Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Is Admin User:Dbachmann abusing is privileges.

The pages are Rigveda and Vajra. This was a first time these articles ever got protected in any way. This is disturbing me, since this admin doesn't to any regular admin work, yet he makes protection to pages he is associated with. There's also Mount Ararat which was only semi-protected two years before he decided to protect it indefinitely. One more thing this user blocked User:Paleolithic1288 indefinitely and from his contributions it wasn't a vandal only account. He was warned once for deleted a section and that's it, which was more of a content dispute. I think he's abusing his privileges--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified DBachmann of this discussion. Rodhullandemu 17:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing abusive about any of the actions in question. Tan | 39 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have is the block to User:Paleolithic1288. He was a perfectly fine editor. Just look at his contributions.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was a fantastic block. Subtle edits with no edit summaries, but it's full of POV, unsourced edits, etc - take a look at this random edit. Tan | 39 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that a POV edit he just moved the order of the people. I have no idea what you are talking about. He jumbled the people around. I didn't know that was POV pushing. Even it is you have to give warning to user before you block them.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment on your first point, but as to the second, you don't necessarily have to issue a warning before a block. If the account is being used only to make edits that are obviously unconstructive (ie, even without any knowledge of WP policy, they would know what they were doing was wrong), then it can be blocked as a vandalism only account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It was POV edit since it ignored the alphabetical listing of sportsmen in order to highlight the editor's favored cricketer at the top of the list. Abecedare (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This [1] seems to be a constructive edit. Paleolithic1288 doesn't look like a vandalism only account, to me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That edit added false information not supported by the source. I don't know whether the editor qualifies as a VOA, but clearly was a POV pusher. Abecedare (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly supports the edit that Saskatchewan brought up. The source says, "Das told reporters on the sidelines of Infocom 2010 in Kolkata on Wednesday that more than 90,000 IT professionals were working in West Bengal." No false information there. He was not a POV pusher. Come on you and I both know that.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless that source is notoriously unreliable for some reason, the edit pointed out by SaskatchewanSenator looks good... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't! The source says that West Bengal (a state with population of 80 million people) has 90,000 IT workers, while the edit says that two neighborhoods of Bidhannagar (a township with population <200,000, in 2001) have 90,000 IT workers. This shows the problem with such subtle vandalism/POV pushing - two good faith editors failed to spot it even after being told that the information added was false. Users adding fuck to random pages are more easily spotted and dealt with, while frankly we should be more watchful for malicious edits by editors like User:Paleolithic1288. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I scanned the editor's contributions and, while I don't think he/she is a vandalism only account, there is no question that there is a POV agenda behind the edits. IMAO, a good block. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I may not always agree with Dab, but he has been doing the heavy lifting of fighting the tendentious editors over the content of certain articles, which have a long history of irreconcilable content disputes. So complaining about him here is an over-reaction -- unless you have tried to discuss the matter with him first, & it clear that he is encountering WikiBurnout. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The semi-protection was, at worst, controversial. No one has defended Dbachmann's labelling Paleolithic1288 as a vandalism-only account, so it is fair to conclude that it was an error. That kind of error is concerning, but unless there are more, I think we're done here. The accusation that Dbachmann is abusing privileges is unsubstantiated.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  Though considering that Paleolithic1288 almost immediately created another account and edited as User:Epoch1288, the block might well be appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun? According to CU results, Mcnabs (talk · contribs) is yet another sock of the banned user. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mcnabs now blocked, anything else need doing? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, all done. Thanks, Guy. TNXMan 14:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa

Blablaaa (talk · contribs)

This user joined Wikipedia on 3 Feb 2010 and has been blocked 5 times[2] by Nick-D (talk · contribs).

Initially, they were angry, and were not civil. They did not understand WP:V. They entered into heated discussions about POV with Nick-D (talk · contribs).

• The user accepts that they made mistakes in the past, and that the first three blocks were valid. They do not accept the validity of the 4th block, and the currently active 5th.

• The recent reasoning for the block on User_talk:Blablaaa#Blocked does not seem appropriate; it concerns content discussion and 'not speaking in English'

• The user has appealed the block, but on one occasion it was declined with "TL;DR" (diff)

• This diff threatens to block the user for 'bad English'

The user enquired about the block on IRC. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) advised us to bring this to AN.  Chzz  ►  10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) and delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A few points strike me, the first being that Nick-D had not been advised of this discussion; I have now notified him. Secondly, I am always wary of one admin being the only or major applier of sanctions with one editor without apparent recourse to other opinions or consensus, although a response by Nick-D may give those examples. Thirdly, it is apparent that the admin Nick-D is acting within a sphere heavily edited by Nick-D which amplifies my concern regarding getting outside opinions. Lastly, Blablaa seems unable to understand that unblock requests should follow the line of "sorry, I feel the sanction was unduly harsh and if unblocked will make every effort to ensure such misunderstandings will not happen again" rather than seeking to justify their actions and thus determine the block was abuse (which is what it seems to be said in the unblock requests). Indef blocks are fine, because they can be lifted just as soon as it is indicated that there is no problem. Despite the likely honest belief that they had been misinterpreted in their editing, Blablaa needs to understand that discussion of the dispute only happens once the sanction is lifted. They need to make an unblock request that addresses the problems with their manner of contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot to notify Nick-D - I intended to, then it slipped my mind when I had many tabs open. This is the first time I have ever posted on AN. Thank you for doing it for me, and again, my apologies.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• No offense but has it ever occurred to you to discuss this with another Admin before coming here? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Nvm... I see that I didn't read the top part again! *face palm* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I share many of LHvU's concerns. As Chzz points out, many of the contributing factors to the block are minor, but I do not have a problem with this if they all sum up to be part of a bigger picture; repeatedly posting on talk pages in German, for example, is quite obviously not a blockable offense but could be considered as part of a portfolio of disruptive behaviour. I am up for giving this user another chance once they acknowledge the reasons they were blocked and promise to change them. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a dialogue with Nick-D here, for those reading this thread. --Deskana (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As explained in my justification of the block at User talk:Blablaaa, I blocked Blablaaa indefinitely for continuing their disruptive editing pattern. I would strongly suggest that admins and other editors reading this thread also take the trouble to read through User talk:Blablaaa and the relevant article and user talk pages as the pattern of unacceptable behavior is very consistent and has not been modified by repeated warnings and blocks. In short, this editor has a consistent pattern of name-calling, endlessly disputing the reliability of what are actually very reliable sources (in the most recent example, an academic journal article and a very well regarded book), aggressive editing and starting discussions about their personal interpretations of events. The common thread in all of this is to portray the German military of World War II in the best possible light by emphasising its successes and over-stating the damage it inflicted on its enemies. In short, this editor is not here to work cooperatively with other editors to build neutral articles, but rather to endlessly push their personal opinions.

In regards to my conduct:

• While I have been the blocking admin on all the previous occasions this editor has been blocked, in each instance they have lodged multiple appeals which have lead to the blocks being fully upheld by a number of other admins, who have also warned them for their conduct (this is apparent from their talk page where there are a large number of rejected block appeals). In one instance the block was in fact been extended by another admin to prohibit Blablaaa from lodging yet more frivolous unblock requests ([3]). I note in particular that two other editors have warned Blablaaa following their one month block that the next block would be indefinite: [4], [5]
• Further to the above, in each of the most recent instances where I've blocked this editor I've taken the time to post relatively lengthy justifications of the block (including diffs) so that the rationale for the block was transparent to other editors and any reviewing admins. Again, the fact that all these blocks were upheld by reviewing admins with no-one suggesting that I'd blocked this editor too often indicates that this approach was successful.
• The claim that I'm "acting within a sphere heavily edited" by myself is simply not true. I have very few edits in the articles on the European Theatre and Eastern Front of World War II which Blablaaa focuses on, and my involvement in articles on these topics has mainly been keeping an eye on them as an admin active in the Military History Wikiproject (where I was, until recently, one of the project's coordinators and hence a point of conduct for problematic articles and editors).
• This editor was not blocked simply for continuing to post messages in German, but the guideline WP:TPG#YES states that English should generally be used on talk pages, and they've been asked not to use German by myself and other editors in the past (for instance, in this rejected block appeal)

I've posted a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as other admins and editors active in the Military History project who have had experiances with this editor and may wish to comment on Blablaaa's pattern of behaviour and/or this block. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notice, I welcome further input. I would appreciate more diffs of the alleged disruptive behaviour. Right now, all I see are diffs of people posting warnings and his (excessive) responses to those warnings. For example, your diff for their "rude" behaviour was this, which is far from being incivil and is not a personal attack. Yes, that could have been worded more constructively, but it's definitely not blockable, as I can see. Most of the diffs that you've provided above do not relate to the block you placed, they relate to events afterwards. I would like to see the specific diffs that led to the block, as the ones you have provided so far do not seem at all sufficient for an indefinite block. --Deskana (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That post was a continuation of Blablaaa's standard practice of claiming that sources he doesn't agree with are Soviet propaganda and editors who add them have been taken in by this. As I noted in the block message, it followed a post by the editor he attacked in which they actually described the problems with Soviet data, so the claim that they only used Soviet statistics was patently false. Again, it's the pattern that's important here - this editor had been informed by myself and others that they were on their last chance, yet continued the uncivil behavior which they have been previously blocked for (again, with the blocks being upheld by multiple reviewing admins when Blablaaa claimed that they were unjust as their behavior was OK). Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry if it's not my place to comment here as I am not an admin. I recently did a major copy edit on the article Battle of Kursk. The article had been tagged for copy-edit in March and as a WP:GOCE member that is where I go for articles needing work. On April 14 I posted this request for Nick's assistance on the article after Blablaaa repeatedly added this edit. I do not have access to the sources and I just wanted to know if this material was going to stay in the article or not before I copy edited the new material. Well after spending five days of my life editing the thing I certainly do not wish to see user Blablaaa editing there, with many of his contributions being poorly sourced and needing large amounts of copy editing. I find users like Blablaaa very stressful to deal with and would have removed Kursk from my watchlist without Nick's help. The Kursk article gets 1500 views a day and World War II (another article Blablaaa is interested in) gets 30000 to 50000 views a day, so they need to be clean and ready to go at all times. I think in addition to the behaviour issues there is a serious gap in competence and motivation on the part of user Blablaaa. He is not here to build an encyclopedia but some other reason. I was glad when Nick blocked him again. Diannaa ^TALK 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, your comments are welcome here, thank you.If the consensus is that the editor in question is not a useful contribution to the areas he currently edits in, we can consider asking the user not to edit those areas anymore, or more harshly, a topic ban. That the person is stressful to deal with is not a reason for blocking (though I can certainly understand that you may be relieved). --Deskana (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that; I was just pointing out there would be one less person watching this high profile article. Diannaa ^TALK 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban on editing articles concerning World War II has been suggested for this editor before. Please see about halfway through User talk:Blablaaa#Blocked for one month discussion - this topic ban was proposed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) here and Blablaaa initially agreed to it, but when Ed asked Blablaaa what they'd work on instead they stated that they'd edit articles on German Army units of World War II here and here - these obviously aren't topics unrelated to World War II. While this may be worth trying again, I'd note that Blablaaa entered into an agreement to work with other editors on a sandbox version of the Battle of Kursk article as a way of ceasing the edit warfare in that article, but gave up on this as on the grounds that 'it was disappointing result for me'. As a result, I don't think that a topic ban would work out well, particularly given their consistent pattern of disruptive and POV-pushing behavior. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a bit suprised to see Deskana's statement that being "stressful to deal with" isn't grounds for a block - it is when it violates WP:DE and WP:CIV, as is the case here. Disruptive editing and personal attacks are among the most common reasons for blocks (which is why they're in the drop down of block rationales admins see when they block someone...). Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. When good editors get stressed out and leave because sketchy editors are retained it is counter-productive to the project. Diannaa ^TALK 02:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Honestly, I'm surprised to see that you think being annoying is grounds for a block. It looks to me like this person needs a mentor who they will agree to listen to, to help them get to grips with things. And I'm still struggling to find any edits running up the block that are disruptive, which was the reason stated for the block. Can you please give me some? --Deskana (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that an editor who in his own words has opposing views to Blablaa, has asked Nick-D to reconsider the block. --Deskana (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say that "being annoying" is blockable? Diffs for disruptive edits are provided in this and previous block notices on Blablaaa's talk page. If you don't think that these constitute disruptive conduct then that's your opinion, but the blocks have been reviewed and upheld by several other admins. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments: I've taken a look at the events leading up to the series of blocks on Blablaaa, and I'm concerned even about the earliest ones, which Blablaaa concedes may be appropriate. When an established editor can make comments like this[6] and get a mild warning, but a new user who comes nowhere near that level of invective gets blocked, we have a problem here. This entire episode also shows a definite bias toward English scholarly texts as opposed to those in other languages; this is an issue that several projects have found challenging to address. It seems the "POV" editing that Blablaa has been exhibiting is that he argues for different reference sources than other editors. As a project, we see widely varying methods of addressing the fact that scholarly sources simply don't agree about certain facts, and an article such as this, where it's clear that solid sources give different facts or place emphasis on different aspects, can be pretty challenging even for experienced editors, let alone a new one. Overlying these issues is the fact that as a project we seem to have lost a willingness to help new editors develop, to explain our rules patiently and with good examples, to help them to become productive within our rather odd environment.

  Generally speaking, I would suggest to any administrator who is giving consideration to blocking the same editor repeatedly to step back and ask someone else to take a look. With the exception of truly blatant vandals (i.e., editors who do nothing *but* vandalise), a degree of objectivity is lost over time. It's a good exercise of caution to step back and ask someone else to take a look, with a simple statement like "could you just review Editor XXX's recent edits, I'd really appreciate a second opinion here." (No, I'm not saying bring it to a noticeboard, I'm saying ask a peer without tipping your hand as to what you'd be inclined to do.) I truly am concerned that I'm not seeing sufficient problematic edits in this user for him to be blocked indefinitely, I'm seeing very little attempt to help him to acclimatise, and I'm quite concerned that all blocks were done by a single administrator without (as far as I can tell) any requests for outside opinions.

  It would probably be particularly helpful if an experienced and gracious editor, preferably one with experience in addressing conflicting sources in the Milhist area, would offer to act as something of a mentor to Blablaaa. Regardless, I would be inclined to unblock at this point. I don't put a great deal of weight on the "blocks have been reviewed" aspect, as I've noticed that very few admins are willing to oppose a peer when it comes to unblock requests, unsurprising given the fear of being labeled a wheel-warrior. Risker (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As some responses to the above:

• Blablaaa had been editing via the IP addresses 85.176.142.82 (talk · contribs), 188.192.121.123 (talk · contribs) and possibly others for several months before registering an account, with the same pattern of rude and aggressive editing, and had been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing by various admins: User talk:188.192.121.123 so this was not a 'new' or problem free account at the time they registered.
• Blablaaa has not been 'arguing' for alternative references, but rather aggressively dismissing and edit warring over the inclusion of references they don't like and replacing them with the narrow range of references they agree with. Repeatedly labeling well regarded books by academic historians 'propaganda' (for instance) is not productive editing.
• I'm not sure what article you're referring to in 'an article such as this this', and Blablaaa has been engaging in this behaviour across a fairly large number of articles.
• A number of editors, including myself, have tried to assist Blablaaa by providing him or her with guidance and advice, so it is not the case that they've been left to try to figure out Wikipedia by themselves. The large number of civil responses he or she received to their many talk page posts speaks for itself.
• That said, there appears to be agreement that I should have at least sought other admins' views on Blablaaa's editing and my responses to it. I note this, and will act accordingly in the future. Nevertheless, I think that the blocks are fully justified and the actions I took to ensure that the reasons they'd been implemented were transparent were appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa has posted two further pre-registration IP addresses this editor contributed from on my talk page: 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs) and 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs). Both addresses were also blocked last year (in October and December) by two different admins for disruptive editing and block evasion. Diannaa also states that Blablaaa is active on the German-language Wikipedia (which has similar standards to this Wikipedia). Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I find it to be in very bad taste that out of the four reason that Nick gave on Blablaa's talk page you would reduce well thought out and viable grounds for a block to "poor English". If you are going to complain at least have the common cutesy to thoroughly explain all points of the block. As to the block itself; it seems to me that this indefinite block ought to have been in place weeks ago for repeated disruptive editing. Even Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) didn't survive more than two blocks, and the editor here has already admitted to messing up on three separate occasions. Since WWII is a factor here, I will state for the record that this page and other major pages associated with it typically require a talk first change later approach, and that it takes very little to ruffle the feather of more than one group of editors at the page; that is in part the reason behind our project's use of coordinators: we are supposed to make the hard calls to ensure that operations in the project run smoothly. From this perspective I stand behind Nick 100% - all of my coordinators have been in situations where we have had to deal with disruptive editors, and sometimes permanent measure do need to be taken. Blocking one user permanently after said user has repeatedly disrupted due process on the site and has failed to learn his or her lesson does seem like an appropriate course of action at this point, and will likely save everyone a lot of headache and hassle down the road. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• The last block was the one noted as having "bad English" as part of the rationale, and it was also noted that Blablaa is not contesting the first four blocks. I find it interesting that much of the concern voiced is by admins, and support for the actions is from people who edit the same articles as Blablaa. This indicates to me that there is indeed a problem with the editor that needs addressing, and that the actions taken are not the ones best suited for the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To all admin and non admin judging this case. I want to say again that i never dispute to have behaved wrong and bad thats why i was blocked multiple times. But i dispute that i continuned to do this. I always try to provide good sources i always try to explain myself and my edit. Please review the last block, iam not sure if this are reason to block user from this wiki. I tried my best to contribute to this wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2010 Tomstar81 which of the reason given by nick justify a block against me. can u please link the edit for me? i did no rude comment i did not dismiss his soucrs , i didnt anything of what he claimed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2010

Note from an uninvolved admin, I have blocked User:Blablaaa2 as sock of User:Blablaaa evading his block. I have not removed the comments above given they offer the user's response, and they're already here (I added the unsigned templates), but evading a block doesn't surely help the case of the user in question. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Having followed this situation on IRC a few days i think i should weight in as well. The first topic i feel i should respond to is this new account. Yes, it is definitely a violation of the evade policy, but i would equally point out that BlaBlaaa has been asking for assistance on how to deal with this on IRC for the past few days. Just moments ago he voiced the concern that he cannot chime in on this discussion: "i wrote something on my talk page, but i think nobody sees it". The user should not have been using a second account, but i would also point out that the new account only edited here, and made no attempt to conceal his real identity.

As for the matter at hand, i have double feelings. One side of me sees an editor who indeed has a german point of view on the war, and therefor edits in a different way then most of the other users would do. But Paul Siebert voices my thoughts on this rather well in edit; If we want a NPOV based encyclopedia we will need to consider every stance. As the WP:POLE essay puts it, we cannot build a straight pole (write a neutral article) without someone pushing in the opposite direction (representing the other side of the spectrum). I diffed trough a set of random edits made by blablaaa, and most seem to be more or less ok - at least they don't qualify as vandalism. Other then this i see he actually cites sources, and doesn't just edit without ever moving to a talk page to discuss.

On the other hand we have the disruption issues; There are some cases where i can see incivility which shouldn't be there, though in some cases i really cannot define his edits as being incivil enough to warrant more then a nudge. The IP's linked earlier in this topic are another matter - The edits i see from these are definitely not constructive and based upon their linguistic patterns i think we may conclude that these are indeed Blablaaa; Though i would also like to point out that both are not owned by the same ISP.

I'm leaning towards suggesting that we give this user another chance. Yes, there have been bad edits on the IP level, and his block record is huge, but i think that the problem is gradually reducing in size - and frankly i find it commendable that blablaaa acknowledges he has been wrong, and on top of that his contributions on the german wiki seem to be fine; I think that the English language is a large hindrance in this aspect as Blablaaa's is far from flawless which makes communication difficult at times. Even so i think this is not a hopeless case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Excirial that we should give Blablaaa another chance, but I think that this would be on a few conditions (apologies all around, using English at all times, not editing any WWII-related articles, etc.). Frankly, I'm just surprised that he was blocked 5 times by the same admin. Whatever happened to community oversight of others' actions before it has to come to AN?  fetchcomms☛ 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting a whole WWII topic ban, but something which can include mentoring, etc., and will avoid later conflicts like this.  fetchcomms☛ 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Note User:Blablaaa has written in length on his talk page in reply to this thread, see User talk:Blablaaa#Thread_on_Ani_Board Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The above was a working draft; see below  Chzz  ►  22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of Blablaaa (talk · contribs), grammar-corrected, copyedited, cleared with user and posted by  Chzz  ►  22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some input to the POV argument; yes, I have had an account on the German Wikipedia . I wrote one completely new article de:Belgorod-Charkiwer Operation and edited de:Unternehmen Zitadelle and some others .

I was made welcome, and treated with respect; I thought that no one had a problem with my edits, that they appreciated them. Please look there if you can read a bit of German. I simply wrote the same there as here, only in better German (because my English is not great). I had no problems. But why ? On the German Wikipedia, I have had no problems with my edits.

This indicates to me that all the people have POV and problems/discussion evolve when two POVs collide. I learned that that should not be a problem; we have to find a consensus. The English Wikipedia is very anti-German POV, in my opinion. Exceptions to this include aerial warfare and biographies.

Regarding the IP edits, which have become the main focus of this discussion, because Nick-D has avoided discussing his behaviour: In this edit I freely admitted to EyeSerene (talk · contribs) that they were my edits. I contacted him immediately, saying that some (not all) of the edits by that IP were me.

With regard to the behaviour of that IP user: Some of those edits were made by me, others were made by my friends. It was not correct that I treated it like in a forum, and saw it a "battleground of opposing opinions". I was angry and annoyed; many of my 'vandal' edits were pointy, due to the POV issues. Any further accusations against my previous behaviour will not be contested by me. I accept any accusation against me (regardless what they claim) before my unjustified blocks, as true. I hope this will help us to focus on the recent issue.

I read English Wikipedia articles about Normandy, and noticed the POV (in my opinion). I thought this was not the way that Wikipedia should work, so I created an account and began editing articles. I did not disguise my past. I became involved with another editor, who was presenting the opposing POV. I explained that I never had problems on the German Wikipedia

Perhaps you did not notice the comments of Paul Siebert. I sincerely hope that Paul does not need to become embroiled in this dispute. 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Application for BAG membership (Xeno)

I have accepted Kingpin13's nomination for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, and per the instructions invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Thank you, –xeno^talk 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Block with user talk disabled

I've recently blocked a user (User:Gqhs), and in the last few minutes changed the settings to disable them from editing their own talk page (as they'd been soapboxing and being uncivil towards another editor). At the risk of WP:BEANS, I've suggested they use the email feature to contact me (as the blocking admin) to appeal the block. However, if they abuse this feature and it is subsequently disabled, how would they be able to launch an appeal? matt (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org –xeno^talk 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with longer version) unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org is mentioned in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which is part of the block notice. Without looking into the user (so not commenting on this case) I can't imagine many situations where you would disable talk and email access, and then consider an unblock request (i.e. if they are that bad, it's already decided to keep them blocked.) Peter 20:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys. I definitely read WP:GAB, but must have skipped the intro section where the email address is given. matt (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this discussion?

Resolved

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeForU

This was just relisted again, and there isn't any valid reason for relisting it a second time when the first time didn't bring any further discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Second relists are not uncommon; I wouldn't have considered bringing it up until the third. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The third listing attracted one more useful comment. I have closed the discussion as keep now. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually it was the posting here which attracted my comment. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

174.3.123.220 and {{otheruses4}}

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.