnataka (which i tried to cleanup). see [102]. C21K^talk 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that completely changed what you had as blue links to red. Clear misuse of TWINKLE. I am monitoring his edits to make sure he doesn't do it again. If he does, don't edit war with him, you don't want to be blocked as well for 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly misuse of TW tools. I also happen to warn the user. Privileges should immediately be revoked Kensplanet^T_C 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an abuse of Twinkle. Suggest removal. — neuro^(talk) 06:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours to let us conduct clean-up without him re-reverting. By the way, unless I'm missing something (possible at this time of a morning) his monobook.js and vector.js are blank. I can't see evidence in his contribs that he's installed Twinkle at all. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the edit summaries says: ‎ "(Reverted 1 edit by C21K identified as vandalism to last revision by Sarangsaras. (TW))" The "TW" at the end, so he could have put it in there himself, it is possible, but more likely he had TWINKLE and removed it quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disabled his ability to use Twinkle while you were blocking - I agree with the block, too. The edit summaries list TW but could have been manual - I find the situation odd that way... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse suspension of editing privilleges. Acting in a manner that brings the concerned WikiProjects (as well as the wider Wikipedia project) into disrepute is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle can be enabled in "My preferences -> gadgets", which does not show up in the monobook / vector .js files. decltype (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! 'scuse the ignorance (I've only been here for 5 or 6 years) but how do we disable a gadget for someone who's misusing it? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[103] 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obscure, but useful to know! Thanks, GWH! ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should we address User:C21K sockpuppet concern of User:Sarangsaras? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Can we have some diffs? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  It was only addressed in the original post. I will let C21K know you are asking and see if he has any diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  He mainly edits in Bunt (community) and Tulu language. C21K^talk 07:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

all his other socks was editing on the same pages, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Princeofdark07. C21K^talk 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Identical edit summaries between Sarangsaras and Princeofdark07 (same grammar and punctuation errors). So quack quack... ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone please clarify me, is a indefinite blocked editor is allowed to create new account? C21K^talk 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I've blocked his IP, which is static and he's the only one on it, so he can't do anything (unless he switches computer etc) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. C21K^talk 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I need your help. ASAP

Resolved

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#User:D climacus Rollback rights|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562 § User:D climacus Rollback rights]]

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

D climacus (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I been on here for around a month now. A few users think I'm Eddie Segoura (User:EddieSegoura) a Sockpuppet. See this one Comment.

I want a CheckUser to clear my name because I am not that user. I'm Not avoiding a community ban.

I don’t want to be blocked for something I didn’t do. The reason I know so much on here is because, I been reading the WP:POLICY and the WP:NAS. And, the Admin Dashboard Template is on my User Page.--David | ^Talk 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not, and will not, be performed for 'name clearing'. — neuro^(talk) 07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, what Neurolysis said. Checkuser can't prove a negative, and thus is useless for "Prove my innocence" checks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself. To clear my User Name so I don’t get blocked. Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus.--David | ^Talk 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where it was told Checkuser is not for proving your innocence. That request will be declined.--Atlan (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been declined already.--Atlan (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Eddie Segoura, but there's no doubt no point in checkusering the account because he's been socking consistently for four years and knows perfectly well how to get around the CU. He has even boasted to me in emails that he has access to hundreds of IPs. And one of his previous socks, NewYork Dreams, came back on Checkuser as 'unrelated', only for it to become very obvious with behavioural evidence and for Eddie to later admit that it was actually him. The Checkuser at the time told me that if it was Eddie, he had learned to cover his tracks very well. That's why, for a long time now, as Eddie, as well as with socks, he's been saying pretty much the same thing about organising checks to prove his innocence, here for example. This account is a very, very obvious sock and I have absolutely no doubt it is Eddie. Two weeks ago I told David (also a name that Eddie has used in the past) that I believed he was Eddie Segoura, and instead of responding to me, and at least denying it, as most innocent people would do, he immediately archived my post without addressing my suspicions. [104] I have absolutely no doubt who this user is and I have extended a huge amount of good faith to him in the past even so far as trying to help and advise him privately, only to have him play games and waste my and other users' time with more and more socks, impersonations of living actors and other such crap. It's not happening again, Eddie. I've already started collecting diffs and if you keep causing disputes with people and wasting peoples' valuable time with your games, I will be more than happy to ensure that this latest sock is blocked. Sarah 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah, that based on behavioral evidence this is almost certainly Eddie.--Atlan (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, most definitely. Would support a block. — neuro^(talk) 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would support blocking as well. Sarah 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He asked for help at 7:40, and he got it in just a couple of hours. Not bad turnaround for a "Plaxico". :) Although maybe a better metaphor would be a "Nixon", as in "I am not a crook." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a sock", rather. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SophieOq

SophieOq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't have the memory to pinpoint whether or not this is one of our many "returning" Disney editors, but the pattern (hoax movies, odd changes to pages, specific subject matter) seems to be suspicious. I'm placing this here in the hopes that a more knowledgable admin can apply the duck test. IF it belongs at SPI then let me know and I'll move it over there. Protonk (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Editor notified. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Most likely.Abce2|TalkSign 08:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. If a new editor comes in to do nothing else than add hoaxes to Wikipedia, then I am simply inclined to block it as a vandal-only account, sockpuppet or no sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a feeling that we won't be seeing the last of "you know who"Abce2|TalkSign 08:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lasne

Hi there - this AfD has been open for two weeks now, with no relisting or anything like that. Can an admin please take a look at this? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 11:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed on the daily AFD log. I am listing it now on today's log. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks. But will that mean it remains open for ANOTHER 7 days then? GiantSnowman 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a need to delete this quickly...? It could use some more input, IMO - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, there's no need for a quick closure - but it's already been open for two weeks and consensus looks to have been reached, in my opinion. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is some harm inleaving it in place it's better to leave it for a while. This to give the people who patrol AfD a chance to chime in. It might get WP:SNOW'd if the votes keeps going like they have, or if no one feels like adding anything, but for now leaving it avoids complaints about proceedural errors later on. Taemyr (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandal on Catherine II of Russia

For some reason a vandal has over some time persisted in adding the false information that the queen died from having sexual intercourse with a horse. The vandal is an IP-user but the adresses all differ greatly. I wonder if there is any way to find out who it is and impose sanctions on he/she/it? Protecting the article is not an option as the vandalism occurs only in-between long intervals.

Diffs:

1. 11 May 2009 - User:158.136.3.10
2. 25 August 2009 - User:66.66.89.37
3. 8 September 2009 - User:60.54.172.34

--Saddhiyama (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily the same person. There's some more on the internet about the nonsense, for example: [105] [106]. You warned the most recent IP and that should do it. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes a bit more sense (despite the subject). I will just carry on reverting the vandalism the oldfashioned way then. At least it is nice to know that it is not some monomanic loony with a good IP-jumper. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not much we can do here. Not nearly often enough for semi. And the IPs are scattered on the globe (one's from Malaysia, one's from VA, and the third is from NH). Just revert when/if it happens again. Someone should check out the recent edits of Special:Contributions/158.136.3.10 for accuracy, though. There's some recent vandalism/test edits (which I just reverted) that calls the remaining recent edits into question. Tim Song (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be carefull about dubbing this as vandalism, since it's a quite widespread myth with several people who believe it. Hence it's quite possible that it's a good faith addition.

Also, while we should not report that mode of death as a fact, the rumor is notable enough that is should be treated. As a source see eg [107]. Taemyr (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding that rumor to the article in any way, shape or form, you help perpetuate it. That kind of thing is not wikipedia's purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started the content discussion at Talk:Catherine II of Russia Taemyr (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Bobmack89x

I posted a message similar to this at WP:AIV and was advised to bring the matter here.

Bobmack89x (talk · contribs) - At first I thought Bobmack89x was a well-meaning but over-enthusiastic new user, but I have come to view many of his edits as vandalism. I acknowledge that some of his edits are useful, but he is a chronic overlinker who builds unreadably long lists of blue-linked items and oversized see-also sections of irrelevant links. As an example, between 22 May and 25 August he made about 120 edits to Federal crime. The article grew by 125%, from 3789 bytes to 8505, with virtually all the growth in a single sentence listing examples of federal crimes that ended up at about 500 words, and a see-also section that grew to nearly 80 entries (diff for the time period and the resulting poor article here).

User has been left talk page messages and warnings by 10 or 12 different editors, some for not citing his additions, some for MOS violations, but most for overlinking. Most messages included links to the relevant policies and guidelines. User seems to ignore all messages and warnings (except for deleting a few), and as far as I can tell has never responded to any. He has had two 4th warnings but continues adding excessive blue links to Federal crime, something he continued to do after the article was trimmed and he was warned on 25 August. Following are talk-page contacts by various different editors, on the subject of overlinking only: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].

User seems to enjoy editing articles about criminal organizations and adding uncited crimes. For example, thus far he has made 75 edits to Russian Mafia; diff for a consecutive run of 22 edits to the article here; all 22 are uncited and all lack edit summaries. He seems to pick crimes at random from some dictionary or master list. The long list of purported crimes in the Mara Salvatrucha infobox is another example of the result.

Summing up, although this user has been advised by several editors to slow down and give more thought to his edits, he shows few signs of doing so. On balance, his edits are disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia. A block is called for. CliffC (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)