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

Please, help!

I don't know is this the right place, but here it is. I have a problem with user Nedim Ardoğa regarding the List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. Now, this problem can be seen as a "Content dispute", but it isn't. IMO, we are talking here about WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Now, all of mine 'good faith' is now 'gone with the wind', and I need professional help from Administrators. From the first day when I started editing this article (I left him a message on his talk page and the article didn't have any inline citations), I was constantly "sabotaged", although I informed user of any significant changes (edits, Peer review, changes and submission to FL). I have removed almost everything from the article which he has asked me on the talk page. I also left the article some time without any edits from my side (I only used talk page for discussion). On the talk page, his answer was this, and he left me editing. After I have informed user of submission to FL, he started edit war, IMO only to disrupt possible FL status of this article. Now, I am frustrated! What should I do? I can't solve this even with the quality sources, per his reply on the talk page "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable..." Please, can somebody look the talk page of this article, and give me some solution to this problem. All my talk has no effect, and while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, he is acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable ones (per his opinion, not per sources). He is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (I guess that I should have asked for his permission to start editing, since just notifying him wasn't sufficient). Now, I am long on Wikipedia, but this is mine first encounter with 'Administrators' noticeboard', so please excuse me if I have made any procedural errors while doing this complaint. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First thing, no, you have not made any procedural errors when bringing this issue here. Secondly, without reviewing the various histories of the article(s) or the user talkpage, it appears that you have not exhausted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes; you may suggest Wikipedia:Mediation in the dispute, or request a Wikipedia:Third opinion, both to try and initiate a resolution between the two of you editors, or you might try a Wikipedia:Request for comment at the article talkpage to try and get further third party opinion on the validity of your edits and the removal of same by the other party. Only when dispute resolution is either exhausted or when one party does not follow the consensus arrived at during the dispute resolution process should Admin intervention be considered - because admins cannot act to resolve content disputes, but only conduct concerns. Until it becomes apparent to other, uninvolved, parties that there are WP:OWNership issues, or other possible policy and guideline violations, there is little admins can do (except where such actions are obvious abuse). I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard for your reply, but the user showed all "Signs of disruptive editing" per WP:DE. I acted exactly per instructions on WP:DDE.

• 1. First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor - I assumed good faith and I didn't attack the author.
• 2. If editor unreverts - none sourced information did appear from his side, yet he reverted. I ensured that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted at the article talkpage.
• 3. If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information - he continues reverting the article with only his opinion as a tool (with no sourced information whatsoever), nevertheless I suggested a compromises at the talkpage and showed will for discussion. BTW, he openly speaks of this article as his own and. After I stoped editing, and only tryed to solve the problem, he refused. After I start editing and made the submission to FL, he started again. Per this final point, I reverted and requested an administrator help via this ANI.--Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was a content dispute, I am sure that he would discuss the problem thru the end, as that is in his interest. Also it's interesting that he mostly engaged in slow edit war at two occasions: when I made a request at peer review, and when I made submission to FL. Now, if he continues, I guess he will get what he want - to disrupt progress toward improving an article (FL in this case) and maybe drive me away from this (his) article. Thanks anyway for your time!--Kebeta (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have not reviewed the article history in depth so I do not know if the page is habitually edited by other contributors. What I am suggesting is that you ensure that this is not an issue between two editors, but a question of compliance with editing guidelines by bringing in other viewpoints. Requesting a RfC is an obvious way of garnering more opinions and, if this then stops being a struggle between two people, may lead to an agreement on how future editing may be conducted. Only when this or a similar approach has failed to resolve the issue should the matter be brought here, because the only think an admin can do that other editors cannot is block an account or protect the article - and doing so as a first resort may aggravate a party to a degree that they evade the block to continue their behaviours. It is unfortunate that good faith editors are required to exhaust such options before a possible bad faith account can be dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I will request a RfC if he continues (which may be tomorrow or in a month). I do hope that he will present some sources than, instead of his opinion only. Anyway, I do not wish you to block this editor or to protect the article, I only wish to continue normal editing. Thanks for help!--Kebeta (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am accused of sabotaging an article. This accusation is clearly a defamation. I have created about 400 articles and my total no of edits is over 16000. I was involved in many discussions and up to now absolutely nobody accused me of sabataging. Just the reverse, in most cases whenever I feel someting is wrong with an article I prefer to warn the editor instead of editing myself. And now what makes this editor calling me a saboteur ? Maybe I should point out that I started the article The basic idea, design, the table as well as the images of the opponents and the duration table were created by me. Kebeta contributed by adding some sources, campaign routes and symbolic images in the table. I thanked Kebeta for these. And than Kebeta began adding some opinions (by coloring) which clearly contridict with the historical facts. I reverted these incorrect information and I explained the reason. But still Kebeta keeps adding these opinions. I am sorry to see the issue is brought here. But I want to see an article created by me is free of incorrect opinions. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Kebeta, when two editors dispute the validity of content or the source then there are steps that can be taken - all of which involve getting other, outside, opinions. It is as wrong for one editor to refuse to allow content from another contributor as it is wrong for a contributor to insist that their content is included; consensus must prevail. Further, and this also relates to the other point raised by Kebeta, there is no allowance for the fact that one editor may be the major or only previous contributor to an article - all edits that are policy complaint are allowable and only reference to policy and guideline may be the grounds for rejection or acceptance. Preferences in style, layout and anything else must all ultimately come second to consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as I understand with Nedim's some edits like 1, 2, 3 Nedim believed in the invincibleness and unbeatableness of Suleiman I. I think that my many Ottomanphile friends find the term defeats something difficult (I don't know whether Nedim is Ottomanphile or not.) and changed Suleiman's military defeat to Sulaiman's military failures with using reliable soruces (Even with Turkish sources. I can also give sources for "Suleiman's military defeats". For example Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Feodalite ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Üretim Tarzı, p. 358..... As long as I know, no scholar claims Suleiman's military victory at these battles/seiges. But Nedim insistently continued his edits without showing any sources and moreover he removed reliable sources 3. I recommend Nedim to edit with showing sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my point - this is what Nedim Ardoğa wrote above and on talk pages (Maybe I should point out that I started the article The basic idea, design, the table as well as the images of the opponents and the duration table were created by me...but I want to see an article created by me is free of incorrect opinions) or Now, I planned and created List of campaigns of Suleiman I. But you made hundreds of changes without consulting me. or I created the article and I never thought to classify the campaigns as Victory or defeat. That was Kebata's doing. Now, just to show how the article looked before I started editing, and we are talking here of a period from creation the article on 14 December 2009 to 3 March 2011 when I started editing. Despite everything that he has done to "sabotage" me and the article by doing that, I managed to improve the article up to FL quality. And that is the point, he repulse this, since this is his article which he created. Although, I have invited him numerous times to join me in this improvement. A very nice Wiki job. --Kebeta (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that discussion prevailed and slow edit-warring has finished. Thank you LessHeard for your time spent on this subject. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jasonstackhouse.com legal threat

Threat to sue editors here and here by Divinhighbird. Article currently CSD'd and the creator made several blatant personal attacks on the talk as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked them indefinitely. That was some foul language. That article, I deleted it before as a hoax, borderline vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found his grammar and spelling to be entirely amusing, with interesting rhythmic devices that seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...so there were at least a couple of redeeming features. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, that is a very astute reading. It's original research and as such we can't allow it in article space, but you have a future as an English major. I'm going to give you a sticker, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is some good to everything. The creator even made their own blog entry with the text, citing "Wilipedia" in the title as the reason they were making it; to disprove a hoax.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good block - and a hilarious read. Their only other edit, a deleted item on Deion Sanders, makes clear their intentions on the project. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I love "deformation of character" - obviously a flexible chap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the full quote, "delete the post, and have your non profit company get ready for a deformation of character/minority subjective, and racially specific law suite filed. Please delete this, I dare, you." No one has dared yet. But I just have to ask this: Is it technically a legal threat if the guy doesn't speak English and might just be reading from the Hungarian Phrase Book? "law suite" sounds like something they might put on sale at the furniture store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a law suite is, but I hope the documents will be made public and include many grafts and statistices for our edifaction. I like visual AIDS. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These suites look pretty nice. This character looks fairly deformated. Meanwhile, somewhere, Norm Crosby's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of how he was the CEO of his blog. Can I be the Senior Executive Vice President in Charge of Canadian Operations for Wikipedia? Resolute 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got my vote, eh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hereby appoint myself to the office of Minister of Special Projects and Second Liege of the Wikipedia Shadow Council. Doniago (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that title is taken. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (First liege of the Shadow council)

Well, at least I'm finally getting the attention I deserve. How about Viceroy, or perhaps ArchDuke? Doniago (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On an off-note, BWilkins, +1 for the Hitchhiker's Guide reference. - SudoGhost™ 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the editor made a video documenting this experience with Wikipedia. It appears alcohol was a contributor and I think had an editor left him a welcome template, this situation would not have occured. Also for the record, I don't have World of Warcraft and porn open when I am editing. Any chance we can use this as an RS for the Wikipedia article?--NortyNort (Holla) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can avoid giving any blame whatsoever to other editors. This was entirely on the editor that got blocked. I don't know if it was your intention, but to suggest that this could (or even should) have been avoided if another editor had welcomed him? That's assuming good faith where no reason to exists. It's still fundamentally his responsibility to know what he's doing. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An IP getting into the act

Should the lone drive-by comment by 141.117.77.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be also treated as a "legal threat", or should it be treated as typical vandalism, and simply deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin zapped it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual Mediation freezing an article in place for 14 months

This nonsense has imo gone far enough. I'd like to bring up the issue of the perpetual RfM on the Draža Mihailović article. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic was started on 6 April 2010, exactly 14 months ago. While I will not here go into the reasons behind the length of the mediation, its failure is, in my opinion - self-evident. The mediation is incapable of drawing any conclusions or of any dispute resolution. Its only product was an article draft written by one user - unfortunately since no agreement whatsoever has been reached on the actual dispute, this draft has virtually nothing to do with mediation, and will certainly not solve any disagreement (which is already all too obvious). While I am sure users will claim that the mediation is "nearing its end", I must point out that this is what was repeatedly claimed several times months ago. And indeed, even were the mediation closed right now perforce, it still would not solve anything, and will have failed anyway.
It is hard to express how utterly useless and pointless the mediation really is: the actual dispute is not even being discussed, and actively avoiding the main issues (the "difficult areas") is the actual policy of the mediator(!)

Realizing that I might well finish medical school before the mediation makes even the most insignificant progress, I withdrew months ago, did the research, gathered the sources, and expanded the article lead with a carefully referenced lead paragraph (see the second paragraph in the lead and its sources, here). I must emphasize that every word of the text in question has been referenced with secondary sources of the highest quality (university publications), and its veracity is essentially beyond any serious dispute. Now, however, the paragraph is being continuously removed by the admin User:Sunray, solely on the grounds of "No major changes until the mediation is completed." [1].

Now, reading WP:M I struggle to find where exactly is it explained how an RfM and its mediator, are empowered to edit-war and remove any changes at will, without any coherent explanation, sources, or even a talkpage post? And even if this is the mediator's perrogative (which I am certain it is not), since the mediation started the article in question has been edited beyond recognition - and only the recent edit, the addition of a single paragraph, is being subjected to double standards and apparantly constitutes "major changes". The edit is now essentially being edit-warred out of the article by the mediator.

Could it be that an RfM has the authority to effectively freeze an article in place for no less that 14 months, and is it possible that the mediator gets to pick and choose which edits (by non-involved editors) are "allowed" in the article. This feels to me like I'm being bullied. In any case, more admin attention is undoubtedly required on the recent happenings in that damnable article.

(P.S. Bear in mind User:FkpCascais, my "arch-nemesis", is likely to stalk me over here and attempt to disrupt this discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, the mediation has found much difficulties, correct, however every offer of discussion assistance has been provided to you by the mediator (User:Sunray) who has been more patient with you than with anyone else. Even so, you rejected participating further in the mediation. The mediation is actually coming to a closure. Is that the reson of some aprehension on your side? Anyway, I don´t see any reason whatsoever for you to proclaim unilateraly the mediation as a failure.
• Second, it is important to remind all here that the version "frouzen" was actually the one that you mostly edited, and that was so much disputed by the side against you (should we go to the edit history to check it?). Is all this recent panic actually because you are about to see "your" version replaced by the mediated one?
• Third, all mediation participants (including you) agreed that during the time of the mediation duration, no major changes were to be done on the articles in place. As I remember you so enthusistically reverted every single user on that article that made edits you disliked (even sourced and correct). Now, for some strange reason you find yourself with the unique right to edit it. Wrong. Clear WP:OWN.
• Fourth, you actually edit warred on the main mediated article the mediator itself!
• Fifth, you got me sanctioned recently [2], without a notice about the report (something you often do), and where you manipulated so much the administrator that he didn´t even noteced that you broked the 3RR: [[3]]. I really hope someone corrects this situation.
• Sixth, you give up mediation, and you try to push the precise diputed edits which you refuse to discuss under mediation. Either you discuss them under mediation, either they are disruption and POV pushing. Other users refrained to edit the articles until the discussion is complete, so should you. You even tryied to convence me (!?) to leave the mediation [4]
• Seventh, it is incredible to notece how you are even unaware that you fail under BRD on the edit war you are doing against the mediator. You push the dit, you are revrted, and you edit war and ask Sunray to discuss?

Here is just another exemple of your recent behavior: revert with prejurative edit summary, and the discussion afterwords. Similar or identical pattern is seen everywhere DIREKTOR has a dispute, however he just slowed down in this case because he is counting on Timbouctou for support in some other edits, so he just backed down. However, this is a tipical exemple of blatant disruption where, without that users intervention, DIREKTOR would have created nonsensical eternal discussions making all possible (and impossible) claims, allways reverting to his version.

Resumingly, he leaves mediation that actually started because of his edits, he edit wars everyone who oposes him including the mediator, he blatantly missinforms admins on reports including failing to provide noteces (me and Sunray previous reports are clear exemples), and he refuses to put his edits trough mediation, beside the fact that he clearly disrupts the mediation. I mean, what else? FkpCascais (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, well the "No major changes until the mediation is completed" edit summary was a bit of a joke (not the funny kind), as I quite frankly don't see much mediating going on. A 14-month mediation would be kind of absurd even it was an active discussion, but it appears that that page has only seen minor fits and starts in the time period. 3 of the 8 parties are inactive, a 4th has withdrawn, IMO it is time to mark the mediation as failed and move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not a complaint against User:Sunray specifically. In my opinion the mediation was focusing too much on user agreement and too little on the facts and sources, as I pointed out several times: one cannot solve a factual dispute without promoting a careful adherence to references. I do not doubt, however, that Sunray's actions were in good faith, and his commitment to this issue is beyond admiration. I guess it is possible to be "too good" of a Wikipedian to solve a dispute, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Mediation Committee is considering this complaint, and will respond when we reach a consensus. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the admin User:Sunray is still edit-warring to remove the paragraph [5], this time with no stated reason (as opposed to "no major changes until the mediation is completed"). The text in question is sourced completely and in detail. It is the result of literally months of work on my part: I researched the matter, found the sources, and inserted the information quoted almost verbatim from high-quality references. Now it is being removed for no reason; I cannot imagine what has posessed Sunray. I invite anyone to check the sources (the second lead paragraph). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, missinforming. The main problem is not your source (you repetitively use just 2 sources that favour your POV and ignore all the others), but it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. You are refusing to go trough a mediated discussion where that can be solved. A non-mediated discussion with you has been prooven as useless every time in the past. Only a mediated discussion can solve this. The situation is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am using two sources, among the best ones available, which is more than enough. One source is enough. There are no "other sources" I am ignoring, because most other sources agree with the two, and NO other sources disagree. Your acting as though there are these mysterious "other sources" which support you is getting rather ridiculous. You have been asked time and time again to post anything, anything at all. You just keep acting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually comment at ANI during a mediation, but since DIREKTOR left the mediation following his topic ban and is now making many accusations, I will clarify one point: I do not edit war. I did restore the stable version of the article (reverting DIREKTOR's major addition). The tags on the article clearly caution editors as follows: "Before making substantial changes, please verify on the case page that your edit does not relate to the dispute being mediated." DIREKTOR'S addition did relate to the issues under mediation and he did not discuss it. An edit war seemed to be brewing over this, so the article has now been locked. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you must certainly be aware that such a moratorium has no basis in policy, and there is no way you can enforce it from on high if it's not kept voluntarily. You were edit-warring, and went right to 3R. One more, and 3RR would have been held against you, just like with any other editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As a personal comment, I have to agree with Future Perfect that it was unseemly for Sunray to try to enforce the parameters of a formal mediation case by reversion. Formal mediation is never binding, and members of the Mediation Committee have almost no authority to force the parties to a case to respect any consensus, or even to abstain from editing the article pending discussion or an agreement. I do understand why Sunray reverted Direktor today. The edits by Direktor were grossly disruptive, because consensus for or against his view is very plainly still being formed, and to jump the gun by revert-warring is unprofessional. But I cannot condone the actions of anybody concerned here, and confess myself somewhat disappointed. On a practical note, I have protected the article indefinitely, pending some kind of consensus being reached, because I do not imagine that this kind of behaviour will not be repeated. I think the best way forward now would be for the mediator and all the parties to return, calmly, to the mediation page and pick up where they left off. AGK [•] 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• This comment, unlike my own one immediately above, is made in my capacity as the Chairman and representative of the Mediation Committee. We are disappointed that Direktor has vacated the mediation proceedings, and is re-entering the disputed material into the article. The purpose of mediation is to resolve disputes about article content, where discussion and other dispute resolution has failed. We remind Direktor that, although he is not obliged to participate in mediation, he is required by site policy to discuss all contested changes. Mediation is an effective form of dispute resolution if the parties engage in the proceedings with professionalism and an openness to compromise, and Direktor is invited to resume his participation in the case. But if Direktor is opposed to mediation, then he invariably must find some other way to establish a consensus in support of his changes.

  In relation to Direktor's complaint about the mediation proceedings being unsatisfactory, the Committee has examined the progress of the mediation proceedings, and finds that it is satisfactory. Progress on the case has admittedly been slow, but that is to be expected with a dispute as complex as the one in question. We note that, thanks to the professional approach of most of the involved parties and the patient, structured approach of Sunray, the mediator, there has been a substantial degree of progress made so far. A re-write of the article is being finalised on the case talk page, which is an enormous achievement in itself. Furthermore, the re-write will be put to the community in a request for comments in the near future, which would be a still greater achievement. It would be more helpful if Direktor were to engage in those commendable efforts, than unilaterally continuing to edit war, but it is ultimately his choice. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the entire mediation I would agree. Although it is irritating that it is taking so long to post the mediated article, we are all volunteers and the pparticipants have indeed accomplished a great deal in this vexed and difficult area. After the mediated version is posted - ongoing issues can be discussed on the talkpage - hopefully in a structured way and to some purpose. It was entirely DIREKTORS choice not to continue to participate in the mediation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, mediation has failed; the only other option is Arbitration, at which point, given the evidence presented by all parties, it would then be up to the Arbitration Committee to take the necessary actions, usually in the form of sanctions, topic bans, and even sitebans. –MuZemike 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As an involved party, and new to mediation procedures (although I appear to have picked a doozy for my first time out), would it be appropriate once we can return to the article to farm out some of the issues to other noticeboards, such as RSN and WQA, rather than pursuing the matter with ARBCOM? I confess I'm not hopeful regardless of venue, and simply curious about the best course to follow here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. I would hope that once the new article is posted - those involved will take part in talkpage discussions rather than avoiding it as has been the case for a long time now. There are already ARBMAC discretionary sanctions available for disruptive behaviour. Certainly RSN can be used but the problem is often not so much RS but WP:UNDUE and a fair representation of sourced material.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make my closing comments, if I may.

• Firstly, this is not a complaint against the mediation itself. And not that I disapprove nesessarily, but I myself was very much surprised when the mediation page was blanked. The purpose of this thread was (originally) to inquire as to whether it is a mediator's perrogative to freeze the article and revert article edits of his own choice during the course of an RfM.
• Secondly, even though the article draft is often being cited as some sort of "progress", I must once again point out that it does absolutely nothing to solve any of the disputes the mediation attempted to solve, and as is already the case - nobody opposes the draft, and yet the disputes still continue strong as ever. This is simply because no agreements of any sort have been reached, and the only thing the draft may in fact do, is improve the quality of the non-controversial segments of the article. With that in mind, I fail to see how the draft could not have been written (by essentially one user, as was the case) - without an RfM altogether. Its an admirable piece of work, to be sure, but it does not do anything at all towards settling the conflict. I have frequently appealed to the mediator to center on the very simple question that is the core dispute here.
• Thirdly, the reasoning behind my departure from the RfM was not that it was making slow progress, it is simply that no progress was being made. At all. And this as a result, partly, of the policies of the mediator. As I said, upon my urging to concentrate on solving the actual dispute, the mediator simply urged me to join in writing the article, while avoiding the "difficult areas". Understanding that the draft is not really helping, and that it is impossible to start a real discussion on the main issue, I left. Having invested a year of effort into this, I assure you AGK, I feel no lesser disappointment that you fine gentlemen.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Take this to arbcom

AN/I is ill suited to the resolution of this sort of deadlock. Since there's already been a mediation, for 14 months, and the article is under indefinite full protection, the case is ripe for examination by arbcom. Please post a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and discontinue this thread. Thank you. Chester Markel (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of faith in mediation (I'm listed among the mediators emeriti after all) but sometimes it doesn't work, and it should go to arbitration. I think this is one of those cases. -- Atama頭 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup this is ripe for WP:ARBCOM. Ship it over there and let's see if the application of some concentrated power can grease the wheels. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on folks. This mediation is not deadlocked. Participants have been working on a draft re-write of the article. It has been slow going and there were many disruptions. However, the task is 95% completed. The plan is to move the new draft into the article and discuss it on the article talk page. This has been agreed to by participants. There is nothing to take to arbitration right now, although it may have seemed that way from come of the comments above. (That is sometimes the case when mediation participants bring things to ANI). Sunray (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Nation of Gods and Earths

I don't really know whether this is the best forum for this problem, but here goes anyway. We have had discussions on the The Nation of Gods and Earths talk page with an editor called user:Bornking7 who says he is the editor of the Five Percenter, the journal of this group, which is an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. I should say that Bornking7 is clearly trying to engage with Wikipedia through the talk page and that he has accepted the reversion of his own earlier highly POV edits, no doubt made in good faith. However, myself and other editors are finding it very difficult to communicate with this editor who still seems to believe that Wikipedia's article is part of some concerted campaign or plot against the group he represents. I have tried to incorporate content he has proposed, within an appropriate format but he still adopts an "aggrieved" position which I'm afraid might again erupt into POV edits. If anyone can bear to read through the walls of text there, I would be grateful of some help in communicating with this editor, who has so far restrained himself, but does not seem to fully understand how the encyclopedia should work. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've notified Bornking7 of this discussion and had to change many mis-formatted ref tags on his talk page to get it to show up. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace this is Born King and I do represent the NOGE professionally through the National Office Of Cultural Affairs (NOCA) and personally. I am and have been a a part of the Nation of Gods and Earths for many many years. It is my asseration that wikipedia through no fault of its own has been supplied with information that met its format but had no basis in truth. As Paul B has so boldly stated in the edit above "an offshoot of the Nation Of Islam" that is simply not true. The other edit which i give Wikipedia credit for removing was the one on the NOI page that stated the NOGE is the subsidary of the NOI. Both statements are wrong, however if i were not telling you this now, you still wouldn't know. More importantly the world is connected on the world wide web. Google and wikipedia are online resource centers used by people all over the planet. Right now those people have access to demeaning and defamatory information about the NOGE supplied as verified information by wikipedia. So when i became aware of these mistruths on your site,I went about the business of correcting them. I am not the expert on wikipedia use, policy procedures, editing techniques, and the like, but I am an objective expert on the NOGE. The editor who submitted the introduction to the NOGE that wikipedia is fighting so hard to keep intact needs to be revealed. He needs to be held to the same standard I am being held too. Furthermore with someone like myself now aware of what is going on in this site, it wont be as easy to fool me like they fooled those of you who knew nothing about the NOGE before., I want to see the sources wikipedia accepted to validate that editors misstatements--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All users are of course held to the same standard (though I think admins are held to a slightly higher one), but I'm afraid that you yourself, in the context of this article and related ones, must be held to a slightly different one. The reason for that is that your occupation and involvement with NOGE represents a conflict of interest. This means that you should read through that guideline and edit and contribute accordingly. The fact is that if there is information about something that is notable, relevant and well-sourced to a reliable source, it should be included in the article regardless of whether it is negative. There is a great deal of negative stuff about many other faiths. Some of it might be considered lies, heck it could be completely false, but if it is a widely held view, then it must be represented in some way. The way it is represented must of course be in-line with the reliable sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now while i keep hearing that from you all that if there are negative things written about the NOGE they have to be included . But why would they have to be included in the introduction to the NOGE? Personally i dont see that standard applied across the board on wikipedia. I checked every religous definition on wikipedia and they did not at all reflect negative facts or opinions or widely held views written or otherwise. They merely informed the reader as to the basics of that religion. Are the palenstitian writers allowed to describe Judaism as a religion that supports a modern day aparathied system? Is Catholicism somehow attached to pedophlia because of the many priests that have molested children as a matter of record. Is christianity described as the sanctioning body for the enslavement of millions of blacks during the slave trade? No! Even though there is plethora of information that could be used to support all of those claims wikipedia does not include those things in those religions descriptive pages. Now if you have another page that discusses those issues thats different. Judaism, Catholicism, and Christianity are described most favorably on wikipedias pages dedicated to them. However when it comes to the God Centered Culture of the Nation of Gods and Earth's any negative opinion ever offered must be included in the basic introduction or it is somehow not objective. We are a living breathing people not an inanimate object that one can have a false, widely held view of thats ok. Widely held false views led to the Jewish Holocaust right? I thought you all said never again. Or is what you meant never again to you, but its okay to subject the NOGE to the same thing that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Widely held views led to the horror cost of 400 years of chattel slavery for Black people in America. It was widely held that Black people were 3/5's of a human. I am appalled! This is the standard for wikipedia? If it is then it needs to be changed. You know that words have power this is not an editing game. People are attacked in word first then targeted for physical destruction later. I speak for a people who have been voiceless in the face of this litery attack. I speak for a Nation of Men , women and children who walk around with bullseyes above thier forehead because of some false definition of them supported by wikipedia. Nobody owns us, we are not anybodys offshoot, subsidary, organization or gang. Please read my definition of who and what we are again, I have proved that my definiton is the correct one tht can be backed up by outside sources.--Bornking7 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I also offered to help him. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I dropped a comment on his page which will give him a headsup as to being a bit more concise as well. Reading through his walls of text, well intentioned and informative that they are, is quite a strain on the poor grey matter. --Blackmane (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments as well. As a writer my thoughts run faster then my fingers and so it is reflected in thoughts that I save without editing. They tend to run on but I have went back over them and edited them somewhat. I trust that they are now more understandable.--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the James Thomas Aubrey, Jr. section below

Although I am not sure what is meant by a slow motion edit war, i do know that the information currently accepted as the introduction to the NOGE is unacceptable. It is not accurate and is negatively biased, when it does not have to be. While I understand other editors cannot see being called an offshoot, subsidary, gang and an organization as demeaning and defamatory, the NOGE does. The NOGE has its own voice and can prove who and what it is, in its own words. Those are not the words we use. The NOGE defines itself as God Centered Culture thats recieves the same constitiutional protection granted to religions. We are not an American orgaization. We are a legitmate path to God. We refuse to be defined by others and claim our inalienable right to speak for ourselves. Furthermore we have entered into the courts of this great country and proved it. Please accept us for who we are and remove the edit that does us and wikipedia a great disservice.--Bornking7 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)--Bornking7 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, please understand that there are certain policies in place and that while organisations, religious groups, etc are of course welcome to describe themselves, they need to also have the descriptions of them by other reliable sources put in for the sake of keeping things balanced. The same is true for Christianity, Judaism, you name it, any faith. If this was not done then people would be given information with a great deal of bias that might not represent the majority view or views. This is covered in WP:WEIGHT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now while i keep hearing that from you all that if there are negative things written about the NOGE they have to be included . But why would they have to be included in the introduction to the NOGE? Personally i dont see that standard applied across the board on wikipedia. I checked every religous definition on wikipedia and they did not at all reflect negative facts or opinions or widely held views written or otherwise. They merely informed the reader as to the basics of that religion. Are the palenstitian writers allowed to describe Judaism as a religion that supports a modern day aparathied system? Is Catholicism somehow attached to pedophlia because of the many priests that have molested children as a matter of record. Is christianity described as the sanctioning body for the enslavement of millions of blacks during the slave trade? No! Even though there is plethora of information that could be used to support all of those claims wikipedia does not include those things in those religions descriptive pages. Now if you have another page that discusses those issues thats different. Judaism, Catholicism, and Christianity are described most favorably on wikipedias pages dedicated to them. However when it comes to the God Centered Culture of the Nation of Gods and Earth's any negative opinion ever offered must be included in the basic introduction or it is somehow not objective. We are a living breathing people not an inanimate object that one can have a false, widely held view of thats ok. Widely held false views led to the Jewish Holocaust right? I thought you all said never again. Or is what you meant never again to you, but its okay to subject the NOGE to the same thing that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Widely held views led to the horror cost of 400 years of chattel slavery for Black people in America. It was widely held that Black people were 3/5's of a human. I am appalled! This is the standard for wikipedia? If it is then it needs to be changed. You know that words have power this is not an editing game. People are attacked in word first then targeted for physical destruction later. I speak for a people who have been voiceless in the face of this litery attack. I speak for a Nation of Men , women and children who walk around with bullseyes above thier forehead because of some false definition of them supported by wikipedia. Nobody owns us, we are not anybodys offshoot, subsidary, organization or gang. Please read my definition of who and what we are again, I have proved that my definiton is the correct one tht can be backed up by outside sources.--Bornking7 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs)

The lede as it is called, should bewritten in such a way to attract the reader. In some cases, the subject is known for controversies (as in the case of some BLPs) or conflicts between two opposing POVs. Placing some of both into a lede is aimed at giving the reader a snippet of what the article is about. The religions that you mentioned are generally known throughout the english speaking world and the actions and misdemeanours of some of their adherents are also known. In the case of the NOGE, I for one know little about it so for me reading something of both positive and negative views would interest me to further read about the NOGE. Reading the lede paragraph, I don't see anything too negative about it, unless you mean the reference that the NOGE is "...an organization, an institution, a religion, or even a gang...". I think the lede is fairly balanced, there does not seem to be undue emphasis on one aspect or another of the NOGE. To help you understand the requirements of a lede section, please refer here WP:LEDE. Also of help would be WP:UNDUE.

Once you have read those and you still have misgivings about it, opening a discussion on the talk page would be the next step.

Also, please use sign your posts using four tildes as is required. Although SINEBOT will do it for you, it is more usual to sign ourselves.

At this stage, I think it is digressing into a discussion about content. If there is consensus for this view, would an admin close this thread and the discussion either taken up on Bornking's talk page or on the article talk page? --Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR enforcement requested

For the second day in a row now, Tillman (talk · contribs) is in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[6] To his credit, he self-reverted his violation yesterday,[7] but is continuing the same edit warring behavior.

Today, Tillman made a total of three reverts to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which I will only count as two total reverts as two of the three reverts were consecutive. However, the diffs show him reverting three times in 24 hours, which is a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1RR, as well an explicit violation of the 1RR altogether.

• 01:04, 8 June 2011 Tillman (Please don't add contentious material without first seeking consensus. See head of talk page. You know not to do this.[8])
  • Revert of 00:50, 8 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[9]
• 00:58, 8 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,104 bytes) (Undid revision 433119267, stable text, prior discussion at talk. Please don't edit-war.)[10]
  • Revert of 23:45, 7 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[11]
• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,185 bytes) (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[12]
  • Revert of 16:15, 6 June 2011 version by Tarc.[13]

Disclosure: I have made one revert to this article in the last 24 hours, at 23:16, 7 June 2011.[14] Could someone please enforce this 1RR and help Tillman understand the concept of a revert? I've tried on the talk page, but he doesn't get it. Recently, Tillman even said "I'm easily confused about 1RR".[15] However, Tillman unambiguously reversed the edits of another editor three times today (two consecutive), and I would like for this behavior to stop. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified about this discussion on their talk page. I have asked Tillman to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm not entirely sure this is a 1rr violation. His first 'revert' was replacing content that had been removed a couple of days ago - not within the same period. It seems to me that it would make sense if to count as a revert in the context of the xRR rules it would have to be a revert of material that had been adjusted in that same period - otherwise, everyone would be in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edited a long existing page more than three times in a day - since whenever you remove content that has been added to a page it's reverting a historical edit. Obviously that's kind of an extreme example, but it definitely makes sense to me to think that for a revert to count as a revert, the thing you're reverting would have to be in the covered period - before his first "revert" there had been no edits to the page in more than 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first revert was a revert and was the same revert he self-reverted at 17:24 24 hours ago to avoid the 1RR the previous day:

• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[16]
• 17:24, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Reverted edits by Tillman (talk) to last version by Tarc)[17]
• 16:39, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Undid revision 432870459 by Tarc (talk)[18]

Everyone is not in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edit. Tillman was in violation because he reverted Tarc, self-reverted to avoid the 1RR, then returned after 24 hours expired to make the same revert. Then, he made another revert at 23:45/00:50. It is clear and unambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note, policy re this situation is as follows: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus I don't think I've violated 1RR, and I pointed this out to Viriditas here, before he filed this report.

I'm sorry to say that this appears to be a part of a program of harassment that this user has been carrying out. Please see this report, which is only a sample. A sad situation, Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to your 22:37 and 00:58 edits as two different reverts. Your last two edits certainly count as one revert, but if reverts under the xRR's do not have to be reverting material that was added within the same period, you would have two reverts in 24 hours and be in violation of 1rr. Of course if that's the case, it sure looks to me like he was in violation of 1rr himself on the 5th/6th. Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. 23:49, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Books */ Non-notable, self-published book removed")
2. 00:36, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Rv Tillman's misundersanding of the concept of "undue". This is fully supported, summarizes the mainstream opinion, and is considered an expert source on PR campaigns")
3. 13:51, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Media reception */ Remove meaningless, unencyclopedic climate change denial statements per talk")

I did notice it myself initially, but since EdJ subsequently brought it up on your talk page, I just copied his diffs here instead of grabbing them myself. You removed content twice, and performed a direct reversion once. Contrary to how you understand policy, removal of content does count as a reversion, and can be every bit as editwarry as hitting the rollback button. They are consistently enforced in the same manner, and the commonsense reading of WP:3rr supports that. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Emphasis mine - removing text someone else has added to a page is partially undoing their edit, and is a revert. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Removal of content is not considered a revert unless one is undoing the actions of another editor that implicitly restores the previous version of a page. The word revert means to "return to (a previous state, condition, practice, etc.)" In other words, I can remove content and never perform a revert, as I did at 23:49 and 13:51. This does not conflict with Wikipedia policies. Do you understand that one can make unique edits that add, delete, and modify content without ever performing a revert? In fact, there is no policy or guideline that says otherwise. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 are not reverts by any accepted definition of the word "revert" nor by Wikipedia's use of the word. Removing content does not mean reverting content. A common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Kevin posted the exact wording of the policy above, and it doesn't say what you say it says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It says exactly what I said it says, namely that 1) undoing another editor's work is considered a revert. It does not say that a revert is defined as removing content. It isn't, and never has been. One has to, according to policy, specifically undo another editor's work, which implies restoring a previous version of the page. One does not "revert" simply by removing or deleting content, and the policy has never said that. I can add, remove, or modify content, none of which constitutes a revert by itself. The entire concept of edit warring and reversion only has meaning in terms of two or more editors. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 did not revert any editor or restore a previous version by another editor. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, "undo" does not imply "restore". Read the section where it says "or in part".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Or in part" refers to the work of the editor you are reverting. IIRC, historically this was added because editors would deliberately alter the revert (known as a "partial revert") in an attempt to evade the 3RR. To my knowledge, no editor has ever been blocked for violating the 3RR simply for removing material. They have, OTOH, been blocked/banned for blanking and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In a technical sense, any removal of content could be considered a revert, since at one time whatever text you're removing didn't exist, so removing content means reverting to a state before that content was added. But I don't believe anyone ever treats such a thing as a revert, especially for xRR situations. An edit war involves someone actively getting into a conflict with another person by directly trying to hinder their development of the article by undoing their actions. If I add a fact to an article and 2 years later someone deletes it, I don't consider that a conflict. But it's situational. Reverts can sometimes happen with weeks in-between edits and if it's an ongoing thing, it becomes a slow-motion edit war that is just as disruptive, if not more so, than people reverting each other every 5 seconds (the former could last months or years, while the latter might end in a day). -- Atama頭 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and stop posting to this thread before I wind up getting a WP:Civil block. Have fun. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You're getting a good taste of what dealing with Viriditas is really like. A unique experience. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR, refuse to self-rv, and are now using the NB to attack me? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He did violate 1RR, but, in context, you (V) did so first, and one of his reverts was reverting your second revert of the series the previous day. And it is completely untrue that (for 3RR violations) the revert needs to be of a recent change. An outright removal usually isn't called a revert, but, in case of known edit warriors, such as yourself, it may be considered so.

And, finally, WP:AN3 is the proper venue for this complaint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no such 1RR violation, and nobody ever claimed that a revert needed to be recent. The facts, Arthur, show that I did not revert anyone except for my edit at 00:36, 6 June 2011. The other two edits were unique deletions of content, neither reversions of another editor nor to a particular version. A revert is only a revert when it involves undoing another editor's work which implicitly restores a previous version of a page. SarekOfVulcan (and others) take issue with this particular wording, but it is in fact the very definition of the word "revert". To give you an example, Arthur, let's say I click the "random article" link over and over again until I find a page needing copyedits, cleanup, and removal of content. Let's also say that this particular article just so happens to be active, meaning the likelihood of consecutive edits (one edit after another with no edits by another editor) is low. Consider this: I make a series of four edits to this hypothetical active page involving the removal of content, whole or in part, for reasons of maintenance, accuracy, neutrality, etc. Due to activity (and for the sake of this example) the edit history shows my four contributions spaced out over four hours, one every hour. Have I just made 4 reverts? Am I in violation of the 3RR? Yes or no? For the sake of this example, assume that each one of my edits is unique and has not removed any material added by another editor or added material removed by any other editor on the page, and the result of each one of my edits is a new, unique version of the page. If you say "yes", then you are saying that no editor may remove any material from any page no more than three times a day, which is not supported by any policy or guideline. The policy on reversion refers only to undoing edits by other editors in the context of edit warring, not to the addition, subtraction, or modification of content alone. The facts show that I can delete material from an article four times in one day, and I can delete 35 different types of material 35 times from one article if I want without ever making a single revert. I cannot, however, repeatedly add or delete 1 item if another editor has deleted or added that 1 item within 24 hours. Also, I cannot undo different items from another editor more than three times in 24 hours. The two edits I made involve no reversion of any editor, and no restoration of any previous version by another editor. Deletions of content, like additions and modifications, are never considered reverts unless the edit undoes the edits of another editor. Who is the editor I have reverted in the two diffs above? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. As usual. Deletion of material is considered a revert for the purpose of 3RR, and reverting an edit (in whole or in part), no matter how long ago it was made, may be considered a revert. Specialized 1RR/0RR restrictions may have different definitions. At at least one article, a 0RR restriction means only that you may not revert a reversion of your own edit, or that you may not revert an edit without first commenting on the talk page. In your specific hypothetical: If you remove material, it must have been added by another editor, so your hypothetical is logically impossible. Even ignoring that, it would be a 3RR violation unless you put an {{inuse}} tag on the article, and had reason to make it stick, even if it were ignored by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about what I've said, and you can't answer the questions I asked in the affirmative because the deletion and removal of content is not considered a revert unless some editor is being reverted. Good copyediting, for example, may require many edits consisting of deletions, none of which are ever considered reverts. I can provide example after example showing that you are wrong. Editors who remove and delete material over the course of a day are never in danger of violating the 3RR unless they are reversing the edits of a specific editor or editors, Anyone who claims otherwise is misinterpretating the concept of a revert and what it means. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that V's reverts were in the same section, while Pete's weren't.

However, none this makes this notice board appropriate, either WP:AN3, or possibly, WP:AE, if the 1RR is part of an arbitration ruling. It appears not, but it says the 1RR has been superseded by discretionary sanctions which are subject to WP:AE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not need to be noted since they were not reverts nor did the edits undo the work of another editor. One can safely edit Wikipedia and remove material without ever worrying about the 3RR. Whether these edits were in the same or different sections is irrelevant. There was no edit war over the material and no editor was reverted. This discussion was brought here because the 1RR probation warning on the the talk page says to bring discussions about the remedy here. Whether that applies to 1RR violations is unclear. Are 1RR probation incidents usually reported at AN3? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 1RR (and the occassional 0RR) violations are reported at AN3. And I believe you'll find that deleting a section is considered a revert, whether or not it brings the page to a previous version or reverts a particular editor, recent or not. This page is for discussion of revising the sanction, as the sanction, itself, is an adminstrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified the talk page header requesting that editors take their concerns to WP:AN3.[19] Unfortunately, Tillman is continuing to violate the 1RR on a daily basis now, even during this discussion, which tells me this noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, since a pattern of disruptive editing has been demonstrated. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert and self-revert = net zero. Sorry - no violation that I can see. Decidedly not violating the 1RR rule, and not violating any other reasonable interpretation of any rule. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did miss one. Pete had at least two reverts since the self-revert, and those were within 24 hours of each other. I don't want to add heat, but V did get something right, for a change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, I reverted two different editors. I reverted 09:15, 6 June 2011 Tarc (by undoing my prev self-revert), at 15:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman, about 30 hours after Tarc had reverted someone else. See here. So, that one should be OK, right?

Then, two consecutive reverts of Viriditas, with no intervening 3rd party edits, as already discussed. One a restoration of stable consensus text improperly removed, as discussed upthread, might not be an actual, official "revert." Ah, this stuff makes my head hurt. Anyway, Arthur, if you ID the one you think is still a 1RR vio, I'll self-revert just to be cautious and cooperative. I do try to follow the rules (ex-military, we get that pounded into us early!), but the rules are confusing. As we've seen here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Editor Kevin just pointed out that this really does violate 1RR, and I'm pretty sure he's right . I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the "Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess? Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. My sincere apologies -- I simply misunderstood the rule. Doh, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here;s the source of my confusion. From the 1RR flag at the "edit article" page:

• Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period.

So, this notice might best be revised, to make clear that only one revert/day total is permitted. I read it as one per editor, but I now see the notice is ambiguous. (Or I'm dyslexic, and/or dumb?)

I've tried to Self-Rv 3x now, but it won't take. I'll log off & try again later -- business first. Drat, Pete Tillman (talk)

It's per article. Think about it this way, let's say that yourself and 3 other people have a 1RR at an article. You want to insert information and the other 3 disagree. So you add it, editor A reverts that, you revert editor A. Editor A can't revert you again without violating 1RR, so editor B makes the revert. You revert editor B. So then editor C reverts you, and you revert editor C. If the restriction was once per editor, it would favor you as the person that is going against consensus, which wouldn't make sense. As it is, 3RR or any xRR acts in part to prevent a single person from owning an article. -- Atama頭 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I seldom revert, and just misread the thing. Won't happen again! (I hope)

Now for the MYSTERY SOLVED! I couldn't self-revert Tillman 15:37, 7 June 2011, because VIRIDITAS had again removed this stable text, against established consensus, at 16:16, 7 June 2011! diff. And then had the nerve to file a 1RR violation complaint. Remarkable brass, I'd say. I'll be interested to see what 3rd parties think of this, especially those who have wasted time on this frivolous report of a "violation" that endured for 45 minutes, and was re-reverted by the complainant, in classic edit-war behavior. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to report that Tillman has just now violated the 1RR for the third day in a row at 17:41, 8 June 2011 with the re-addition of the {{syn}} tag, a tag that he has personally added to the statement "global warming conspiracy" at least three times: once at 04:15, 15 May[20], twice at 05:20, 15 May 2011[21], and now for a third time at 17:41, 8 June.[22] Considering that he is already in violation of the 1RR at this moment (his two reverts at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June ) he has once again violated the 1RR by restoring this tag. Previously, the tag was removed by Short Brigade Harvester Boris at 04:58, 15 May[23] and myself at 06:49, 15 May[24].

Please note that the reason Tillman did not add the {{syn}} tag back into the article after it was removed between May 15 and June 1st by myself and SBHB, is because he volunteered (as did I and others) to take two weeks off from the article. It should be noted, that Tillman was the first editor to return to the article after the break, making a revert in his very first edit[25] and continuing to engage in deceptive violations of the 1RR on a daily basis. More to the point, there are open threads on the talk page that Tillman refuses to respond to, and these discussions directly pertain to his contributions.

What we have here, is documented evidence of an editor who takes two weeks off to cool down, returns to the article just after the voluntary break expires, only to make reverts and multiple violations of the 1RR, all the while avoiding discussing their edits on the talk pge. I can provide further diffs if they are needed, but today's 1RR violation after this entire discussion should be evidence that something needs to be done immediately. I am continuing to request probationary 1RR enforcement at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning appears tortured to me, but if 3rd parties agree, I will be happy to self-revert.

I notice you make no comment regarding your apparent "setup" for your original 1RR claim here. What is your reponse to that? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, one does not require "reasoning" to simply observe that you have made three reverts in a little over the last 24 hours to an article that is on 1RR probation. These reverts occurred (as listed above) at 17:41, 8 June, 01:04 8 June, and 22:37 7 June. Since you've already admitted that you understand that your edits at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June were reverts, your confusion appears to involve your most recent edit at 17:41, 8 June. In this edit, you restored a {{syn}} maintenance tag that had been removed by two previous editors. The page history shows that you have added this tag a total of three times. The pattern here, is that you are incrementally reverting to your chosen version of the article before you took your two week break, which is a violation of the 1RR. Is this making sense to you, Tillman? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Drahmaz at CRUec? Ohz noz. Even though they probably already know about them, several users need to be reminded of arbcom restrictions. -Atmoz (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Honorable Viriditas: may we see your wikilawyer license, please? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't quite fit AN/I, but since there was already a thread going here I thought it might be best to just add on to this thread, instead of posting at WQA. I had been monitoring this whole chain of threads, and made a couple posts earlier in this thread. I noticed an ongoing thread at User_talk:Tillman#June_2011 and posted in it pointing out to Viriditas that his behavior was being unnecessarily inflammatory. I could probably have phrased my post there more politely, but I suspect it wouldn't have helped. He brought the discussion to my talk page - User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Viriditas_1RR_complaint. This thread on his talk page is another pretty good example of problematic behavior from him.

I would ask outside editors to review those links/Viriditas's behavior and comment on it. I feel like he's exhibited a pattern of disruptive behavior throughout those links/diffs, and I really cannot imagine that the underlying content/behavioral disputes that he is involved in can be successfully resolved unless he modifies his behavior. I'm hopeful that a few more people chiming in about this will convince him to modify his behavior.

To be clear, I'm not trying to claim that my behavior throughout this was perfect - I just think that his behavior is problematic enough that it needs to be addressed. I am not going to post in direct response to any of Viriditas's future posts, but will answer any third party questions as necessary. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Memon_people

This article is about the Memon people, as part of the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, amongst whom are two terrorists Yakub Memon and Tiger Memon. They are listed because they satisfy WP:Notability, User talk:Kshitij85 has added the brothers and sisters of the terrorists even though they are not notable themselves and notability is not gained by being a sibling of a notable person. They were accessories but not protagonists.

Please take a look at Memon_people

--Tovojolo (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Memon_people

Here are my references for adding Memon family members on the list. User:Tovojolo knows nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case and is arguing unecessarily.

Few references:

• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-06/india/28130673_1_bomb-blasts-tada-court-tiger-memon
• http://www.mostwantedhoes.com/asia/indian-terrorists.php
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-05-07/india/27111296_1_tiger-memon-hanifa-memon-medical-grounds
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/memon/featured/4
  

(Kshitij85 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

I do know a lot about it, actually, I said that they were accessories not protagonists, look up. User talk:Kshitij85 can add the details of the Memon family to the article on the actual incident, which is 1993 Bombay bombings or he can start an article on the Memon family but adding all the names, (even though the names of the two notable terrorists are already added) distorts the article as a whole, WP:Undue. The brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable by themselves. Notability is not gained by coattail hanging.

He also freely admits that he has multiple accounts, which is sockpuppetry.

--Tovojolo (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not my fault, if you don't see the links i provided. Your argument is baseless and you know nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case. You don't even know the recent developments and you say you know alot. The whole memon family are criminals as declared by Central Bureau of Investigation. You are going to be banned for vandalism if you continue to revert. (Kshitij85 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Do either of you understand WP:UNDUE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making threats on an Administrator's board? Your behaviour will be noted by all.--Tovojolo (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You started making threats first if you forgot. (Kshitij85 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

"S/he started it!" is not a valid defense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you not to violate WP:3RR and the consequences that would occur if you did. --Tovojolo (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Memon_people article is about the totality of the history and culture of the Memon people. Within the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, two notable terrorists who are Memons (Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon) are already noted in the article. Other editors have also reverted User talk:Kshitij85's edit as they too realise that the brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable in themselves [26].

Any such mention of that family belongs in 1993 Bombay bombings.

It is not a Memon vanity article neither is it a Memon bashing article. It should always be neutral in tone. Skewing the whole article around the behaviour of one family detracts from the Memon people as a whole and is undue.

--Tovojolo (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot read the links i posted here? Click on those links and you will realise. Four of the main accused are absconding Fugitives i.e Tiger, Ayub, Reshma and Shabana Memon. Four have been convicted by the Court i.e. Yakub, Essa, Yusuf Memon have got death sentence and Rubina Memon has got Life Imprisonment. If according to you apart from Tiger, Yakub rest all are "INNOCENT" then how come they have been convicted? They have been convicted because they are Criminals/Terrorists. Apart from that the entire family except for the 4 absconding fugitives have served a sentence in the prison. Just because you have made many edits on the article does'nt make you the owner of the article. And the other editors are supporting you because they are not reading the links. (Kshitij85 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Emotional outbursts have no place on Wikipedia. Stick to a discussion of Wikipedia's precepts. Do not personalise the debate and remain civil WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Never for one moment have I said that they are innocent, that is a gross distortion. The issue hangs on whether they are notable, the two terrorists (Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon) have their own articles on Wikipedia and indeed are duly noted as terrorists in the Memon_people article, the others, the brothers, sisters, wives even the mother and father lack notability as they were accessories not protagonists. The other editors, who are Wikipedia Admins, disagree with you because they too recognise that those people do not have notability. You do not understand that if you wish to refer to those people then you must do so on 1993 Bombay bombings.

For someone who claims 10,000 edits since 2004 and multiple accounts, you show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia precepts. What are your other sockpuppet account names? --Tovojolo (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The continued addition of non-notable (although possibly convicted/wanted) persons of the family have been removed. The page is right now fully protected (probably the wrong version, of course). Adding non-notable persons certainly adds undue weight to an unfortunate branch of the group, thus skewing the entire article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the issue is now resolved. Thanks --Tovojolo (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not go that far: full protection is only for 10 days. Kshitij has also been blocked, but I believe it's temporary, especially considering he admits to having another account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Kshitij85 already admits to having a sockpuppet account on their talk page, with intention to use it to circumvent blocks, should we open a sockpuppet investigation? The only reason I haven't done so already is that I have no evidence other than their admission and no idea what the puppet accounts are. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been told (at SPI, by a checkuser) that as long as there is good reason to believe that a person has sockpuppet accounts, checkusers will consider an investigation even if you don't know what the sock accounts actually are. I think that a disruptive editor who admits to having socks is worth reporting. -- Atama頭 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually did open an WP:SPI investigation, but nothing really came of it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kshitij85. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Troit Trolls

A few minutes ago, Troit1 (talk · contribs) created an article called Troit Trolls that says, in part, Troit trolls is a trolling group on Wikipedia and other outlets started on 17:20 GMT on the 8th of July 2011. The group has hacked numerous pages since its foundation. Troit Trolls' goal is to wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Let's disregard the obvious typo of "July" for "June". I'm not sure how credible a threat this is, or if it's just a lone kiddie looking for attention, but I thought I would bring it up here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted as notability isn't established, for starters. The rest is pretty obvious ofc. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these guys have an agenda, they are upset over US activities in Libya and the rest of the Middle East. They're not very good trolls if they're angry over something as appears to be the case here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Troit1 indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these guys realised that thanks to Watchlists and the Recent Changes section, people will notice such changes very easily and quickly. That's especially the case on such high-profile pages. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What does 'hacked numerous pages' mean? They found the edit button?--v/r - TP 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It means they don't check to see if their edits were reverted two minutes after (ignorance is bliss and all that). I think they were trying to copy Anon in some way, not realising how that whole setup works. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone should remind them that Anon also consistently fails at destroying WP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because most anon are script kiddies and wannabes who have no idea what they are doing. The real ones usually don't get involved in such stuff afaik. =p These guys were like the myopic fellow who walks into the bank to rob it, only to discover it's actually a police station (After the Fox). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [27]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [28] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[29] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner response tomorrow, o.k.?

By June 7, my next time at the Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito) I will reply to the above, including exhibiting the 2009 edits which User:Mjpresson charadcterizes as "threats". I think the issues regarding "Original Research" and "Self Published Sources" should be debated thoroughly on the Cannabis Project page. Meanwhile, please turn to Cannabis smoking and try to figure out what User:Mjpresson has done with the "dugout" and "kiseru" illustrations.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Slap Bet edit war

Resolved

 – Let me know if problems continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello admins.

Dayewalker sent me an email early this morning about Tjprochazka's edits on the page regarding a supposed fifth slap by Marshall but it hasn't yet happened on the show. Apparently, the edits have gone a bit out of hand, with Tj being rather arrogant on his own talk page, the article talk page, and even asking Dayewalker to just "walk away." TJ's conduct is unacceptable and is right up there with other editors who have tried railroading their own edits but flame back when put down (Cliche Online on MGS 4 comes to mind). Please assist. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, what article is this about? NW (Talk) 02:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an admin issue. Eaglestorm, please stop editing the article, and take up a discussion at the talk page to reach consensus. If the discussion has not yet been fruitful, seek help from WP:3O or another process listed at WP:DR. There's nothing for any adminisrator to do to solve this situation, and we'd all like to keep it that way. --Jayron32 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up on the WP:WQA board earlier after getting nothing but insults from the editor [30]. After another editor reverted him, he appears to have stopped, but with a promise to use his talk page as a blog [31]. The current page as now consists of a list of enemies, including a couple of insults and slurs against me. While I feel the WQA situation is settled and doesn't need any further attention, I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the user page. Thanks in advance for your attention. Dayewalker (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an enemies list on the current page. I agree, after further review, that things need extra help. I don't agree, however, that that help needs to come in the form of a block, a protection, or a deletion. Since no one is being blocked today, no article needs to be protected today, and no article needs to be deleted today, I still want to know what administrator tools you need used? Yes, it is a problem. No, it is not an administrator problem. --Jayron32 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Portion of user page that was being used for an enemies list and personal attacks blanked, and warning left on their talk page. Dayewalker, I've told him to disengage from you. I assume you'll reciprocate, so he won't have an excuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

twosteps.com

I have noticed two editors, Twostepsjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 77.107.87.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding spam links to twosteps.com (the later was blocked for 31 hrs for doing it), is it appropriate to add that site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and if so can someone do it ?

Mtking (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see User talk:LawJobs. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel at Abortion

DMSBel (talk · contribs)

According to this list DMSBel is is topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Wikipedia space pages, for an indefinite period. Unfortunately, DMSBel has made several edits to Abortion and Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban (unless Abortion is not considered a topic of human sexuality). Abortion could be broadly construed to be a part of human sexuality, but I think you highly paid (with a health care plan) admins should make a final decision. Apparently DMSBel spoke to a friendly admin who made a summary decision that it did not. However, since abortion requires sex, I'm kind of concerned. Mostly, I don't care, but his editing in Abortion is no fun:

He's editing a ton on the article and the talk. Much of the edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS and some are polite and somewhat productive. But the problem is he uses a slow edit war by placing a POV tag (funny thing is, I consider it a POV article because it's written politically and not medically). All other editors want is a definite ruling from the community about whether his indefinite ban to cover Abortion. Or not. His activity here certainly would be used against him if he ever asked that his topic ban be removed. He can't control himself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you honestly believe abortion doesn't "cause a death", you yourself should be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This came up a few weeks ago, and while I am concerned about this, I did not see a consensus that Abortion necessarily falls under the topic ban. For the record, I'm the admin who determined consensus and enacted the topic ban (unless memory fails me).

I don't have the ANI archive link handy, but someone can presumably find it.

If his activity is felt to be disruptive independent of the topic ban, then it can be actioned independently. If you can get consensus here to expand the topic ban we can revise that. I am not personally going to stretch the as-written ban that far.

I'm only one admin here, so someone else may call it elsewise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your memory is fine, you left a message on my talk page regarding the ban at that time (ie. the enacting of the ban). Another editor asked you to clarify the scope of the ban some weeks ago after I reverted the removal of a picture from the article. I was in violation of a 1RR at that time as I had not been aware of what the general sanctions on the page were. Those two reverts (several weeks ago) and the tagging of two sections after consideration of issues raised by other editors regarding incorrect use of terminology in the article are the only actual edits I have made to the article. I have however discussed at some length with several editors regarding these matters on the talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding that I cut and pasted a fairly lengthy section from earlier archived discussion back to the talk page. This is not the case, as the edit history will bear out. I suspect some frustration has resulted from that cut and paste back to the talk page. I disagree with the practice myself, its better to link to earlier discussion. DMSBel (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that reproductive rights are not about human sexuality??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only peripherally related, in the way that AIDS and midwife are. The ban does say "intepreted broadly", but I would interpret that to mean topics about sexual behavior, rather than reproduction. Looking at the original discussion, it looks like DMSBel was disruptive specifically at articles related to ejaculation. In that context, I would say that articles related to human reproduction are out of the scope, however it might be appropriate to extend the topic ban area. -- Atama頭 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for actual instances as to which comments are disruptive. In some peoples view if you are in disagreement with them and you put forth your thoughts, that may seem to them like disruptive behaviour. Would someone like to clarify which comments are disruptive. The issue on that page that is causing difficulty is one that I had not initially got involved in despite requests from two other editors to take action. Eventually I commented on the issue and inserted POV and factual accuracy tags on the disputed sections. I was under the impression that when there is doubt about POV or factual accuracy these tags could be inserted. The POV and accuracy issues are actionable, but would need discussion and consensus. Regarding whether article is within the scope of my ban. Several of the editors there regard the article as primarily medical. I disagree that it is solely or primarily medical, and the other projects of which it is of interest too ranges from Medicine to Philosophy. DMSBel (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual issue

There's a consensus that DMSBel's current topic ban does not cover abortion. The scope could be extended to also cover human reproduction and anti-reproduction, if there's a sufficient reason. Orangemarlin, please explain how you believe DMSBel is disrupting the article. Chester Markel (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in hearing how Orange can get away with the ludicrous contention that "Abortion does not cause death". What planet is he from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A planet where they don't understand high school level biology, apparently. As even bacteria are "alive" in a biological sense, the same is true for a fetus. The moral and political controversy over abortion does not revolve around questions of whether or not life exists so much as "what is human", "what is a person", "what is sentient", etc. Wikipedia should never let down its vigilance against anti-science disruptive editing. Chester Markel (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The issue of whether an embryo or a fetus is a "person" legally is what the abortion debate has been about. No one with a lick of sense on either side of the issue argues that abortion doesn't kill. That would be asinine. If an editor actually makes that statement, they should be topic-banned, as they are obviously not competent to be editing that subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it's high time to topic ban JJL (talk · contribs), for arguing that abortion doesn't involve the death of a fetus[32], and grossly misrepresenting the meaning of reliable sources to accomplish this objective. "Death" is an appropriate descriptive term for the fate of the fetus in an abortion, as over 65,000 Google Scholar results[33] clearly show that the death of a fetus is normally described as just that. Chester Markel (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Really guys? Since when does holding an opinion that you don't like give sufficient grounds for a topic ban? Besides (and with apologies for furthering a content dispute on AIN), you're making a non-sensical semantic argument: of course abortion causes death of the fetus, much as appendectomy causes death of the appendix. But when people describe something as "causing death," without specifying what dies, the implication is that it's a person that dies, and that's not usually true of abortions and appendectomies. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. We have over 65,000 Google Scholar results for the term "fetal death"[34]. Are those sources written with "the implication is that it's a person that dies"? Not likely. As WP:MEDRS, the cited journals normally don't take sides on such hotly contested moral and political issues. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Different argument. Sure, "causing fetal death" describes something that kills a fetus. "Causing death" describes something that kills a person, when the subject is otherwise left unsaid. Anyway, I'm not here to engage a content dispute, just to point out that disagreeing with you isn't sufficient justification to demand a content-ban... although needing an IP editor to explain that to you, perhaps, is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states that "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." It's absolutely clear, from the context in which the word "death" is used, that it directly refers to the preceding description of "a fetus or embryo". Whether or not said "a fetus or embryo" constitutes a "person" is plainly not an issue that the introduction is taking a position on, one way or the other. The article is obviously not using "causing death" with an implicit subject. Your claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of fact. Chester Markel (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the article better if it said "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by fetal or embryonic death."? That's an absurd redundancy. Chester Markel (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, JJL didn't claim that the phrase "resulting in or caused by its death" carried with it "person" as an implicit subject. He simply asserted that, according to the WP:MEDRS he cited, abortion doesn't cause fetal death. That's an obvious, tendentious misrepresentation of what RS have to say about this subject. Chester Markel (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not here to engage a content dispute" did you not understand? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "causing death" does not necessarily imply human. P.S. You don't get to drive the agenda here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd add my request to see diffs showing violation of specific clauses of WP:TE. There's a lot of traffic on that article and its talk page, and there appears, from the Talk pages entries and Edit summaries, there's no small measure of tension between groups of editors. On the talk page, User:DMSBel's behavior seems appropriate, but I admit not having looked at every change to the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at Kurt Freund. Assistance requested.

User:AMuscatelli has added these unconstructive edits to Kurt Freund and its talkpage: [35], [36] That user's talkpage suggests an on-going problem.
I am personally associated with what is now the Kurt Freund Laboratory, so I have not reverted the edits. Any attention from outside eyes would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and warning given[37]. Heiro 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Heiro.— James Cantor (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, although in an instance such as this, I'm sure no one would have minded if you reverted and warned them. I've just finished reverting every edit they have made today as vandalism, now going to AIV as they seem to be a vandalism only acct.Heiro 05:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. The policy has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations, to bring the written document up to date. The proposed update is posted and is undergoing community ratification, which is due to close on 13 June 2011. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Problematic Edits with Santorum (neologism) Article, violations of WP:BLP, WP:NEO

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

Closed. This is a content dispute, and no admin action is reauested. Please don't bring this issue here again, but follow the appropriate dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

We have several editors who are continually reverting changes in the Santorum (neologism) where they are introducing significant bias into this already contentious article. Discussion was requested by one of these editors and I agreed with that suggestion, with BLP being something to strongly err in favor of, however, it seems that the biased editing is going to continue unabated.

This article likens a certain former US Senator to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Several editors seem intent on saying this is a sourced article and therefore feel that they can ignore BLP concerns, but many editors including Mr. Wales have expressed severe misgiving with this attitude. A request for rename is in progress, as are several other proposals, and it seems all one can do to keep some degree of balance in the article. Please help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What I see so far is you at 3RR against 3 other editors, while a discussion has not been started yet at the talk page. Heiro 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The language was in the article and it was removed without discussion. It was serving to provide balance and working to make the article neutral and in line with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, etc. I would ask you to focus on the encyclopedic/content concerns, rather than simply making this into a personal attack on me, Heiro. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I might also mention that the Talk page at that article is VERY full at the moment and there is a discussion thread that covers this part of the article already ongoing. (Talk:Santorum (neologism)#The first line of the lead) -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What personal attack? Look at the article history, you reverted 3 other editors 3 times while telling them to take it to the talk page, having not once started that discussion yourself. Lets keep it civil and avoid the rhetoric. Heiro 07:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides being inaccurate... (I *have* been discussing in that very section mentioned above), it was Anthonyhcole who most recently requested discussion and I agreed. Now, Heiro, if you're going to continue to ignore the actual concerns I've brought up, it might be more helpful to the discussion if you let it go and allowed someone with an interest in helping take this situation on. -- Avanu (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu - you appear to be edit warring here, and attempting to forum shop the content dispute here to ANI. Neither of these things is a good thing. BLP - when it's unambiguously applicable - is an excuse for 3RR violations. But there is no consensus that the aspect you're edit warring over is BLP. Lacking a consensus, under serious dispute (less than 50% support on the RFC for a change), continuing in the manner you have been will result in you being blocked. Please stop pushing. Go back to the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What hopefully is more apparent is the need for a balance in tone at the article. We *do* have a large number of editors who feel there is a lack of proper accounting for BLP concerns and a large number of others who feel there is no need, primarily saying "its sourced, so its OK". Bias is still bias, and we have a responsibility. Sadly, I'm already seeing the very typical outcome of so many AN/I's where it becomes more of a personal "why did you have the gall to ask for help here, loser?" instead of focusing on the issues raised. Personally, if editors here can't focus on the issues raised, then why is this here? -- Avanu (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are all perfectly fine concerns to raise, on the article talk page. You aren't raising issues that require uninvolved administrator intervention. If you are dissapointed at being told to go back and continue working with the people actively participating in that discussion and consensus, that's unfortunate, but that's how Wikipedia works. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Avanu is claiming the BLP exemption from 3RR, then he cannot be blocked for violating 3RR. Perhaps it's not a good loophole in the rule to have, but we need to be consistent in our application of it as long as it reads the way it currently does. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If an admin finds that his claim is specious and inaccurate, then certainly he can be blocked for breaking 3RR. The BLP exemption only applies if it is correct, it's not a "Get out of jail free no matter what you do" card, that would be ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Ken. My impression is that quite a few people are somewhat cavalier and dismissive of potential BLP concerns in this case. It is clearly stated by the major promoter of the term, Dan Savage, that its primary purpose is to attack Rick Santorum. He has gamed Google to get this term more widely spread, and many editors have expressed a concern that Wikipedia is inadvertently becoming a tool for simply furthering the cause of Dan Savage. While I can't say for sure who is right or not, I feel that there is clearly a BLP issue present, and I feel that we have a duty to maintain an article that strictly complies with BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy and precedent do not support you here, Avanu. You have been told, and warned.

It especially does not apply in the case of an active disputed consensus, as with the current one. The exemption is not a valid defensive shield in these types of situation.

You're attempting to wikilawyer your way out of being told to go back and work on consensus. If you keep editing claiming some exception or the other, you're disrupting Wikipedia, and you've been warned on that. Please go back to the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree GWH. As the policy states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." So, while the community is in the process of determining whether this article is one big BLP violation, I think it behooves any admins not to block anyone for 3RR until then. Any admin who does so, I recommend that their admin privileges be suspended until they have successfully NPOV'd the Intelligent Design article and resolved via mediation any and all content disputes in the Irish Troubles and Palestine/Israel topic areas. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has come up before. People were warned not to or to stop. When they did not, they were blocked. The blocks were upheld. Policy and precedent are not what you feel that they should be.

You are free to argue for a policy change. But we will enforce as written and as precedent stands. Warnings have been issued. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So now that you have given me warnings and due diligence has prevailed, would you mind also taking a look at the concerns I actually raised in the initial opening? Thank you for any help you can give. -- Avanu (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed. What you are trying to do with this request is improper. We are not going to override the consensus discussion on the talk page, short circuit it's discussions, or allow you to violate 3RR on the article while that discussion has yet to find consensus. Please stop trying to insist that we act upon your improper request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(@GWH) Again, not the point at all. I *have* gone back to the Talk page, and also was there. If you've missed my requests above, I can repeat them, but THIS ISN'T ABOUT ME. I realize the 3RR rule, received and understood. If you would like to start a separate Wikiquette or AN/I about me, feel free to do so, but my patience for AN/I threads that can't stay on topic is a little thin. -- Avanu (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, what you're trying to do is to find another way to get something done that you have failed to do so during good faith discussions on the article talk page, which are still ongoing.

This is known as forum shopping. It is not ok behavior. It's frowned upon. ANI does not exist to override content discussions and content consensus issues on article talk pages. There are a large number of admins participating in the discussion on the talk page already. Most admins are probably aware of the issue. There's not much an uninvolved admin can do other than let the discussions continue there, because our admin powers / rights / responsibilities do not extend as far as short-circuiting legitimate community policy discussion activity. Again: We cannot help you. It's not in our powers to do so. Please go back to the article talk page and work there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Well, that was the first clear and concise answer I have seen. I don't know who is and is not an admin in a discussion with many editors, but it wasn't apparent to me that they were doing enough to preserve the neutrality of the article. The answer you just gave provides helpful insight and a concrete answer to my request, thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, how does BLP require the article to include that un-sourced parenthetical statement ([38])? Also, could you show me on the talk page where you discussed it? Gacurr (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does one editor not agreeing with three other editors really necessitate locking the article for three days? Gacurr (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu sincerely believes his edit is mitigating a BLP issue and so shouldn't be sanctioned for 3RR. I don't agree but, while it's discussed on the talk page, having his (rather clunky) edit locked in place is not really harming an already awful article. You might reconsider the page protection. There's the odd skirmish but things are pretty civil, considering, and most of the action is on the talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Avanu discuss this particular edit (the one he reverted three times today) anywhere on the talk page? I looked and could not find any comments by him today until after his last edit to the article. None of his comments explain why he needs to add the un-sourced parenthetical to the first sentence of the article. Or am I missing something? Gacurr (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not very clear, but he's making the distinction between Santorum, the person, and santorum, the substance. I, and others, believe it's already very clear, but he's not convinced. I haven't been to the talk page for an hour or so, so don't know what's happening there. But, I'm pretty sure he'll abide by consensus once it's discussed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that he would revert the edits of three other editors and then not start a section on the talk page to discuss but instead come to ANI and get the article locked. Gacurr (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which I pointed out to him right after his initial post, I thought it went without saying then that he should go back and discuss it there. Others have since pointed out to him that that is the only option here. Since the article is now protected and a conversation is now ongoing at the talkpage, maybe its time to close this? Heiro 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is he has not started a discussion (or I can't find it) on why he did the edits he used to justify coming here to ANI. Gacurr (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Start a section there specifically dealing with it then, I'm sure he'll be right over to argue discuss it with you. Heiro 09:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So if he continues to see it as a BLP issue, but other editors agree the parenthetical comment he wants included in the article is unnecessary, how can we proceed? It seems like from tonight's experience he can just keep saying it is a BLP issue, even when other editors actively editing the article disagree, and then his choice of edit is retained. Gacurr (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If such a consensus were reached and the material removed, he would face sanctions for continuing to edit war against consensus if he re-inserts it. Heiro 10:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Observation To all editors who have a specific horse in this article's disposition (renaming, content, merging,etc.)

Plip!

Seriously, if this article is going to be brought to some discussion page multiple times a day, let's open a ArbCom case and be done with it. I'm tired of being solicited for opinions regarding merging, renaming, and seeing this article show up on non-content noticeboards. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu seems intent on it, from his disruptive comment prior to this, to coming to ANI and initiating this because he did not agree with three other editors' consensus. Gacurr (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, that is a fairly misleading interpretation of my position on all this. Especially since we covered at length the intent behind that comment was not a personal attack, but to demonstrate the offensiveness of the term being discussed in the article. Let's debate things honestly if we are to do so. My concerns for BLP and neutrality in presentation are the only motivators in a new thread at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to further inflame things, perhaps someone could give a stern warning to User:24.177.120.138 for the edit summary "There's no way the opinions expressed in that source are due more weight than those expressed by Mr. Frothy Mixture himself". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Long-term harassment by Haymaker

User:Haymaker (formerly known as Schrandit, in case this is relevant) has been stalking my edits for months. I've asked him repeatedly to stop, yet he continues.

Diffs of stalking:

(This is a fairly conservative list. There are other pages which the user likely followed me to, but I'll assume on probably unwarranted good faith that he had them watchlisted due to having made even the most insignificant minor edits in the far past, got there via another editor, happened to see the deletion discussion in the list, subject was recently dead, etc. Also omitted are pages where the user likely followed me there and subsequently disputed with me over content, but where the user's first edit was not a revert of one of mine, and pages where the user's edit was anything but a straight revert with absolutely no other changes. You may imagine for yourselves the number of articles that could be added to the list without these caveats, particularly the last couple. It's also more than possible that I've just overlooked some.)

My first encounter with this user was, I believe, at Crisis pregnancy center, which I began to edit 16 November 2010. This is after I made the first edit in the subsequent list, but before Haymaker reverted it.

Times are UTC -5 hours.

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, and where there were no intervening edits between mine and his

• CatholicVote.org: I rephrase a sentence 13 November 2010 15:37. Haymaker restores the prior wording 18 November 2010 00:52.
• Political positions of Ron Paul: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 23 November 2010 09:28. Haymaker restores it 23 November 2010 18:48.
• Eclipse of Reason: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:10. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• Maafa 21: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:38. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• American Freedom and Catholic Power: I remove a statement 5 January 2011 14:30. Haymaker restores it 6 January 2011 07:08.
• Catholicism and abortion: I rephrase a sentence 20 January 2011 01:54. Haymaker restores the prior wording 20 January 2011 5:51.
• The Reader: I remove some paragraphs 20 January 2011 20:54. Haymaker restores them 20 January 2011 23:43.
• Ensoulment: I rephrase a sentence 21 January 2011 03:10. Haymaker restores the prior wording 21 January 2011 04:04.
• Priscilla K. Coleman: I make some changes 3 February 2011 11:37. Haymaker undoes them 3 February 2011 12:26.
• Joseph O'Rourke: I change a word 5 February 2011 02:36. Haymaker restores prior wording 5 February 2011 04:03.
• Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?: I remove a tag 23 February 2011 17:27. Haymaker restores it 23 February 2011 18:34.
• Natural family planning: I rephrase a sentence 3 March 2011 03:16. Haymaker restores the prior wording 6 March 2011 01:08.
• Albert Mohler: I restore the phrase "what he calls" 4 March 13:34. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:13.
• Abortifacient: I restore the word "erroneously" 13 March 2011 14:38. Haymaker removes it 13 March 2011 15:54.
• Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute: I rephrase a sentence 25 March 2011 16:45. Haymaker restores the prior wording 25 March 2011 17:44.
• Abortion in Chile: I remove a few sentences 2 April 2011 23:17. Haymaker restores them 4 April 2011 02:44.
• Political positions of George W. Bush: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 27 April 2011 10:50. Haymaker restores it 27 April 2011 11:57.
• Pro-life feminism: I remove the phrase "Laury Oaks states" 4 May 2011 17:05. Haymaker restores it 5 May 2011 13:15.
• REAL Women of Canada: I remove several phrases 26 May 2011 01:48. Haymaker restores them 26 May 2011 06:03.
• Category:Anti-pornography activists: I remove the category Women's rights activists 5 June 2011 00:47. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).
• Maurice Duplessis: I rephrase the term "pro-family" 6 June 2011 14:36. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, but where there were intervening edits between mine and his

• List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church: I restore a phrase about medical necessity 2 March 2011 19:00. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:06. Couple of intervening edits; one was related, but did not remove or substantially alter the disputed phrase.
• Jane Russell: I remove the category American pro-life activists 4 March 2011 02:24. Haymaker restores it 6 March 2011 1:12. A number of intervening edits, none related to her position on abortion.

I'd like to state, though it should be obvious, that the correctness of the edits is not at issue here. Many of the older edits of mine are ones I wouldn't make today. The reason this is at ANI rather than somewhere for handling content disputes is because in each of these cases, and in others, I was stalked there by Haymaker.

Diffs of warnings: [39] [40] [41]

Additionally, if you look at the user's contributions for the past couple of months, a rather indecent proportion of them are content disputes with me; many, again, on pages to which he followed me.

In conclusion, this hounding of my contributions has been going on for over six months now and continues to this day, and it's really starting to bother me.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Haymaker made good faith edits, left edit sums and engaged in discussion on Talk pages where appropriate. You mentioned that presently he is engaging you in content disputes. Well, I think that that is par for the course particularly when editing controversial articles. My reading of WP:HOUND is that the following you around must be accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior". Do you have diffs for any of this behavior (the "important component")?

A number of the edits in question are instances where you changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or similar. Does this seem unnecessary to you? Lionel (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Haymaker is and has been following me around in order to inhibit my edits since November. You could also read WP:HOUND again, which certainly does not require personal attacks, though if you want tendentiousness! oh, it's there. Take a look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Yes, I glance at your contributions, kinda like how you appear to follow at the contributions of everyone you have ever had a dispute with. Do you want me to run up a list of pages you had never edited before you say me or a half-dozen other editors you seem to dislike edit them? It would be wikistalking if I followed all your edits with the aim of causing you irritation or distress. Don't flatter yourself. The above edits were not contributed with any thought as to how they would make you feel, they were contributed to make the encyclopedia better. - Haymaker (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what, the fourth time you're trying to get me blocked on those same diffs? If no one found any wrongdoing the other times, why would you think it would work this time? Don't think you can distract everyone's attention away from your harassing behavior. It is wrong to stalk other editors regardless of whether you personally think it's okay. Your personal belief that you are right does not exempt you from the rules. And these desperate repeated attempts to get me blocked, with no new evidence, don't really do much for the impression that you're not trying to have me out of your way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always refute arguments that I have not made? Do you take some joy in it? You have followed me (not to mention other editors) to more articles, you and I are cut from the same cloth on this issue and that link proves it. - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the link "proved" that I had stalked in the past, which it clearly doesn't since you've tried more than once to get me blocked with those diffs and no one has found any wrongdoing, the diffs in my list are from today. You are still stalking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In my reading of WP:Hound my attention was drawn to the phrases "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work", and "...disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is presumably what Roscelese is referring to, since these complained of actions clearly both inhibit Rosclese's editing and diminish the enjoyment of same. As Roscelese has requested that Haymaker stop stalking them (and in issues like this, it is the perception that is important and not the intent - so the argument that they are not stalking does not suffice) and the behaviour has continued, I consider that takes this into the issue of harassment. In any form, it is disruptive. Like civil pov pushing, following another editors contributions and reversing them - regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales - is counter to the collegiate and respectful editing environment advocated here. I would suggest that, if consensus is found, that Haymaker is warned that further wikihounding of Rosclese's edits will result in an interaction ban.

Further, since comment has been made, it is necessary to change the emotive "pro-life" phrase to the neutral (medically and legally, as well as linguistically) "anti-abortion" unless a source is being directly referenced. I wonder if this difference in viewpoint on this subject has to do with the issue complained of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the substance of the edits is not the issue. Haymaker would be wrong to harass me even if, content-wise, he were in the right. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is stalking, per Roscelese and LessHeard vanU. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So when I improve an article, if you have edited it in the past, my improvements constitutes harassment? - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If "the past" is one hour ago and the "improvement" (ha) is part of a persistent pattern of following my edits in order to revert them, as documented above? That's textbook hounding. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Woa. I had forgotten that I am one of Roscelese's wikistalking victims. Ironic. I speculate that the experience was so painful I suppressed it. Haymaker's diff uncovered the suppressed memories. Horrible. Just horrible.

LessHeard, I detect a contradiction in your reasoning. You do cite the policy, in part, "for no overriding reason." But then you state, "regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales." You're referring to Haymaker's edit sums and content discussions on Talk pages. Well, a "valid argument" i.e Haymaker's explanations and discussion is an overriding reason. The policy is worded with a bit of foresight to remove the subjectiveness of these types of reports. It provides a test:

If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Haymaker's conduct fails this test. Apparently so did Roscelese's conduct as evidenced by Haymaker's diff. I'm generally opposed to double standards. How about you? Lionel (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Prince Joel"

Numerous admins' efforts have so far failed to stop the endless recreation of the "Prince Joel I of Leogane" articles, under a variety of titles (see, for example, Prince Joél I, Prince Joél I of Léogâne, Prince Joél I of Leogane, and many, many more), from a wide range of different accounts. I've now added three regexps to the title blacklist in an attempt to reduce this editor's room for maneuver. If this is not enough, it will probably be time to create an edit filter entry, and/or to start considering rangeblocks of the underlying IPs. -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy's still at it? Sigh... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FloridaFinest/Archive for a recent related SPI investigation. Besides the articles, there were a number of related files and categories that had to be deleted as well. Singularity42 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And still maintaining a collection of flag images, etc. for these articles on Wikimedia Commons, too. See commons:File:Prince-au-Léogâne (FLAG).JPG, and commons:File:Executive Government Council (Flag).JPG. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy moly. The torture never stops. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much all coming from 76.109.44.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It was blocked for 72 hours due to the above sockpuppetry. It's back at it again. The new socks are getting blocked, but the IP won't stop. Singularity42 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like Cirt has blocked identified a whole nest of socks with this one. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne, the other case page should get merged into that one. I left a note at WT:SPI about the merge request. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta and Nicaraguan córdoba

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

Closed with a wet fish, given the user talk discussion at User_talk:Δ which preceded this. This is a content dispute, and the disagreement over this issue is not specific to Delta. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I would like the community's view as to whether this edit by Delta (talk · contribs) on Nicaraguan córdoba was appropriate.

In essence: is it appropriate to strip all the image content from an article, far beyond the content balance one would be led to by any policy-based assessment?

Details

Per WP:NFCC #8 and #3a, my understanding is that the community expects images to be kept which "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". That test is to be asked of each item of NFC, by asking what further understanding it provides beyond that provided by other images.

Before 6 June Nicaraguan córdoba contained quite a large number of images. But a case can be made that they were of value. (See old version of the article). The 2009 bills, for example, are hard to describe in terms of any pattern of consistent design -- so the reader genuinely does get a much better idea of what they look like by actually seeing them. Even with the 2002 bills, which are more consistent, the images are useful to show the variety and range within that pattern. It is also, I suggest, clearly informative to show what the coins look like.

Furthermore, it is worth recognising that there is no realistic likelihood of copyright action against us or a reuser over the use of these images in this way; nor that such clearly educational use, clearly not harming the original purpose of use by the copyright holder, would ever be held infringing by a U.S. court.

There is a discussion currently underway at WT:NFC as to the proper extent it is appropriate to illustrate articles on currencies for our readers (see especially counter-propositions two and three); and this is not the proper place for a content dispute. I accept that Delta had concerns about the extent of use on the article at that time, though I don't necessarily agree with his assessment.

But what I want to bring up here is whether how he acted on those concerns was appropriate: namely to strip every single image apart from the (free) flag of Nicaragua out of the article, in the knowledge that if they remained out of the article for more than a week they were likely to be deleted as orphans.

One can compare the before and after. There is no way that that "after" page preserves the same understanding that our readers were getting of the topic. It is a quite inappropriate way to leave the article.

In my view, the appropriate action would have been for Delta to have identified on the talk page which particular images he believes fail to increase reader understanding; and in the mean time to restore the page to the state it was in before 6 June, to allow informed discussion. I appreciate that he may fear that insufficient attention may be paid simply to such talk-page interventions; but even in the worst case, if he feels there is a legitimate case for deletion, and that his concerns are not receiving proper attention, he can always refer them to WP:FFD and allow the community to decide.

I have put these concerns to Delta on his talk page, and in particular the point that to remove content far in excess of what is required by policy, so that reader understanding is compromised to this degree, is completely unacceptable. However, Delta appears to to view his actions simply as Standard Operating Procedure, and dismisses any concerns. In this view he has also had cheerleading support from Hammersoft (talk · contribs) and Beetstra (talk · contribs).

I therefore bring the issue here, to ask whether this kind of blanket scorched-earth stripping of an article, regardless of any thoughts of what may be informative for our readers, can be considered remotely appropriate. And whether anyone who thinks that it is ought to be allowed anywhere near such content issues. Jheald (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The hyperbole of "cheerleading support", "scorhed-earth stripping", etc. adds nothing but heat JHeald. That aside, you were told by myself and Beetstra that immediately threatening to take Δ to WP:AN/I over this, even before Δ had a chance to say word one to you about it, was wholly out of line and inappropriate. Δ deserves an apology from you for the threat alone, much less following through on your threat. To the issue at hand; why are you going after Δ over this and not many other editors who are doing effectively identical edits, including myself, User:ESkog, User:Beetstra and several others. Why are you singling Δ out? Let's be clear here; isn't your issue your disagreement with WP:NFCC policy and not Δ? --Hammersoft (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I have come here after Delta because I came across Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_6#File:Nicar-currency-inflated.jpg at FFD and was shocked by what he had done to the page. If this is how other editors, including yourself, are also behaving then it is high time the community was asked whether this is an appropriate way to go about things. Jheald (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then close this thread, and start a new one regarding non-free overuse, as your issue isn't with Δ. But, you should also be aware this sort of work is rather routine. Note the presence of Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files, which is a tool used by many precisely for this sort of work. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, as I said there, this is a total lack of good faith towards Delta, as is often performed by editors when they disagree with edits Delta has been performing. The first line of comment in a remark to Delta will include threats of blocks, threats of bringing it to AN/I. JHeald, again, you assume bad faith on Delta, chilling any form of discussion by a threat - the only outcome you find appropriate is reverting the edit to the overuse state, any form of discussion is hence useless. You are way out of line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • What I want to see is rational discussion about what content adds to user understanding, which is a lot easier when people can see what is the content that is being discussed, in the context of the overall page. As I have said, if you can't get an outcome to your satisfaction out of such a discussion, the appropriate place to take it is then a community process like WP:FFD, so the community can decide. Jheald (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You can always refer to an earlier diff in a discussion. Also, a frequent response to the removals is that we should have a discussion before removing. This has never succeeded as an argument. The sheer enormity of having to have a discussion every single time a set of images is removed is prohibitive. Further, the arguements are almost always highly repetitive. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • No, this is often not a case for FFD, this is not about deletion. There are many images which are in use somewhere under a proper fair-use rationale, and somewhere else where it is not. Deleting those would also delete the fair-use display.
    • Rational discussion, Jheald, with hyperboles as 'cheerleading', 'scorhed-earth stripping' - and remarks on talkpages which give no other option than following your suggestion (the latter in total contrast with your 'if you can't get an outcome to your satisfaction out of such a discussion, the appropriate place to take it is then a community process ... so the community can decide' - it is just the treatment that you gave Delta (with the difference, that attempts were undertaken to discuss the issues way before Delta, Hammersoft and others actually started doing something about it)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

What constitutes a consensus?

Myself and others are having an issue with a group of users going against an overwhelming consensus of seven to two here. The discussion pertains to the Ford Focus (third generation) article and the placement of the electric version's content.

The issue started in January 2011 when an original merger discussion was sabotaged by the opposers of the merger, who emailed editors of pro-electric car websites to canvass additional votes. The websites and articles that I have been able to track down are: this Autoblog Green article and this one at Miss Electric, which urge readers to come to Wikipedia and vote down the proposal. There could be many more of these articles, but I could only locate two.

The original merger discussion can be found here. It resulted in four opposers to the merge and seven supports when the votes suddenly gained on January 19 by IPs are removed for reasons of fairness and maintaining the credibility on the consensus-building process (January 19 was the same day the external articles were published). For the Ford Focus, three IP editors and one single purpose account opposed the mergers and were never to be seen again after that. Now for small scale merger discussions that usually result in less than ten editors participating, a 7:4 result would usually result in an outcome favouring the majority. However, one of the opposers of the merger closed the discussion with a "no consensus" because he included the canvassed votes. To me, it is only logical to exclude such votes as they were deviously recruited to sway the result of the discussion. The opposers seem to think otherwise.

So in addition to the original 7:4 discussion in January, the current discussion has resulted in 7:2 in favour of the merger. The two opposers were the same people that opposed last time, yet we have gained four additional supporters pushing the consensus up to eleven to four.

The help of an administrator to set things straight would be much appreciated. Kind regards, and thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like a WP:CANVASS problem than anything else. See also WP:False consensus for what ArbCom has said - an admin should likely restart the dsussion barring anyone who was non-neutrally CANVASSed. Collect (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As the new discussion has fortunately not been subject to external canvassing, may its result be used? The current dialogue can be viewed here and currently has two users opposed and seven in support. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will expand later today, but OSX is misleading this discussion. The merge discussion was formally discussed here and the result was keep so moving/merging the Ford Focus BEV article is disrespectful of that decision. I explained several times now to OSX that new discussion needs to be opened first and follow the rules of such discussion. Furthermore, OSX complaint is really weird, because he could have contested my closing, which he did not, and actually he thank me for closing the merging discussions in my talk here. Anyway, once a formal discussion is closed you can always question the result but you need to open a new discussion, which he refuses to do and instead went on voiding votes from the closed discussion and interpreting that the discussion result was merge (as he explains above). I would expand later and provide diffs to show that based on these facts OSX went on a rampage moving and blanking articles, engaged in edit waring and this is not the first time he does so in complete disregard of wikipedia policies and proper procedures, and I will request disciplinary measures against him.--Mariordo (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo is correct. OSX acknowledged the "Keep" result of the formal discussion on the Ford Focus Electric article. He then tried to create a "stealth" discussion, without posting a notice of this discussion on the Ford Focus Electric article, at a Wikilocation that he knew to be frequented by those who support his position, Wikiproject Automobiles. If anyone is guilty of canvassing here, it is OSX. His approach seems to be to keep holding discussions on a matter, without notifying opponents of his position that such discussions are occurring, until one such discussion goes in his favor. He then uses the results of that solitary discussion as an excuse to remove content that consensus has deemed should be kept. It is also clear that he opened this ANI in response to Mariordo's statements that he planned to open an ANI on OSX in response to his deleting Ford Focus Electric. Note that OSX has started an edit war on this article at this point. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both discussions appear to have taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, but you say that the second one was somehow "stealthy". Was the first one more widely advertised than the second? Can you demonstrate where this happened? Otherwise elaborate on what you mean by "stealthy". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You ask, "Was the first one more widely advertised than the second?" Yes, absolutely. There was a notice posted at the Ford Focus Electric page pointing editors to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Unfortunately, when OSX moved the Focus Electric article, the article history was deleted, so I cannot show you a diff. Also, keep in mind that the official discussion was left open for months before the "Keep" decision was rendered and posted. Thanks for your help in this matter. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is misleadingly titled, as it started off when someone else brought up the datedness of the Focus articles and morphed into the argument in question, which OSX seems to take as gospel consensus. For such a contentious topic, I would suggest a new proper poll, notifying as many people as possible first. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it is important. Keep in mind that the discussion that OSX points to as justification for deleting the Focus Electric article did not include Focus Electric in its original scope. It was about the Focus article in general. OSX's assertion that it constitutes a definitive judgment on whether or not to merge the Focus Electric article is underhanded, to put it kindly. However, I am concerned by the suggestion that we should simply start a new poll, when a well-publicized poll that was open for several months and involved 14 separate editors resulted in a "Keep" decision when it was closed two months ago. The results of that decision are still "brand new" and there is no compelling reason to debate that matter all over again so soon. This is especially true given OSX's historical tendency to keep holding polls on issues until one of them goes his way. We should let the "Keep" judgment stand until there is a valid reason to revisit the matter to see if editor consensus has changed. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• People seem to be ignoring the fact that there was clear canvassing involved in the two blogs linked by OSX above. So, who was this anonymous tipster involved? Mariordo or Ebikeguy, perhaps? Or maybe someone else? Either way, it is quite clear that canvassing was involved and the extra votes in the polls that seemed to result from this canvassing should obviously be thrown out. Silverseren^C 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

All such concerns were addressed in the discussion before it was closed with a judgment to "Keep." OSX acknowledged the keep verdict and thanked Mariordo for closing the discussion on Mariordo's talk page. The issue was debated for months before the "Keep" decision was rendered. There is no reason to reopen the debate here. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, if they were addressed, then clearly the blogs were brought up and canvassing votes were crossed out in this past discussion, correct? Link, please. Silverseren^C 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that OSX is just muddling the discussion. The alledged canvassing and GreenAutoblog affair already had ANI discussions,here and[42], and this discussions took place with participation of several admins and well before the closing of the merger discussion. Also, OSX had previously accused me of canvassing, since he has a particular interpretation of what canvassing is and is not (See[43] this unsuccessful attempt and his disrespect to the admin because the conclusion was not what he expected).

Again, the merge discussion was formally discussed[44] and the result was keep so moving/merging the Ford Focus BEV article was disrespectful of that decision. I explained several times now to OSX that new discussion needs to be opened first and follow the rules of such discussion. Furthermore, OSX complaint is really weird, because he could have contested my closing, which he did not, and actually he thank me for closing the merging discussions in my talkhere. Also note that[45] he tries to justify his mistake in moving the Focus BEV article, and reopens the closed discussion, selecting which votes to discard and making a brand new tally. And after I told him why he was doing so if he has agreed with the closed discussion, this is his reply. So this discussion it is not about canvassing at all. I will open a separate ANI regarding OSX misbehavior, which is the real issue he is trying to hide, and as I will show, this is not the first time he goes around blanking, merging or moving articles without following the proper steps and then engaging in edit waring.--Mariordo (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that ANI discussion. I remember being involved in that. Both in that discussion and at the SPI, multiple users stated that the canvassing was an extreme problem. I'm a bit sad that it seems that it wasn't taken into account when the merge discussions were closed.

However, I think those old discussions and this one has shown that OSX, Ebikeguy, and yourself have a few behavioral problems between each other that you need to work out and all of you have been acting inappropriately. Silverseren^C 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing another, proper discussion as to whether or not the Focus Electric should be on a page all its own. Hopefully we can avoid the troublesome canvassing this time around.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

We seem to have attracted the subject of the article Marjan Bojadziev with User:Marjan Bojadziev. Can people put this article on their watchlist/warn him as he seems keen on adding his CV and making the article more promotional by removing content like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Targeting/Hounding

Since Feb. of 2010 I have been contributing to the various US presidents and American history pages. Often times I add images of U.S. postage to president's articles, usually in a legacy or memorial section near the end of the page, as all U.S. presidents are honored on U.S. postage after they pass away. Most of the time the images are well received and, other than concerns for image size or location, very rarely garner any complaints -- until just recently. On the Abraham Lincoln page I had several Lincoln stamp images, placed in various sections. When the Lincoln page was submitted for a FA review there was a concern for 'too many' stamp images. A couple were removed accordingly but one editor User:Carmarg4 later decided to remove every one of them, right in the midst of discussion. I restored the image and it was removed again. When I attempted to restore it again, it was again removed. To avoid an edit war I of course did not restore the stamp image for a third time in a row (3 Revert rule) and instead attempted to discuss the matter, but to no avail. I made a call for consensus to see if others wanted the stamp included. Many did however many did not, usually out of concern for space/crowding. In the process of discussion and gathering consensus I was subjected to ridicule and jeering (... As ole' Roy would say, Happy Trails... by this editor on the Lincoln discussion page. Since then User:Carmarg4 has been seeking out my edits/contributions and removing them, with no discussion. After making deletions on the Lincoln page he went to the Franklin D. Roosevelt page and removed my contribution there. Just recently he went to three different presidents pages (James A. Garfield, James Buchanan, John F. Kennedy) and inside a ten minute period, singled out my contributions and removed them with the same explanation in the edit summary -- for all three. "image removed - lacks noteworthiness" which is an opinion at best. When a president is honored on U.S. postage, especially for the first time, it is indeed a noteworthy and often a historical event, involving the Postmaster General (a presidential cabinet member) and Congressional debate. This editor is clearly acting out of personal bias and is now hounding/targeting my contributions. His activity is exceptional and peculiar, which I fail to understand, as this only involves image placement/inclusion and my tone and approach was always civil. All I ask is that the matter be brought to his attention and that he stop the systematic deletion of the contributions I have been making for the last year and a half. As I said, I have made many attempts at discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Please note that Gwillhickers is the subject of an RfC, which may be a more appropriate forum for discussing this dispute. --Coemgenus 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this issue concerns another user and his disruptive activity. Coemgenus is attempting to infer some sort of guilt simply by mentioning the issue on RfC page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When you bring up an issue here, your behavior also comes under scrutiny. You don't get to drive the agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the rules have changed, but it was my understanding that US postage stamps are copyrighted and cannot be used freely like most other works of the U.S. government can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See above referenced RfC on Gwillhickers. The removal of the images has been made in a good faith effort to improve these important articles, where inherent space limitations impose a degree of noteworthiness. There is no extant consensus in any of the articles in favor of the use of these images, which accurately reflects the nonuse of these images by the vast majority of the reliable presidents' biographical sources. A consensus has long ago been reached at Lincoln against the use of the images in question. My focus on the inappropriate use of these images has been limited to those articles to which I am a major contributor. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Space limitations may have been a concern in one or two of the sections on the Abraham Lincoln page but does not explain Carmarg4's recent activity where he/she is clearly targeting stamp images out of personal scorn, as is evidenced by his/her unprovoked harassment and jeering on the Abraham Lincoln discussion page and by his/her systematic removal of 'my' contributions., i.e.images that have existed on the given pages for a long time with no issues. Carmarg4's last three deletions occurred inside a ten minute period, on three different pages, (James A. Garfield, James Buchanan, John F. Kennedy) and did not involve space limitations. His/her 'reason' for removal was "image removed - lacks noteworthiness". Now he/she comes to this page with a different story. This is just a sample of the less than ethical treatment I have been subjected to over the last couple of weeks -- all over an image placed near the end of the page. There is also an Ownership of articles issue emerging here as user Carmarg has routinely made many changes with no discussion. While we appreciate Carmarg's large contributions he/she seems to think this allows one to treat the page as their own personal sketch pad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest development -- User:Carmarg4 has just repeated the three reverts he made on June 8th offering no more than an opinion "trivial" for the removal of three good faith contributions. While Carmarg4 makes vague reference to WP guidelines for this second revert he/she failed to cite any actual guidelines or policy that justifies the removal of the images in question. Given his/her harassment and personal jeering on the Lincoln discussion page, and the fact that this user is singling out my edits in such a systematic fashion, for the second time, it should be clear that this editor is acting out of personal scorn, with no regard for WP policy, and is now in the process of trying to provoke an edit war. Carmarg4 is again in violation of WP guidelines by resorting to such tactics.

i.e.Wikipedia:Reverting: -- If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

Also, and again, there is an Ownership of articles issue, as this editor is obviously behaving in a manner that suggests he/she owns the pages in question. Discussion has failed with this editor and now I am trying to resolve this through proper channels, yet Carmarg4 continues to make these highly provocative reverts regardless without citing any policy violations. Administrative intervention is urgently needed here. Please help to resolve this calamity asap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the copyright issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, U.S. stamps prior to 1978 are public domain, as per Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which then raises a different question: If the images are free, what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

18 USC 504 applies. As long as anti-counterfeiting laws are followed, designs can be reproduced. From PublicDomainSherpa.com: "Black and white reproductions of uncanceled US postage stamps are permissible in any size. Color reproductions of uncanceled US postage stamps must be less than 75% smaller or more than 150% larger than the size of the original stamp. Canceled US postage stamps may be of any size, whether the reproduction is in color or black and white."

How do I see this as applying to the topic at hand? If it were up to me, I'd restrict use of images of uncanceled stamps on Wikipedia, since images can be enlarged or shrunk on browsers at the whim of the user. That leaves using images of canceled stamps, which in this particular usage would be counterproductive. So my summary impression is that pictures of stamps should NOT be used for Presidential portraits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a different issue entirely. Images of uncancelled stamps have existed on Wikipedia long before I came along, and as far as I know, there have been no issues involving images of uncancelled postage stamps. It seems if this were indeed an issue, Wikipedia would have forbidden the use of such images a long time ago. I appreciate the concern, but this issue is complicated enough without introducing ideas that Wikipedia has fully endorsed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Other-stuff-exists is not a valid defense. Now, what's this stuff about "illegal" deletions?[46] How do you figure that the law comes into play here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Would they be acceptable for a separate article that's specifically about U.S. Presidents appearing on postage stamps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In that instance, I'd say to allow images of canceled stamps. I see nothing in 18 USC 504 that would preclude such use. Disclaimer: IANAA. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You Are Not An Alan? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks better than IANAL, and has less chance of triggering the edit filters. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The USPS does not generally object to low def images - indeed they use them on their own site. Some countries use a perfunctory "diagonal line" in one corner to meet their own copyright rules. This meets all the requirements, though, in point of fact, I know of no images which the USPS has objected to which were on the order of 200dpi scans. Current stamps (that is, after the formation of USPS) are copyrighted, and should be noted as such if shown uncancelled. Collect (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by an IP (Dr. Larsen)

An IP has made a legal threat against me personally on my talk page, concerning a mfd discussion I initiated. --Anthem 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're upset that they might lose their free web hosting space. (If that CV is legitimate, why do they need free web hosting?) In any case, it's clearly a WP:NLT violation, no matter what the outcome of the MfD nom. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked long-term, and VictoriaRILarsen (talk · contribs) blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that that's the actual person. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Who would actually take the time to read such a ridiculously long thing? Who even signs something with their whole CV? I highly doubt, based on the poor English, that they are an Australian citizen and have that degree of education. So as Drmies said, probably not a real person. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I think they are a real person, see [47] and the comments at [48]. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No no, I'm sure they are a real person--but I don't believe that the IP is Victoria Larsen ('the actual person'). A person of some education 'signing' a message with a copy of a resume? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I was wondering if they were a hoax. And I'm not sure we should be discussing the identify of the IP, but the websites are extremely odd. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying for a fishing expedition, really. I'm just a bit baffled at the weirdness of it all, including those websites. [time ticking away] OK, I've done some more browsing and cannot come up with anything reliable whatsoever regarding the claims made in the 'resume'. You, Doug, had marked in an edit summary that this might be a hoax, and I am going to delete it as such: I do not believe these claims made about degrees and positions all over the world held by this supposed person since 1982, and I don't believe the project will benefit from having this around as long as the MfD runs (which is going down like a snowball anyway). If there is disagreement, if I'm stepping on anyone's toes, or if I destroy some policy in the process, I apologize: feel free to revert me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a hoax, but there appear to be language/cultural issues in the way. It would be disruptive for me to revert your deletion, but I would have waited for the MfD to finish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ "Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie") They appear to be of Russian background, possibly explaining the poor english. Concur with Dougweller, rather odd. Perhaps someone should contact 'Dr Larsen' to let them know someone may be impersonating them? ;) (I seriously doubt the Department of Defence uses Bigpond email addresses!) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in part it's the issue that 220 brings up that made me want to delete this. I don't believe the claims, they are bizarre, and I am also wary that there is some kind of impersonation going on here. I mean, the bizarroworld and the claims of being accredited all over the world and working for the UN just don't jive--and even though I may be completely wrong, I prefer to err on the side of BLP caution here, and to remove it given the possibility of impersonation. Sarek, it would not be improper or disruptive of you to revert me--after all, you have the stripes, and I gave you permission explicitly; still, I hope you see why I chose disrupting (i.e., pre-empting) the MfD process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jim Chapman (Canadian)

Resolved

 – Request for review of good-faith speedy deletion should be taken to WP:DRV. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if this is the wrong area for this. I wrote the article Jim Chapman (Canadian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in October. It was deleted because of a lack of secondary sources and notability. The original deletion was fair, and I have spent the intervening time finding the necessary sources. I reposted the article, slightly modified, but with all of the sources added. It was subsequently speedy deleted by bearcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being duplicate content. I contacted Bearcat through his user talk page three weeks ago, and have not yet received a reply. As I explained to him, the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles, and I have hard copies of all of them, but I cannot find them online. If possible, I would like to either have the article reinstated, or at least a full deletion review done. Thank you for your time. (I am unsure how to do the ANI-notice for Bearcat, so if someone could do that I would really appreciate it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbucket (talk • contribs)

I've notified Bearcat for you. Are you asking for userfication or reinstatment of the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer reinstatement, but if that is not possible for some reason, I'd take userfication over nothing. Thanks. Goodbucket (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Bearcat has been acting in good faith and doing things correctly (policy-wise), we can't do much for you here in terms of reviewing the deletion. If you believe your article didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion and can't sort it out with Bearcat, create a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If that doesn't work out for you, ask an admin to userfy the deleted page so you can try improving it further. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have the copyright problems notified to you on your talk page been addressed? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the problem came from coincidental phrasing, such as the name of his band and television show. There were two sentences that still needed to be changed, and I have changed them on my end, and will change them in the article as soon as it's up somewhere. The whole copyright discussion is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbucket (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I keep forgetting to sign my posts. As for Larry V's suggestion, should I continue to wait for Bearcat to respond before creating a request for deletion review? Goodbucket (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Give them a little while; a day at least. Judging from the deleted edits, it looks like you changed the article enough to at least warrant a new AfD discussion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean a day from when I contacted them? Or a day from today? As I mentioned earlier, it's been 3 weeks now. Goodbucket (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat appears to be on a wikibreak: They haven't edited for a month now.

And since the article was previously deleted based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian), I would definitely go ahead and sumbit it to WP:Deletion review. — Satori Son 18:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you were looking at; I last edited Wikipedia yesterday. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Sorry. — Satori Son 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone Goodbucket (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The new article was almost literally unchanged from the original version; as I note below, the only substantive change in the new version was the inclusion of mostly unreliable new "sources" — and the few new sources that were actually reliable still failed to really support the idea that he belongs in an encyclopedia any better than the first version's sources did. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Before I begin, I have to apologize, but I never saw your original talk page request in the first place. The thing about talk pages is that if two or three people post to your talk page between logins, it's possible to miss some of the comments. But I digress.

Now, on to the issue: it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, established both by WP:NMEDIA and by past AFDs on a variety of similar topics, that a radio or television personality of exclusively local notability, who cannot credibly claim some kind of fame or significance outside of a single market, is not notable enough to be included here, especially in a non-metropolitan midsize market — even if you can add sources demonstrating that they've been written about in the local newspaper, they're still not notable enough for inclusion here if you can't demonstrate that their notability extends in a meaningful way beyond that one local market.

Your new version of the article, for the record, did not make a stronger claim of notability than the original version did: by your own admission, the text was virtually identical to the previous version, with the only substantive difference being the "references" — and it's not true that "the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles", at least not the ones you actually cited. A few of them were newspaper articles, granted, but many more of them were YouTube videos, blog entries, WikiNews articles, CDUniverse and iTunes profiles and, I kid you not, "Letters from Anthony Wilson-Smith(Editor of Maclean's Magazine) and others, available upon request" — none of which are acceptable sources at all. There's no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, but there is a requirement that they've been actually published by real media — meaning that many of the sources were junk that I had to discount when evaluating whether the article was properly sourced or not. And when I evaluated the valid sources (i.e. the newspaper articles), they failed right across the board to demonstrate that he's actually notable for anything more than being a media personality in one single media market. The claim that he's a bestselling author is still entirely unsourced, and his "notability" as a musician boils down to "he was once in a non-notable band with some other guys who went on to form a new, notable band without him". There's still nothing that would make him encyclopedically notable besides hosting a local radio talk show in a minor media market.

So, in a nutshell, Version 2.0 did not make a more credible case for notability than Version 1.0 did, and did not genuinely resolve any of the original concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian) — in fact, to be perfectly frank, the article was dancing perilously close to the edge of being an outright advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat deleted the second article using their honest judgment. Goodbucket can challenge the deletion at WP:DRV if they wish, but no policy violation or disruptive editing is going on, so we're done here. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki insulting

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

---

I warned User:TPIRFanSteve about adding original research to The Price Is Right (US game show). Not 30 seconds later, he shot me an IM calling me an "idiot" and adding "but we already knew that" — this stems from my sometimes erratic behavior on a game show related forum. I've already reported him to AIM for insults; should anything else be done? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was once blocked 5 days for calling people "idiots". Hint. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified per ANI policy. DMacks (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's dandy. However, this is an opinion shared by most people in the game show community with whom TenPoundHammer has interacted, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't already aware of it. (And I didn't "shoot him an IM calling him an idiot;" I called him that after he gave me a ridiculous explanation for why he'd reverted something.) That said, I also find any further interaction between the two of us unlikely unless he decides to reply to me on Golden-Road.net. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, you called me an idiot off-wiki. That was completely uncalled for. And I hardly find "I looked all over and couldn't find a source" a "ridiculous explanation". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, you're right...that was mean. Maybe we can get it headed somewhere worthwhile now, though. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ball's in YOUR court, Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.203.181 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What an idiotic discussion!--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that most people on Wikipedia aren't members of this other forum, and can only judge the dispute on the grounds of what happens here. Like it or not, TPH is correct on policy grounds that we require a real source which explicitly confirms the disputed information — our core requirement here is verifiability in reliable sources. As well, we also have a principle on here of assuming good faith as much as possible, so it's not really helpful to personalize this by insulting an editor you disagree with, regardless of your personal interactions with them elsewhere, if their edits aren't in violation of our policies. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But what does any of that (some game forum) have to do with this (our own game forum)? TPH, you will get no admin action here, and you know it. All of you, get back to gaming. Or something. William S. Saturn, you may have hurt the discussion's feelings: I suggest you send them a nice IM. Bearcat, you have a really cool user name. Now let's archive this. Tally-ho! Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Steve has calmed down, so I agree, let's close this up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks.

Yesterday I removed a line from the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, which claimed one of his books contained a lexicon larger than the combined works of Shakespeare. The reference was a Portuguese dictionary definition for "lexicon" which stated Shakespeare's works contained 15.000 unique words. I took that as original research and removed it. The same article had a list of characters for the book Géa, which already exists in the article about the book itself, so I removed that as well. Today I noticed my edits had been undone by an IP that has edited the same articles a large number of times. The claim about the lexicon was also in the article Géa so I removed it there on the same grounds. The IP repeatedly undid my edits so after my third revert I stepped away and warned the user they were edit warring and risked violating WP:3RR. Then, looking at the Recent Changes page I saw that same IP (or one very close to it) had edited an article I had created. All they did was arbitrarily remove content. As I went through the list (which is in my user page), I saw several blanking edits by very similar IPs.

It's quite obvious that this user has serious article ownership issues. The user seems to be Mr. Baptista himself (who actively monitors his page on the Portuguese Wikipedia) or a student of his, as stated in Talk:Cláudio_César_Dias_Baptista.

Diffs from IP vandalism to articles I started: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]

Diff for IP sock: [61] (IP user mentions they are the article creator), [62] (same claim of article creation, this time from User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista)

The user/IPs in question: User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista, User: 187.14.110.146, User: 187.13.52.45, User: 187.13.104.137, User: 187.13.34.128, User: 187.14.98.117, User: 187.14.99.197, User: 187.14.124.193, User: 187.13.56.232, User: 187.14.121.59, User: 187.14.96.239, User: 187.13.112.123.

Any assistance or help in dealing with this would be appreciated. I was considering doing a cleanup of both articles, but it's difficult when you're being hounded by a dynamic IP. XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they didn't stop there. Here's more blanking, also on articles where I've had major participation: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to put this together, antiuser. Looks like pretty clear wikistalking to me. I think a softblock of the 187.12.0.0/14 range is warranted. It's fairly big (around 260,000 IP addresses), so maybe just a few hours to get their attention? — Satori Son 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Danielalex36

User vandalized three biographical articles and made false claims (including incest) to promote the non-notable article of the nonexistent person with false references that he/she created, and has only been edited by one user, him/her. Said was available for reading by people who might not have checked alleged citation and said might have been taken with them, them a possibility of being anyone, partners, investors, etc for redistribution via mouth or etc. Damaging to New York Jets corporation and Johnson & Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User OSX repeatedly removal of content in disregard of Wiki policies and procedures

User OSX has repeatedly made bold blanking, merging or moving of content with complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and recommended procedures even when such bold actions are contested and I seek some disciplinary actions and/or restrictions so this abuse on his part stops for good.

• Fact 1. On June 5, 2011, OSX moved the article Ford Focus BEV despite the "no consensus keep article" result of a discussion closed by me two months ago which was not contested by anybody (see here, and to which OSX actually thank me in my talk (see here). OSX was adviced several times before and after he did the move that the proper thing to do was to open a new discussion. After looking for advice with an admin on how to restore the article without destroying the content of the new article Ford Focus (third generation) (see here), the article was restored by me under Ford Focus Electric, and then OSX engaged in edit waring and blanked it three times [70] [71] [72].
• Fact 2. Also on June 5, 2011, OSX blanked and merge the article Ford Focus RS WRC without first posting any tag or openning a specific discussion for such action. (see here) After this merge was contested and the article restored (see here), OSX engaged in edit waring ([73]) ([74]) ([75]) until the user contesting the merge open a formal merge discussion here which is still open here.
• Context for the two previous facts: Initially, OSX justified these bold actions based on this discussion at the WP:AUTOS talk page here, which actually dealt with re-organizing the family of Ford Focus articles, and I explicity warn about merging the Ford Focus BEV without opening a new merge discussion. As User:Johnfos said overthere: "The re-organization of the Focus articles is fine, except that we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article" A criteria that also applies to the Ford Focus RS WRC. Thereafter, OSX turned the discussion into questioning the results of the two-month old merge discussion, deciding several votes against the merge do not count, establishing a new tally, and concluding that the real result was merge. You can see more at ANI here Why OSX accepted the opening of a merge discussion the Ford Focus RS WRC and why he did not simply open a fresh new discussion about merging the Ford Focus BEV/Electric (as recommended to him several times) just puzzles me?
• Fact 3. This is not the first time he engages in such behavior. On June 12, 2010 merged the Toyota Camry Hybrid (see here) without following a proper specific discussion, and when contested by me, OSX justified such action based on a discussion that took place in another page ([76]) As usual, he engaged in a short edit war ([77]) ([78]) before a formal merge discussion began.
• Fact 4. On December 19, 2010, during a discussion that took place at the WP:AUTOS talk for the mass merger of hybrid/electric and other cars here, I presented this motion to extend the discussion because I was on vacation. OSX blatantly blanked such request as shown here, fortunately, it was restored by an admin.
• Other, OSX has been consistent in having a very aggressive and uncivil attitude against me since the Camry merge discussion, including unsuccessful acussations of canvassing ([79]) and suckpuppetering (here and here), and endless discussion about alleged canvassing, and his wild approach of declaring votes against his position void, but I do not want to detail those for the time being. See also
• OSX, with the support of a small group of editors at WP:AUTOS have been trying to imposed decisions taking at the project (behind curtains?) to individual articles with disregard of Wiki policies and particularly, notability, and also without proper open discussion in the corresponding article pages that give an opportunity to the editors of those pages to participate. I request the remedy that admins considers best for a case like this, but I would suggest OSX is restricted for a short time to move, merge, rename or blank any article, and particularly those relating to green cars, such as hybrid, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, where his misconduct and abuses seem to be concentrated.--Mariordo (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

without mentioning any specific editors, I have noticed the project does seem to have its private consensus that electric & hybrid models are not separately notable; I think they have gotten a little out of step with the RW, and a broader discussion somewhere might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC) longer work in the area, for I found a dissenting view was not welcome. I suggest broader discussion is needed.

User adds repetedly false information

Hi, I am not sure if this is the correct message board to post my question. I have already asked the question at the help desk / page, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

The user / editor 71.172.40.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds unverifiable and false information to articles. He or she adds lines related to fairy tales that do not exist to articles. The edits are somewhat disruptive.

Examples of false information that does not exist in televison series: [80] [81] [82] [83]

Where do I go to report this behavior? I don't think the edits are vandalism though. I might be wrong. Some other editors and I did post some warning templates on the user's talk page. It has been a while since I have reported vandalism and disruptive editors, so please forgive me. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: it is clear that this IP address has been held by the same person for over two months, in spite of a template on the talk page that suggests that it is highly dynamic. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate misinformation certainly is vandalism, of a type so malicious as to deserve an immediate block without warning, in my opinion. Chester Markel (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the IP has been warned. Chester Markel (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)