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

Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

Resolved

 – Previously LAz17 was blocked. There have been accusations of sock-puppetry against Ex13. However, Ex13 is a checkuser on the Croatian Wikipedia so it seems unlikely he would be engaging in sock-puppetry. Furthermore, this is largely a content dispute. LAz17, please do not remove this resolved tag like you did here. Let another uninvolved admin do this if they feel that this is not resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] edit warring between 2 or more users with no basis in the actual subject (railways) - but seemingly based upon nationalist conflicts. One of the editors self reported the issue here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem. This issue has nothing to do with wikiprojectrailways, and clearly both editors are not working right - I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other.

The primary editors involved are User:LAz17 and User:Ex13. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to mention that above statement I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other. is neither true or correct. How to work productively with user (LAz17) who is calling everybody who does not agree with him nationalist? It has to be noted that the same user (LAz17) is blocked repeatedly because of his abusive behaviour. I hope that puts some things in the right place/perspective. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. LAz17 has had big trouble with permanent conflict and personal attacks over a different issue, and I had to topic-ban him under WP:ARBMAC from certain issues recently. Hoped to keep him out of trouble but that doesn't seem to have worked out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. I assumed that it was closed and let it be. Then after some time user ex13 reopened the can of worms.

Shortfatlad proposed the idea that both templates be used - I suppose that this can be a simple solution. User ex13 has had a problem with this though - but that was in the framework of the discussion of "this one or that one", and he was against that one.

FPaS, I do not believe that there are any personal attacks going on right now. User ex13 has been previously banned on wikipedia and from what I understand, he has given user Direktor much grief. User Direktor in particular is important in this issue as he was involved from the beginning - and he was on my side.

This issue however should not be difficult at all to fix. And your words describe me as if I am some sort of animal??!? (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

FPaS, I went to look for mediation to help in the dispute. I saw that the dispute will go nowhere with me and him. Therefore I seeked help. I wanted this resolved. Why do you think that I am some sort of troll? If I was interested in edit-warring I would not have seeked help. As for Shortfatlad, I strongly condemn how you worded this - on the wiki rail project I asked for help. Hence I am looking for solutions in order to stop the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

But... I often see such disputes going off with totally unnecessary nonsense talk. My experience with the maps was that I was led to believe that one map has to be deleted, not that "the better one replaces the poorer one". So, lets cut down on the these unnecessary stuff and get to the points.

1) I made a Yugoslav Urban Rail Article, which Direktor helped improve.

2) In response, nationalist croat, user ex13, created a croatia tram thing and decided that the thing to do would be to replace the yugoslav rail template with it.

so... what now? I find it bothering that ex13 has a problem with the yugoslav rail one. I think that the solution would be to redirect his croat tram, or to have both as shortfatlad suggested. If there are other possibilities please bring them up. If there are other ideas please bring them up. How hard can it be to resolve this simple issue? This is probably as simple as simplicity gets, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

The solution would be to have both templates. Both do what they say on the tin. {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} covers all countries which formerly made up Yugoslavia, {{Trams in Croatia}} covers tram in modern Croatia. LAz17 - there are no nationalist Croats on Wikipedia, only editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From a rail transport point of view here is what should be standard practice:

• {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} should cover only things that were in operation when the political entity yugoslavia existed. (just as "XXX in the former soviet union" does) - thus sections such as "planned trams in croatia" are not 100% correctly placed in that template; though basically acceptable. templates for each separate state would be preferable)
• {{Trams in Croatia}} should cover only things in the modern political entity called croatia, if there is a historical political entity called croatia that had trams then this could be a separate list in that template.
• There is no reason why {{Trams in Serbia}} ,{{Trams in Slovenia}} etc should not be created, this is what Ex13 should make instead of trying to re-purpose the yugoslavian template. (I mentioned this to Ex13)
• Alternatively you could have templates by geography, and have subsections in those templates by chronology.

However none of this will work until both contributors agree to work along the same lines - so you'll need to reach an agreement. It doesn't look like user:DIREKTOR is actually interested in the tram system articles - I would strongly advise not to invite friends to contribute to the debate as this makes it seem like a continuation of previous editor conflicts.

Is that ok?Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these tram systems in Croatia were built during the Austro-Hungaria. Do we need the template {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Austro-Hungaria}} also? Can I make the template {{Urban Rail transportation in SouthEast Europe}}? Where is the limit?

We have a problem if LAz17 continues calling me nationalist. What kind of nationalism is when someone talk about trams and railways? (Am i nationalist because croatian trams??) Also he accused me that i'm sockpuppet. I'm CU on hr:wiki. I do not want to play with sockspuppets. LAz17 had major problems with his rude behavior, and as I see he is blocked right now.--Ex13 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SFL - here are some issues...

1) The croatian tram template, if it should go under what you said, would lose quite a few of its links. Two systems were never part of a croatian entity - but part of Italy. Another one was part of Croatia only a short time- after the transfer of land from italy. Similarly, the ex-ussr metro template includes systems built after the USSR ceased to exist. I think that the best way to go about this would be to include systems in the geographic region.

2) The yugoslav rail article includes rail things that are more than just trams. There is no planned trams section in croatia there. But, as we can see, the USSR template includes planned metros, so I figure why not include it?

3) Trams in Slovenia, Trams in Bosnia, and such would be "too small". It's ridiculous to have only one or two tram systems in the template. This is why it is necessary to have it as the former yugoslavia.

4) I see only two possible solutions. One, to redirect the croatian tram article. Or, to use both croat tram and yugoslav rail on the same pages. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).

Apologies for my lack of involvement in this, I should've notified people I'm on a prolonged WikiBreak... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like trams by geography is the best way to proceed. I note that the template "trams in croatia" includes tram types which is a good idea and could be incorporated into other templates. Whether or not there are multiple templates, various, or only one is something that can be worked out. Since multiple countries are involved I suggest discussing at Trams_in_Europe. (Which can have relevent templates added if wanted) It might be worth looking at how is has been done for other countries - some have lists, others deal with all urban transportation in one article. Expanding articles is probably more important at this point. I would recommend making sure that the categories are good first before worrying about templates eg see Category:Tram transport by country. (Only croatia seems to be categorised at present) - if there are no more edit conflict issues then this should be continued at a suitable talk page. I will put Trams in Europe on watch. Hopefully there should be people there who may be able to help more than I can.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What you said just now does not make much sense. On top of that, it is ridiculous to have Bosnian tram systems - a template with only ONE system. So, I take it that I may put the yugoslav rail template into the croat rail articles. At any rate, the tram in pula is not more croatian than it is yugoslav. (LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).

It's not an issue of either/or - there can be both templates - but I think you need to discuss with the other editors involved to sort out the duplication of links in the two templates, and hopefully work out a good solution. I suggested the talk page of Trams in Europe as a place to do that. (which is why it is now on my watch list.) Shortfatlad (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that an involved editor (LAz17) has decided to remove my resolved tag. I am restoring. This content issue shouldn't be being discussed here anyway. If an administrator feels that I'm wrong, then please remove it again. However, I don't believe that one of the disputing parties should be doing this here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see [2], this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: [3]. I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Wikipedia changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here [4], ending here [5]) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back [6] due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement [7] was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will^dow (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Wikipedia as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Wikipedia edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Wikipedia. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV [...] it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources [8] this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) [9]. There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors [10] is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum [11]. It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty [...] or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Wikipedia and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)"[12] In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.

Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)

I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

“ I have been reading the comments. And have to say that I am very surprised. To wrap it all up:

The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony, in fact one of the territories in the UN's list to be de-colonised. It was ceded to Britain, under the Treaty of Utrecht, as long as it had British sovereignity. The British have occupied that Peninsula as well as some other territories (the isthmus, waters, ...) beyond the Treaty's limits. If Gibraltar is decolonised (i.e. it loses British sovereignity) it should be returned to Spain, according to the treaty.

Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..., which The Economist sees as... a good case of development!).

Some Spaniards have protested that FIRST comes international legality (UN's list of territories to be decolonised, Treaty of Utrecht, occupied territory beyond the Treaty...) and THEN comes solving the mess inside Gibraltar (which will be difficult, as long as it is ruled as an overseas colony, and not as an integral part of a democratic state).

Then, some Englishmen make a big fuzz: they confuse Gibraltar with an island (and insist on it), they say that treaties don't matter just because because they are 300 years old and some people feel this or that, or they forget important parts of them (in doing so, they criticise Spaniards for writing in capital letters).

All of this contradicts my previous view of The Economist (gambling, smuggling, tax evarion...: din't TE defend economic development via a free market with a soul and with rules?), of British people (wasn't theirs the country of respect to laws and contracts no matter how old?) and translators...

(Matt. Stott: it shoud be "vida que vivir" not "vida a vivir" -shame on one of England's top three translation MA degrees...)

Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a language professional)...

”

Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing [13], [14], you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long [15]. None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.

“

1. The UN and Spain (and other countries) consider that the right of self-determination (and to self-governance) should be exerted by people of the territory, not the people in the territory.
   
2. In the case of Gibraltar, the UN says that the people of the territory are the Spanish people. Of course -being a bit realistic for a change- the UN does not say that UK should return Gib to Spain and that's all; the UN says that the Governments of the UK and Spain should reach an agreement so they stop having a dispute about Gibraltar. They almost did with a proposal of shared sovereignty some years ago (in 2004, I think), but it was rejected by Gibraltarians and the public opinion in the UK.

”

The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:

“

• Key words: "national unity" and "territorial integrity". It refers to the UN's position that the people of Spain is deprived of the unity of its territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Spain is the people of the territory.
  
• Key words: "referendum" and "a contravention" It means that a referendum held among Gibraltarians does not advance the self-determination of the territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Gibraltar (or the UK) is not the people of the territory.

”

Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Wikipedia but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...

(even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:

• The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
• You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

“ "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" ”

I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.

• Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.

Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.

Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:

“ “Today, there are 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining on the agenda of the United Nations. Until their status is satisfactorily resolved, the ideals of the General Assembly Declaration on Decolonization will remain unfulfilled.”[16]

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Remarks at the Opening of the 2008 Session of the Special Committee on Decolonization 28 February 2008

”

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.

The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".

I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Wikipedia. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Wikipedia principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.

For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.

I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.

I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.

I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Edit war

Resolved

 – full prot for 3 days. Work it out on talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war brewing on Creation_according_to_Genesis with various warnings issued on: User_talk:Ben_Tillman#Creation_according_to_Genesis_3RR. Please intervene to revert a POV edit war. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself. Ben (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit war, there are one or two editors seeking to overturn a long established consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually user Ben has been doing too many reverts and now personal attacks. If there is no edit war, can I revert him? History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this comment on my talk page, I actually said "long established consensus" (see above) and it's dealt with at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I have nothing further to add. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

To Wikipedia administrators: Please note that the above comment by Ben was a "direct and unprovoked personal attack" on me. By Wikipedia rules this can not be allowed to continue. Please take appropriate action against the offending party. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that Ben is continuing his perpetual practice of labeling everything Biblical as a "myth", i.e. as "untrue". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Ben needs to be reverted so he will learn not to ignore 3 revert situations and not to issue personal attacks here. This requires admin action. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If he has broken the 3 revert rule, the best thing is to take him to WP:3RR and report him for edit warring. That doesn't preclude an admin from doing something about it here, but it's the more formal process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post diffs of the personal attacks? Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... in reference to the personal attack again (making a fool). Ben: Stop that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

k :( Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict ad nauseum) Knock it off both of you (not you Bugs). This is already being discussed in an RfC on the article talk page. That's the appropriate place for this. Take it back to the talk page, work it out like mature people, and then abide by consensus...even if you don't agree with it. History: I don't read that as a personal attack, a slightly barbed suggestion, but not an outright attack. Ben: labelling something is "myth" is just as NPOV as not labelling it as such. Not everyone is going to agree with your assessment of it as myth, and if consensus and references are against you, then either find better references or take your seat and follow consensus. Frmatt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Key question: whose version gets displayed while the debate continues? The debate is cyclic and Ben seems to enjoy these debates. Hence unless there is action, he will continue reverts. Can I revert him now? Does he have more revert authority than other people? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

( → Frmatt) It's all on the talk page, sources and cited policy. I'm not going to rehash it here. Ben (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on full protect for 3 days. Get an appeal at WP:RFPP if you folks can get it worked out by then. Otherwise, the RfC should help a bit. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was unfair to protect the page while it was on Ben's version. Encourages his type of behavior. After 3 days he must be reverted. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you both need to be a little more congenial; work it out on the talk page. As for whose version I protected on, see m:Wrong Version ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has discouraged Ben yet. He's bound and determined to push that "myth" POV, at any cost. Trying to work it out on the talk page is futile. That's why I stopped fighting him on the Noah article - it was like dealing with a mule, or my grandmother. Eventually other editors will have had enough and there will arise a consensus to banish him. But that might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not an admin Bugs? Anytime now mate, I'm sure of it. Ben (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never been interested in being an admin, and you couldn't pay me enough to take the job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Have you considered WP:MedCom, WP:MedCab, WP:3O or something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)

It's a content dispute, but it's more than that, it's a philosophical dispute. For a long time now, Ben has tried to label everything Biblical a "myth", i.e. a "fairy tale". While denying it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is one of the troops and just came in guns blazing (see his recent edit history). My level of congeniality wrt to History2007 isn't a high priority at the moment, though I'm happy to discuss things on the article talk page with him. Thanks for everyone's time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me end by reminding every editor who's wandering across this thread that Wikipedia is a consensus-driven project, and that congeniality is a requirement, not an option. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must suggest that it would be best for Nefariousski (talk · contribs) to voluntarily ban himself from future discussion on this topic, on the grounds of ignorance. In this reversion,[17] he made the statement, "There's no Genesis 2." He's apparently unaware that the Bible books are divided into chapters (1, 2, 3, etc.) I'm guessing even Ben knows that's not a myth. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's even wrong about the movie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you're insulting someone not involved in this thread, in a section called Personal Attacks? Just checking. --King Öomie 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski was involved in the edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha I love how I'm getting mentioned in this "personal attacks" listing. And for the record the whole Genesis 1 / 2 issue was one of context referring to there being no second book of Genesis and the IP editor not citing in standard chapter:verse format being confusing.Nefariousski (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was perfectly clear to me, at first glance, what the editor was getting at. However, it's explained a little better in the article now. Genesis 1 has one creation story, Genesis 2 has a different creation story, with about 3 lines from one chapter extending into the other chapter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it too late to call WP:LAME on this? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread's a little stale, but Bugs, I insist you withdraw that personal attack on your grandmother. And the mule. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

She'd be the first to admit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who would? Your grandma or the mule? Before you answer, remember WP:BLP violations are a serious matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mules can't file libel cases. And if grandma files a libel case, I'll get back to you, as it would be newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as well they can't; every time one got called a jackass, they'd sue... HalfShadow 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on whether they were proud of their donkey heritage. However, they might take offense at being called a "half-breed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

{{resolved|···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}} I've scratched that resolved tag per the user's edits, which I shall post my opinion on below;— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

There appears to be an ongoing edit-war on this talk page involving multiple parties. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incident concluded. The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I blocked Proofreader for a week for reverting several times, he has had a recent 72 hour block for edit warring as well that I took into account when determining this block length. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but there were multiple other parties involved in the disruption of the page... Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could protect it, but it's a talk page and everyone else only reverted once. MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now at User_talk:Proofreader77, he's requesting review for an unblock... Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And that has now been declined by Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And they have requested another one, which I have commented on. I suggest any reviewing admins read this comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

indef?

This user continues to post copyright violations to their page.. they have stalked my edits, and, from the recent post regarding those edits, it appears as if they aren't taking this seriously at all, more like it is some game or debate. I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to stop their problematic edits after this all is over, therefore, I request that an indef block be considered, or, a longer block. For the version I refer to, please see this link. Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the user's contributions, I see little benefit to the project. I do see a sarcastic, idiotic tone in almost any discussion, a touch of MYSPACE, and currently a misuse of talk page by a blocked user. Grsz¹¹ 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest locking Proofreader77's talk page for the duration of the current block and would advise Daedalus969 in particualr to, quite frankly, move on. HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is now attacking the difficulties I had of using {{tl}}, {{tlp}} and {{tlx}}.

• Support - An indef block, per the above. We don't need someone like this here. Before I was asking that it be considered. Now I'm requesting it be put in place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note, evidence of stalking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJMitchell's advice. (No opinion on the suggestion, tho.) —DoRD (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More stalking. They wouldn't really know of my edits unless they were watching my contributions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. —DoRD (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no irony. I'm watching their page after they insulted me earlier.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And you would not have known that if you had not been monitoring Proof's page. Although a relatively new user, I noticed when I came in that there are no doors on the toilets. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading it right that Proofreader feels he shouldn't be blocked because he allegedly donated $1,000 to WMF? According to him, it would benefit MBizanz to know that fact. Is that some kind of attack, legal threat, I don't know what, but it sure is stupid. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not made any impression whatsoever. I'm sad if Proofreader77 thinks that a donations (and a quite large donation at that!) can sway opinion. I'm considering blocking indefinitely and protecting the talk page. I don't think we want someone who is willing to do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should check the edit summary here where they completely misrepresent what you say. You are clearly considering indefing him for his attitude, not any amount he has donated anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TROUT required

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making rather a nuisance of himself over his advocacy of a factoid sourced from a primary source and not covered in any reliable independent sources (see Talk:WrestleMania_23#RfC).

• reversal of the burden of evidence
• " still no valid opposition" (exceptionally rude given that there is actually rather a lot of opposition stated, he just appears not to like it)
• forum shopping
• forum shopping
• [18][19][20][21][22][23] edit-warring to include the source as reliable in a related style-guide.

We recently topic-banned an IP for a similar campaign of obduracy. I think this editor needs to just stay away until the RfC is over. As an aside, I still cannot really understand why it so fantastically important to include this figure, and yet not one single reliable independent source discusses it. Wrestling is weird. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought everything in wrestling was fake? Should this be any different? (Joke.) -- Atama頭 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the first time that editor has gotten into a similar clash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right but I have wasted way too much of my time on this fool already so I really can't bring myself to dredge it all out (and it would look vindictive anyway). I have to learn the Monteverdi Vespers and a stack of other early music including Jesu, meine Freude for concerts at Douai Abbey plus several lesser pieces including solos for Mozart's Missa Brevis K.259 and some of Vaughan Williams' Songs of Travel. Time to stop all this troll-wrestling and get back to rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, just coming back from a rehearsal of Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied here, and having to learn the madrigal version of the Lamento di Arianna, I can certainly empathise with your plight :-) But, you know: "Lass den Satan wittern / Lass den Feind erbittern / Ob es itzt gleich kracht und blitzt" – just let him talk. The RfC is working out fine; once that is closed with a clear consensus, we can and will then firmly ask him to step away from the dead horse. Until then, "es ist nun nichts Verdammliches an denen". And watch out for that "Tobe Welt und springe" passage, it's a nasty bugger (assuming you're a bass) :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know singet quite well, we performed that last year also at Douai. And yes, I am a bass (bass 1, a bass-baritone really). My favourite thing to sing in the bath right now is Schubert's Winterreise. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, from pro-wrestling to Bach in one thread! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"You must notify any user that you discuss." Apparently, the rules at ANI don't mean any more to you than the policy on Verifiability; the policy on Civil that prohibits users from calling other users a dick, a fool, an idiot, and a fuckwit; the policy on Wikihounding; and the policy on Original Research, which would prevent users from declaring information unworthy of inclusion because it ends with a 7 instead of a 3. Yes, folks...that truly is a key point of his argument. And I'm the one who needs a trout? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because you are yet to prove your point in fact. And despite many invites to do so, you continue to whack a dead trout instead of doing do, claiming WP:V has been fulfilled, when in fact it hasn't because the figure concerned is unproven and wrong anyway. Not to mention WP:GAME and forum shopping by this user AND causing a user to leave Wikipedia sometime back for similar policy pushing - in spite of the fact that it appears that it got admin support that time. Whilst Guy might have been a bit out of line with his language, I will defend him on the grounds of provocation. I disagree with Future Perfect though - the RfC is stuck in a rut, and Gary is the reason for that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is only unfulfilled if (1) you ignore the fact that Verifiability requires publication in a reliable source rather than conclusive proof of accuracy, (2) you misunderstand the issue altogether and fail to see that the issue at hand is not the number itself at all, but rather the fact that a different number what stated, or (3) both. And if requesting clarification on the Original Research noticeboard on a possible misunderstanding of original research is forum shopping, what does that make this thread? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The case for WP:GAME rests. Along with whacking a dead trout. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing that once again you are arguing your (widely disputed) content point rather than addressing your problematic behaviour. I understand that this is characteristic, as is your tendency to misrepresent the arguments of others (in this case about the validity of stating an estimate to five significant figures, a higher degree of precision than the figures on which it's based). Guy (Help!) 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Persistent non-static IP vandal

There's been an ongoing problem with a persistent IP vandal that's been going on for at least 8 months. What we've got is a non-static anon who likes to shuffle around the "personnel" sections in articles about his favorite bands and albums in order to place his favorite members at the top of the lists, among other obnoxious behavior, despite being constantly reverted & warned by numerous other editors. Here's the earliest example I could find (May 2009), and here's the most recent (today). Hidden messages have been added to the articles asking these lists to be kept in alpabetical order, but the editor simply removes them. There have been dozens of such edits across a handful of articles from a number of IPs. Here's a list of most of the offenders:

• 81.129.5.163 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.10.20 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.71.171 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.184.82 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.185.175 (talk · contribs)
• 86.134.250.163 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.32.244 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.33.6 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.91 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.103 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.3 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.40 (talk · contribs)
• 86.141.136.98 (talk · contribs)
• 86.142.103.29 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.21.142 (talk · contribs)
• 86.149.155.75 (talk · contribs)
• 86.152.56.61 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.223.12 (talk · contribs)
• 86.156.85.82 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.233.55 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.235.20 (talk · contribs)
• 86.162.208.48 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.186 (talk · contribs)
• 86.167.225.106 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.194 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.104.9 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.105.235 (talk · contribs)
• 88.112.96.224 (talk · contribs)
• 217.42.224.119 (talk · contribs)
• 217.44.65.71 (talk · contribs)

Common sense says these are all the same person, as the edits are nearly all identical and to the same articles. No edit summaries are ever left, and warnings on talk pages, in edit summaries, and in hidden article text are ignored. Here are some of the main articles affected:

• 21st Century Breakdown
• The Blackout (band)
• Hollywood Undead
• Foxboro Hot Tubs
• Sum 41
• The Network
• 21st Century Breakdown (song)
• Trivium (band)
• The F-Ups
• 21 Guns (song)
• East Jesus Nowhere

Also note this clear act of vandalism after being reverted & warned. Not sure what the best course of action is. Article semi-protection has been tried a couple of times, but the anon just resumes after protection expires. Blocking likely won't help either, due to the number of IPs and the fact that they aren't static. We could try semi-protecting all the affected articles, but it's more than a few so I don't know how the community feels about that. And rangeblocks probably aren't a viable solution either as the IPs seems to span a wide range. What can be done? I was going to bring this to AIV but it seems like too complex a problem for that page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of prolonged, persistent disruption, a long-term or even indefinite semi can get these buggers out of your hair, especially given that shorter periods have failed. A rangeblock on the 86's seems feasible (but I don't know enough about IPs to make that call). I've semi'd many of the articles above; I did not protect some of them as they were either fallow or there would be collateral IP damage from a semi. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this IllaZilla. I'm glad to see some of these articles finally indef'd after so much abuse. And thanks a bunch for the protections, Jeremy. Timmeh 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't thank me just yet; like I said I had to leave some of them unprotected because they were fallow (no edits for a week or more) or there were helpful IPs whom would be hit by a semi. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection is the answer until we finally get flagged revisions in place. Oh, pipe dreams. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd've preferred a rangeblock, but since I'm not knowledgeable in them I semi'd the articles instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With the sole exception of 88.112.96.224 (which is for the ISP Elisa ADSL), these are all IPs for BTCentralPlus. I don't think a rangeblock on these would be wise :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request by Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely on January 2, 2010. The user now requests to be unblocked.

Short background:

• The user has mostly edited on pages on casualties of the war in Afghanistan.
• In at least one case, he has misrepresented a source. He has not responded to postings informing him about this adequately.
• He was blocked for "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username".
• He has continued to edit using IPs. (I have been involved in seeking protection for page he edited.)

• While the edit in which he misrepresented the source was not typical of his edits, the major problem is that the user apparently does not understand what the specific issue is.
• His behaviour is, as far as I can see, not that of an editor who would be intent on introducing false information in a deceptive way. (Rather, it seems a bit confused.)
• The user has agreed to change his username.
• UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), a 1179-edit sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), has accused the user of several wrongdoings. However, Top Gun was indefinitely blocked for "lying about sources, and a whole lot of other sins", and I'm not sure whether the accusations of his sockpuppet are true.

The blocking administrator has been contacted. See User talk:Mifter#About user Mujahid1947.

I have no experience in handling blocked editors, and I am not an administrator. My feeling is that the indefinite block was somewhat disproportionate, and he should have been blocked temporarily. I don't know exactly how to assess the case at present, as it has become more complicated. Can someone review the user's request, and make a decision, possibly asking the user for further clarification.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Mujahid" a valid User name? Woogee (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? It's a real name - I know two or three Mujahids personally. Bettia (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Other discussion on this User talk:Mifter#Name_issue and here, I am perfectly fine with the user being unblocked, as this appears to be more or a less a case of a newbie making some mistakes while being ignorant about our policies and not a vandal. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This name may be questionable since it's very close to Mujahideem (or various spellings) , which is a term being used for certain Afghan rebels. Given where this contributor is working, this could become a problem.

I'd ask for a different username. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has now indicated that he would seek to change his username to Gameboy1947. See User talk:Mujahid1947#Mujahid1947 → Gameboy1947 and the section above on that page.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Changing username#Mujahid1947 .E2.86.92 Gameboy1947.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ip on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts

Ip is making disruption on this talk page. Admin help please to warn? Warnings were issued to IP today. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs there. The one to which History2007 is referring is User:150.135.210.16, who has been rather incivil and prone to edit warring. May blow over on its own, but it's understandable that History2007 would feel put upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History, you really shouldn't be removing someone else's comments from a talk page as you did here. That's to be done only to comments that clearly do not address the issue of improving the article. Also, the IP has every right to remove comments from his talk page once he's read them. You really haven't got any business reverting those removals as you did here and here. You've been around long enough to know better than that. Both of these actions are far more serious misconduct than anything the IP has done. To behave that way while suggesting that the IP be blocked as you did here and here suggests that you'd be well advised to pay a little more attention to the beam in your own eye. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MySpace vandalism

Resolved

A non-autoconfirmed user somehow managed to vandalize MySpace. I cannot undo the edit with my new account.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're really you? Welcome back! --TS 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, indeed. By the way, you are a "confirmed" user now, and should be able to edit semi-protected pages. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there some sort of off-wiki verification involved? Might be a good idea to point that out somewhere if so. --Onorem♠Dil 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think verification is needed. If this is the same user as User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, I would have expected the edits by User:Phonephonephonecat to Stephanie Berto to be reverted; instead a {{fact}} template was added to an edit that was probably vandalism and clearly a violation of WP:BLP. snigbrook (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some verification would be useful. Can someone who knows CSCWEM from his previous tenure, email him ? Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask him to make a confirmation edit from his old username? (Unless he scrambled his password/email...) The Thing _{Vandalize me} 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man... you left? Welcome back! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IP's racist comments on talk:Atheism

Pretty self-explanatory: In this dif, 86.123.168.47 (talk) included the gem "Muslims go to mosques ,pray ,beat up their wives ,blow up ,etc" I'm not sure what policy is concerning IP editors making satements such as this, and whether it should be treated as mere vandalism or something more serious. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Muslim" a race? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

also why would policy for IP addresses be different than for the rest of us? Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Vandalism front, we are much more lenient with IP vandals than we are with registered users who vandalize. I wasn't sure if this would be seen as vandalism, hate speech, or what have you, so I wasn't aware what policies would apply. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are more lenient, then why was this user blocked with no warning for simply poor judgement? I can find no other edits to support a block. Beach drifter (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "poor" judgement is likely to seriously piss off a billion or so people. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake again. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the real concern, then why not just remove the offending material and warn the IP? I think that is what a vast majority of editors would do. Beach drifter (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block, doesn't matter if it's directed at a race, religious group, sexual orientation or gender, using Wikipedia to promote hate is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP was making an example, with a very poor choice of wording. I'd think a strong warning would be more appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of her other edits; it doesn't look like she's an anti-Muslim edit-warrior, just someone who expressed herself poorly when trying to communicate that idea. In context, it reads more as an unsuccessful attempt at humor than as hate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. His comments called into question his editing (see last contrib). It's only a 31h block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs for the harassment? Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up above. "Harassment" isn't the issue here, though. It's more the personal attack, or at least the very real potential thereof. Furthermore, it calls into question the edits in those areas. I believe I made a note of this in the block log, but I may not have. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have a few concerns. Mainly that this really appears to be poor taste on behalf of the IP. It was an example on a talk page, it was not directed towards anyone in the least. There was one edit afterwards in that area, which I understand is the cause for concern, but I can't understand how that warrants a block, especially with absolutely no communication taking place with the IP. The editor has made some actual contributions. I also don't think that the perceived 'potential for a personal attack' is good reason for a block, again especially without any communication. At the very least tell the editor what is going on. Your block log did not say anything that they would understand. Beach drifter (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, point noted... made a comment to the user's talk. Hopefully we'll get a reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beach drifter (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisher: I'm tempted to agree, but that's still in spectacularly poor taste. Also, your point on the label "racist" is well-taken. What would be more appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Self evident inadaquate mental functions propogated through stereotypical depictions of xenophobic sentiment". It kinda rolls of the tongue, donchathink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "bigotry". -- Atama頭 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn bogus "vandalism" claims & out of policy "warning" threats

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.

I concur with daTheisen - this has gone to hell in a handbasket. The reporting user should be cautious with the sock allegations, but if a concern about the other user still exists, please see WP:WQA. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Despite several requests to stop practices that are in direct violation of WP:VAND, WP:SOCKS, WP:TE, and WP:AGF,for which User:William S. Saturn has already received repeated warnings and been blocked on several occasions, this user persists in:

1) Claiming that legitimate edits with which he disagrees are "vandalism", simply because he disagrees with them. This is textbook WP:TE. It is also obviously a false claim, immediately rejected by any review of WP:VAND. It is also a clear violation of WP:AGF: [[24]], [[25]].

It is also particularly ironic given that this same editor himself used identical language in a WikiNews article just days earlier. The headline was "Republican leads race to fill Ted Kennedy's vacated US Senate seat": [[26]]. The irony (and double-standard) is clear, given that the edit that User:William S. Saturn claimed was "vandalism" in the Scott Brown article is the statement that Brown was succeeding Ted Kennedy's seat! Awkward.

2) Deleting notice on his own talk page that his actions & practices constitute clear violations of Wiki policies: [[27]].

3) Vandalizing another editor's talk pages on at least two occasions: [[28]] [[29]].

4) Using a sock account User:EATC to "get around" 3RR violations: [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]].

5) Issuing bogus "warnings" on another editor's talk pages that do not adher to Wiki policies regarding warnings: [[34]].

Someone really needs to firmly & forcefully remind this editor that this site is not his own personal playground for peddling his partisan agendas, and if he persists in behaving like it is, his toy will be taken away from him. He has been warned and blocked before. In one instance, the block was removed by a sympathetic admin. Obviously that did nothing to get the message to sink in. Obviously, its time for a wake-up call that will finally stick. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown is, in fact, succeeding Kirk and not Kennedy. Kirk succeeded Kennedy by being appointed and is a sitting Senator. However, Saturn's labeling of your factually incorrect edit as "vandalism" is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a very secondary concern, but concerning point 2, removing warnings/notices from one's own talk page is explicitly permitted. It is assumed a user who does so has read and understood the notice. See WP:User page. Considering this, I'd say point 2 is moot. - Vianello (Talk) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. You can delete anything you want from you user page, on the assumption they've been read, except for one thing: Rejected unblock requests while you're still blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as IP-identifying tags under a certain category whose name I forget and which is increasingly tangential to this. - Vianello (Talk) 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, typically schools and such, because an IP user does not "own" his page to the degree a registered user does, because an IP could be many users. It's connected with the reason that IP's are never indef-blocked - although if they're connected with schools they can get put on ice for months at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please block this troll? The edit he made was not vandalism until he kept inserting it after he was told that he was wrong. He then accuses the editors that reverted the vandalism as being sockpuppets of each other. I've only been editing since 2007, I don't see how I can have a sockpuppet that was created in 2006. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

X4n6 (talk · contribs) has a rather curious, sporadic editing history under that ID - going back 3 1/2 years, yet only covering about 3 screens worth of contrib list, with long gaps in between periods of editing. If that's truly the only editing he's ever done here, then he might not know what all the rules are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with Baseball Bugs' conclusion that Brown is succeeding Kirk. Kirk was never elected, so it could never be Kirk's term. He was merely a governor-appointed, temporary, seatwarmer until a special election could be held. An asterisk at best. It's clearly Kennedy's term that Brown is completing, proven by the fact that it will expire exactly on the day that Kennedy's term would have expired.

I also accounted for any ambiguity in my edit, with the word (death): [[35]], and the article itself does mention Kirk. But to suggest that it was Kirk's "term" - which is exactly what is being suggested, is obviously dead wrong.

But yes, while this may be fodder for a spirited debate on the technicalities, you're absolutely right about one thing - it comes nowhere near the threshold for being accused of being "vandalism". Even though you and I disagree about the technicalities, Baseball Bugs, even we both see that attack for the utter ridiculousness that it is. Thanks for the support. And thanks for the clarification on #2. My experience was different, but as you and Vianello both agree, I have no reason to question your understanding of the policy. But that only addresses one complaint out of five. Thanks again to both of you. X4n6 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And William S. Saturn excuses are weak and desperate. I certainly know enough about the rules to know what constitutes edit warring and what constitutes vandalism, and what constitutes good faith editing. I also know enough to know that vandalism is content based, and good faith disagreements are expressly NOT vandalism. If the editor in question doesn't know that basic fact, then perhaps he should read the rules before he ignorantly accuses others of violating them. Maybe it would also have saved him from being blocked last week - exactly for committing 3RR abuses. X4n6 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to post a good-faith but incorrect edit. It could be considered vandalism if you repeatedly post something on a user talk page on the grounds he's not allowed to delete it - but if you didn't know that rule, it's still a good-faith edit. If you know the rule, then it's vandalism, or possibly harassment. Regarding Kirk vs. Kennedy, yes, it was "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", but it's not currently "vacated"; this guy Kirk has it until Brown is sworn in. By comparison, for precedent, there is the Senator Norm Coleman article. He was elected to the Senate after Paul Wellstone died. You could say he took over Wellstone's "vacated" seat. However, he actually succeeded Dean Barkley, not Wellstone, and the article points out that Barkley preceded him. As with Teddy, Barkley was appointed by the governor as an interim. Barkley would come back to haunt Coleman by running as a third party candidate in 2008, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've gotten yourself confused regarding the series of events. Not even the troll in question has tried to accuse me of repeatedly posting something on his user talk page that he is not allowed to delete. Nope. He's claiming that factual information I posted in an article constitutes vandalism. His problem is that good faith says it's not. It also says that you don't go throwing the word "vandalism" around, and threatening to block accts because you think that's the way to intimidate editors you don't agree with. So he fails on both counts. As well as the other two abuses I've catalogued above.

Second, as regards "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", that's your term, but it suits my argument. It was Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. Not Paul Kirk's. So who does the newly elected senator succeed? The last person to be elected: Ted Kennedy. You make an interesting point about Norm Coleman, but you forgot what happened next. That seat actually remained "vacant" for the several months that Coleman contested the results in his bid against Franken. That seat was literally vacant from Nov 4, 2008 to July 7, 2009. Probably the only way to accurately list the "succeeding" section in the Brown article would be to list BOTH Kennedy AND Kirk. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another similar situation is Roland Burris, who was not elected either, he was appointed by Governor Blago in one of his last acts before being booted from office. Yet Burris is in fact the junior Senator from Illinois. Any of these guys could have run during the next election if they wanted to. Just because they weren't elected, and didn't run in the next election, doesn't mean they're not Senators. They became Senators through the means prescribed in their respective states' constitutions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that Kirk & Burris were not senators. But they are appointed caretakers, not elected officials. For the purpose of our discussion, and in answering the question, it's really that not any more complicated than that. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The two harassment-only accounts that sprang up for a few minutes and then disappeared (both since indef'd) might not be connected with the complainant in this section; they could be a troll who seeks to impeach the complainant, as happened to Axmann8 by a bunch of impostor accounts last summer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also pretty laughable that within minutes of my launching a sockpuppet complaint against User:William S. Saturn, he launched a retaliatory sockpuppet complaint against me. HA! Clearly no points for originality there. So despite the fact that I haven't used my account in literally months, I guess one day I knew I would want regular socks to attack User: William S. Saturn?! Good thing I can think years ahead, huh? It would be funny if it weren't so damn desperate and pathetic. And such a transparently stupid lie. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The accounts were created today. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At 6:17 and 6:34, meaning that they were created whilst this thread was ongoing, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would take a checkuser to be certain, but I don't think Saturn and EATC are the same editor. There is some overlap in their interests, but not all that much. Their focuses are different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll only know for sure with a checkuser. Even you admitted the overlap. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure are arrogant to think that I'd build up two accounts for over three years without any interaction just to revert your insertion of false information into an article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, the arrogance found here is all yours. So are all the lies. You are arrogant in assuming that I have nothing better to do than establish two sock accounts to respond to you. Really?? Why? When I'm obviously quite capable of dealing with the likes of you on this one account.

You are also arrogant in issuing empty threats when you & your sad little agenda don't get their way. Apparently, making empty threats is easier for you than actually having to defend ignorance.

But you are also incredibly arrogant in believing that I would be the least bit intimidated by either you or all the compulsive lies you obviously have to tell to try to get your way. Or the fact that you exhibit absolutely no conscience while telling such obvious lies. How sad to be you. X4n6 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This could qualify for WP:LAME. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reset button, please. Common sense makes me encourage the original user file at WP:WQA since this imploded to no productive ends whatsoever. It's been evaluated and noted that though the templated user was using factually incorrect information in edits, that this isn't vandalism in any way shape or form either and doesn't justify much of any of the above diffs, but also noticed that no opposing diffs were given so I don't know if there's another side to review or not. If the problem is ongoing incivility that the posting user seems to insinuate is borderline hounding at this point--whatever-- it can head there and deal exclusively with those aspects. Socks are socks, but (I feel so absurd saying this) we all know that anything that gets dragged out as this already has spirals into a WP:TLDR blob of text garble, and that nothing will ever actually come in terms of concrete outside opinions given. When there's a legitimate concern with an editor, this only means another incident swept under the rug so that we can go through this next time.

Consider the original complaint forked to an obtuse backward angle and split into WQA-able civility concern and SPI sock complaints. Handle them there please, and nothing is going to get accomplished with more increasingly-less-professional chatter in this section. If one or both parties still have issues this would seem like a pretty by-the-book RfC/U filing, but no one wants to waste time there either. ...Sorry to be a buzzkill (really, I am, but we know better). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

John Bright School

Resolved

 – Operating name of school does appear to be "Ysgol John Bright", so move completed. –xeno^talk 14:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a cut-and-paste attempt to change the name. Needs a history merge or something. 98.248.41.72 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no history at the pasted-location, so I just reverted the redirect and redirected the pasted one. I have no opinions as to which name it should actually be under. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict/mistake

Resolved

I know this edit is two days old, but I'm worried that some of the material it removed was not restored. The edit in question.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed [36], thanks. –xeno^talk 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category help needed

help! the following category is acting really weird. Category:The Holocaust and United Kingdom never seen anything like this before! appreciate any help. thanks!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well now it seems ok. before, some weird code seemed to come up, and the category didn't load. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ko interwiki links removed by Jyusin

A large number of ko interwiki links seem to have been removed by Jyusin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A check of a few showed that the interwikis were legit ? Wizzy…☎ 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• User notified as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little early to bring this to AN/I - the links were removed about 8 hours ago, so I'm guessing that the user isn't online now. Let's give them a chance to respond on their talkpage first. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little hasty - I figured they should be restored, it would be painful for me to do it, and the Big Buttons belong to you guys (I presume there is a Big Button for mass rollback of one editor). Wizzy…☎ 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. {{sofixit}}, I guess... Guy (Help!) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK#Mass rollbacks... But I've never done it before and I'd hesitate to experiment. -- Atama頭 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the potential for damage with that script has always kept me from wanting to use it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would note that while he doesn't have an active talk page, all of the users who have come to talk to him have done so about doing damage to Korean articles. Could be an issue for this editor., and he only lists as very minor english ability while not listing what his native language is.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my guess. Some IP added the links to the top of the lists and not in correct "alphabetical" order. - maybe he's just reverting that and waits for a bot to do the job correctly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should probably write to this editor (in Korean) and ask him what he was doing. Would probably be more useful than sitting here and speculating, but unfortunately I don't have a whit of ability in that language. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

I've invited him here in Korean. I can't carry on an extensive conversation with him, but I can do that much.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. But now I feel they are unnecessary edits.--Jyusin (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

Resolved

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

As referred from WP:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142. Rapido (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the one being accussed, I would like to remind you he deleted my editing on the user EdJohstons talk page, which demonstrates his problem causing behaviour, and stress first hand look at the situation as Rapido displays alot POV, even when reporting and accusing people. He often uses the word "attack" to describe what are editorial criticisms and criticisms made against his editing and rapid reverting style. He often, despite me stating I am an static IP user, and am 1 person, refers to me as "they" and accusess a mob editing. Discussion on the matter can be found at these places:

The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page

The article:

History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history

Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute

I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.

Rapid's discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rapido

Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Rapido was advised "Just ignore him (me, the IP user). He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" showing the attitude of some editors and suggestion made by some --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Admins, please make your mind up about who is causing the disruption. Since they like posting links, here is the one that shows the IP editor was blocked for breaking the 3RR [37] Rapido (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And Rapido, what is your problem, why to refer to me as they? I don't get you. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is seriously asking what my problem is? Rapido (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments that breach either of the two policies, either for assuming bad faith, including claiming that I did something that I didn't, or vice versa, or pure personal attacks: [38] inaccurate editing and sourcing; [39] accuses User:Ash of ly[ing], accuses me of trying to systematically ban [them], arrogance, show[ing] a non-compliance attitude, showing systematic bullying, claims there are talk pages, logs and discussion [that] show background collaboration between Rapido, Ash and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user, and accusing both Ash and myself of false accusations and mob based systematic attempts; [40] same accusations; [41] false claims; [42] trying to make me look bad, and thinks I am a mob, he is lying; [43] deceptive editing; [44] seems to have a long history of edit wars; [45] problem causing behaviour, displays alot POV, accusess [sic] a mob editing, uncoperative [sic] editing; [46] same accusations; [47] same accusations; [48] an arrogant user, what is wrong with his cognition, [49] same accusations; [50] same accusations; [51] what is your problem; [52] I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations; [53] you [have] written this lie; [54] attempting to make this a personal war, plus same accusations; [55] arrogance, haven't participated on the discussion page (I have); [56] a report troll, disruptive and problematic - that's from their editing until 2000 GMT to-day, anyway. There may be more to add later. Rapido (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To Admin: Why my reply below includes bold typeface will be justified in the end. Please read and thank you for your time. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are being a troll and diverting attention away from the real issue. I bet you will call me calling you a troll an attack again? Right? Wikipedia article definition of a troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or OFF-TOPIC messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"... you sure did provoke my emotional response. Carry on calling my criticisms attacks. And quoting out of context is not going to help you neither. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And you certainly didn't help considering im a fairly new editor, by sparking an edit war, remaining silent when I ask for your view or input, and forcing me into a 3RR systematically. Call this an attack too if you want, you do it everywhere on everypage. And they are not "policies", they are guides, to help people here get along, something I would like to do with you, but you make it hard because you never assumed "good faith" where I did. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An example of tabloid style mis-quotation by Rapido. Rapido quotes: "What is wrong with his cognition" from this sentence: "I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page". Alot of POV, even in quotations, I learned long time ago it is wrong to misquote in English lessons, so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in your trolling.--94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry Rapido, lets leave it here, and let the Admins have a look themselves. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since you wrote "there may be more to add later" should I help you? Ive put them in bold, "quote" them too. I like your quoting style, I might use it one day too when I have a personal grudge on someone. Want to quote that too? (To Admin: I'm trying to show you how he is manipulating the story (Rapido: quote that) --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments from between 2000 and 2100 to-day: [57] being a troll, diverting attention away from the real issue; [58] same accusations; [59] quoting out of context; [60] tabloid style mis-quotation, Alot of POV, your trolling, im going to start the same game your playing; [61] sparking an edit war, forcing me into a 3RR systematically, you do it everywhere on everypage, you never assumed "good faith"; [62] he is manipulating the story. Rapido (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote I'm not going to start the game your playing, why do you keep mis quoting? Original "so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in..." --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but using random bolding of your statements rarely results in anyone taking any more notice of your claims than they would anyway. 86.143.125.78 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How else do you suggest for me to explain the misquotations? Im open for suggestion. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Explanation for non-psychic) It seems the bolding is there to explain how the editor is being misquoted. (by example) - seems vaguegly WP:POINT but I imagine the head is getting too hot to notice.

• Comment - it would have been easier to simply explain how you were being misquoted.
• Comment - the numerous edit diffs supplied by the other editor show little.
• Comment - perhaps you both could stop, press reset button, and not get into edit war again - specifically request clarification other other users edits you do not understand.
• Comment - it's difficult to see anything other than two editors arguing/fighting/failing to get along in all the above edits. I doubt anyone has the time to sort out a problem both of you have created.
• Comment - if either editor is truly in the wrong I imagine it will rapidly become visible if one of the editors stops fighting back.

It would be better if both of you stopped and hopefully don't return to this thread. best wishes.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - From the top of this page: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion." Appears you've both finally stepped back and stopped screaming at each other in this thread, but this really isn't how to handle an ANI. For one thing, it's basically impossible to figure out what the actual issue is here, now that it's been so muddied. Seems more or less like a personal dispute, which isn't an ANI issue. But, really, I can't possibly be certain given the nature of this "discussion." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been posted on my talk page. IDK what to say lmao Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing thread

I cannot make out what is being disputed here. Is it just me? If others are confused also, I'm seriously considering archiving the thread and forcing the reporters to post a summary of the issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To assist those who are baffled by the above, the issue is how to describe the jamming of a BBC satellite TV signal to prevent it from being received in Iran. I refer you to WP:AN3#User:94.193.135.142 reported by User:Rapido (Result: 24h). The article in dispute was BBC Persian Television. See here for a typical revert. Rapido's version said:

...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal, confirmed to originate from within Iran.

The IP has been indignant at the suggestion that Iranians could have had anything to do with blocking the BBC's signal. His version said:

...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal. The BBC stated it's technicians beleive the jamming signal to originate from Iran, though providing no technical proof or evidence. .

I underlined the words in dispute. Personally, I find fault with both versions. Rapido's word "confirmed" is based on a statement from Eutelsat, the BBC's satellite provider, which hardly shows independent confirmation. The IP's phrase "providing no technical proof or evidence" sounds like editorializing by Wikipedia. Admins are not expected to referee content disputes. We assume that editors who have a dispute will follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Though Rapido seems to make some newbie mistakes, the IP is getting closer to tendentious editing, complaining at Talk:BBC Persian Television about the BBC's service being run by Bahais, but not providing any reliable source that asserts this fact or states that it affects the quality of BBC's coverage. One idea for solving this is to keep both editors on a very short leash when the protection expires on BBC Persian Television. We could let them know that even a single revert that does not follow from a talk page agreement may lead to a block. I would welcome any other ideas for calming this down. If necessary we should consider an editing restriction, for example a 1RR/day limit on both editors on articles relevant to Iran, for a period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that is much clearer now. It sounds like they need a 1RR editing restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, while you rightly identified the editing dispute, you have not addressed the continued personal attacks or assumption of bad faith eminating from the IP editor. Even when I raise a complaint on WP:WQA or here regarding the issue... the IP editor continues the attacks on these pages rather than desisting - the whole point of reporting the incident on these pages was to try and have the attacks stopped, not continued! I do have to point out one thing regarding the edits tho'... you say Eutelsat is the BBC's satellite provider, which is true; however they are also the satellite provider for the Iranian government channels [63]; as well as channels (private and governmental) from all around the world; until recently it was an intergovernmental organisation. I can imagine that Eutelsat would be the only party able to know where the jamming was originating from, as I doubt anyone else has access to their control centres where they can identify the location of uplinks to their satellites. Rapido (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode and good hand/bad hand

This has recently been brought to my attention on my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#Continued_prodding_under_a_new_account_name). I am seeking outside scrutiny as I have already involved myself in what is essentially a content dispute. The short form of the story is that User:Unitanode started a rather aggressive {{prod}}ing effort towards BLP articles lacking references. Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags. He has since created a new account and has been using that to add prod's to the same type of article.

The new account is User:Unitasock and the name is clearly chosen to not hide the fact that he is the same person. My concern is that he is effectively hiding these edits from anyone who has asked him to stop doing this. While seeing "Unitasock" makes it clear that it is Unitanode, those that know Unitanode have no way of knowing about Unitasock. My previous discussion with this user on the matter of prodding was not very productive so I am not leaving it to others to look at this issue.

I will reserve personal judgment other than saying it gives me pause for concern and leave it up to folks not involved in the current unreferenced BLP deletion content dispute(you know who you are). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct the details as it was me that brought it to Chillums attention, the alternative account is marked as such and is not new as such, it is from Aug 2009, but it was the way unitanode moved from his main account when he was requested to stop to the alternative account in what looks like an attempt to continue with his actions without attracting attention to his main account. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. My primary point was not the creation of the account but rather the manner in which the editing switched over when such editing was criticized. It gives at the very least the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will recuse from further comment here, since I've had interaction with the editor in the last few days of which i idn;t think too much, but this look like blatant "good hand, bad hand" socking and bordering on trolling. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Respectfully request that the second account be retired. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)co

Brief explanation

1. My criteria for placing the tag is, does it have sources of any kind? If no, I tag it. If yes, I quickly check them, to make certain it's not just a fan blog or something of that sort.
2. If it has a source, I stub-ify the article to only the bare facts of the subject's notability, and remove the "unsourced" tag.
3. The reason I use Unitasock, is because it's contribution list is easier to cut-and-paste so as to create a holding area for the articles I've worked on (both PROD tags placed, and other work).
4. As someone mentioned here, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I'm keeping a log of my work on the Unitanode userpage, and a subpage listing all articles I've worked on.

I'm doing my best to work on a significant problem in the project. I have no problem with people coming behind me and working through the list to try to source these articles. UnitAnode 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why did you move to your alternative account? Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  Read #3 again. I use it because it makes it easier to keep a running log of my work. The Special:contributions list is basically uncluttered there, so it's easier to cut-and-paste from. Nothing sinister or nefarious about it. UnitAnode 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair explanation, and sorry to have speculated otherwise here. I'm not the one who brought the report and I would not have on the sole issue of having two accounts. I would encourage everyone to consider this particular question settled (but not necessarily the issue of prodding articles). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass-prodding

I also note that Unitanode and his sock have been warned not to engage in indiscriminate[64] mass-prodding of unsourced BLPs pending the outcome of WP:RFC/BLP and has at this point announced that an intention to continue even though expecting to be brought to AN/I[65][66] and blocked for it,[67] and refuses to discuss the matter further.[68] I am currently spot checking the latest round of PRODs, and will report back shortly on what the false positive rate seems to be. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
2. Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination - few sources and notability could reasonably be questioned. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
3. Makio Akiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
4. Akufen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, clearly notable and easily sourceable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
5. Gianne Albertoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with hundreds (per google, which usually overstates) of foreign language news sources. Weak stub article, but no obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
6. Karl Alpiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. Very short stub article with no material that could possibly be considered controversial.
7. Joanna Ampil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. No plausible controversial information.

I could go on but that's enough to convince me that most of these PRODs will not stand under the current deletion policy. That policy is being actively tested and debated at the RfC, and in the likely event that we do end up requiring all BLP articles to be sourced we will have an orderly procedure for making that happen. Making mass disputed content edits (or depending on how you look at it, mass invocation of procedure) while the policy is under active debate is pretty disruptive. On the mitigating side Unitanode has made only 20-30 nominations in this latest round, and none so far after being warned or after this report started. However, given the editor's announced intention not to stop unless made to do so, it pretty much forces either a block or an acceptance that an indefinite number of articles will now be prodded, which is either going to have to be undone, or if it stands would render the many editors' efforts at RfC moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I have removed your "resolved" tag because this is not resolved. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny most certainly is an admin issue and can require action. If you wish to give an opinion on this matter then please do, but I see no basis for resolving this mere minutes after it was posted. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• At 23,49 tonight Unitanode made this comment on Lar's talkpage.. I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode ...at 23.50, one minute later he started to edit and prod under the alternative account. A clear case of delibrate avoidance. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I have no intention of blocking anyone I am involved in a content dispute with, I only said to him if he edit warred to replaced the {{prod}} tag and continued beyond warnings that the result would be a block, but not from me. He has not to my knowledge edit warred to replace any prod tags yet, I was responding to his hypothetical respond to them being removed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the timing and the actions, the account they're expecting to be sullied with a block is the alternate account, so it does appear to be using an alternate bad hand account to avoid scrutiny. There has been considerable discussion about this editor's civility on this issue as well, so there seems to be an overall breakdown in collaboration with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) stricken by Wikidemon in light of explanation given above

Would you please stop trying to archive an active discussion less than 30 minutes old? It is very rude and clearly the matter is not resolved(you can tell because people are still talking). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to listen to concerns about editing behaviour makes Unitanode ideal admin material, and he'll probably be an Arb this time next year. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously getting sick of your sniping. The above comment is unhelpful and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Something needs to happen here, Unitanode is again saying on his talkpage that he needs to get back to work and how it is some massive problem and there are 50 000 more to prod, at least he is keeping a list , I worked through the top half in a couple of hours and cited them all, some of them were clearly very notable people, very multiple external links supporting content, none of them were derogatory or libelous in any way. If this mission is continued we will fast become swamped with the work it is creating. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain exactly what the problem is here? --TS 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a gadfly, but doesn't the recent ArbCom decision at least implicitly condone the actions he is taking? -- Atama頭 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Resp to TS) Avoiding scrutiny, or operating a Good Hand/Bad Hand account? Not that this is necessarily the case, but the basis upon which other inhabitants of this board might review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I should hope they're not encouraging systematic rule-breaking. It would be best if this issue can be handled here and doesn't have to go back to Arbcom so quickly. Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if a quorum here finds that the user in question is performing "good hand, bad hand" tactics to avoid scrutiny and is being apparently careless in prodding (which upon inspection, I believe to be the case), we're well within our rights to stop the action if deemed disruptive. While I'm sure we're gonna' get a lot of "arbcom said this!" to excuse behavior, careless deletion and prodding wastes people's time and is disruptive, "good intentions" aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really condoning this action, that as I read it said, people should take their time and policy still applies, users should not systematically prod uncited blp articles, care should be taken in all aspects of editing, for example Unitanode prodded Paul-Marie Coûteaux this article, he is clearly notable. Prodding should not be done willy nilly like this, an editor should still take a little time to improve it first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody tried asking? There's loads of possible reasons, editing from different locations, maintaining a separate watchlist etc. There is certainly no subterfuge over whom the account belongs to.   pablo_hablo. 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that belongs in the above subsection where the socking is being discussed? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what the issue is with Unitanode putting PROD tags on things. Especially given the analysis above being a bit off the mark, it's not about whether the article COULD be sourced, it's about whether it HAS them... were there any that were prodded that actually were well sourced?

I am also unclear why anyone (with sufficient clue, anyway) would want to, at this time, remove PROD tags from unsourced BLPs without fixing them. I suggest that to do so would be really poor form, to say the least. I suggest folk not do it. Show the nasty BLP crusaders a thing or two about how wrong headed they are... by actually fixing things that have sat around for years unfixed instead of hanging out here on the dramahboards. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, why the rush to PROD al 50,000 of them? Indiscriminate PRODding is frankly clueless. Surely it's due diligence to actually read the article and check any external links for something that establishes notability and, if none is found, to check for some and check the history and whatlinkshere before slapping a PROD on it. Judging by the speed and inaccuracy of Unitanode's tagging, I find it hard to believe that he's doing any of those things. I agree that many need to be deleted but mass-PRODding all of them does nothing to help this mess. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of his PRODs lacked sources as of when they were PRODded? That's the issue, not whether they COULD be sourced. Not his problem. All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off being an unreferenced BLP last I checked was not a reason for deletion. Secondly {{prod}} is to check if something is uncontroversial to delete, this is clearly not the case. Finally the real issue seems to be Uni's insistence that he will re-prod any articles that the prod is removed from, and his flat out refusal to spend a mere 5 minutes checking if the article is salvagable. Arbcom does not dictate policy, only motions so unless consensus changes then neither should policy. Unless arbcom comes along and makes a motion that Uni is doing right I think we should just follow consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see editors systematically adding prods to blps as crusaders of any kind, a robot could do that, something worthwhile is adding a reference to an uncited article, a robot couldn't do that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

since the user has a criteria, it cannot - by definition - be indiscriminate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say. Hasty, perhaps, but not indiscriminate. -- Atama頭 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Off: "crusaders" Me either. Obligated to do something that's needed doing for 3 years? Not me. Try again. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to add information and references to Hiroshi Abe (astronomer), Makio Akiyama, Akufen, Gianne Albertoni and Karl Alpiger. Joanna Ampil is not tagged anymore. Information is online regarding Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, but it requires subscription access. Warrah (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's very simple. Arbcom, with a handful of admin allies like Lar, have decided to say "fuck you" to community processes. Like Lar, they are not interested in adding sources to articles. Some people get their kicks from destroying rather than creating, and it's pointless trying to change them because they've got the biggest sticks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. you forgot to mention those who like to remain complacent... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can avoid too much meta-conversation about what the policy is and should be. What is clear is that the policy is disputed right now, and there is a question about mass edits (and potentially use of tools) to favor a change in the status quo. As far as the "three years" and "complacency" arguments there is an active WP:RFC/BLP going on, with almost unanimous agreement to work towards a defined date where there will be no more unreferenced BLPs, so it's simply not the case that nobody is doing anything about it. Other pages are for policy work. The concern here is editing that if carried out to a wider extent takes the decision away from the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A genuine question

I read repeated references to "uncontroversial" statements that are not sourced not needing to be deleted; and I can't help but wonder how, exactly, one can possibly know whether a statement is uncontroversial without a source to back it up? For all you know, even a bare birthday can be both controversial and land someone in a mess, think longevity records, for instance, or current age where it has a legal impact? Birthplace? Obama anyone? "Afred J. Binks is the prime minister of Strangia". Uncontroversial? Or maybe it's "Alfred G. Binks", and J. is a serial murderer.

The fact is, without a reliable source, any statement is impossible to declare "uncontroversial". Notability has nothing to do with it. — Coren ^(talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coren, go and click the random article button. Keep clicking it until you find any non-trivial article where every single basic fact is traceable to an inline, immediately verifiable, obviously reliable, source, that makes that article, by your standards, 100% uncontroversial. I am guessing you will still be clicking by the middle of next week, and beyond, especially if you fixed each one as you went. If this is the true issue, prodding unreffed blps is not the solution, or even the start of a solution. MickMacNee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or even just flipping through FAs would be an interesting exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, having a source doesn't make the statement any more reliable. Many of the best sources are behind paywalls, or in books. And lots of editors misrepresent sources, some intentionally, others through good faith misunderstanding. The only articles that are well sourced are the controversial ones, the ones in which you have two large groups of editors fighting tooth and nail over every source, what it means, and how much weight should be placed on it. Sourcing is one step. Having the article reviewed is another step. But it's all a continuum. And pretending that adding a source suddenly draws a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable is fallacious. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, Coren would eventually come across Charles Fryatt . Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single fact in every single article should be supportable by the sources cited for that article, per WP:V and WP:RS (and by extension WP:NPOV). That does not mean that every sentence needs footnoting, if we have a couple of biographies cited then most of the background detail will come from them and does not need to be separately footnoted unless there is something unusual like a dispute, a fact only in one of several sources or a "WTF?" where the reader is likely to want to verify that specific statement. I do foresee a problem in those articles on individuals for whom Wikipedia is the first formal published biography and all the content is drawn from news reports and discussions of the individual's work. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my views on what should be done about subjects where we are the first to cover them in depth. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing "Standard"

A very serious but mostly ignored matter is the sourcing "standard" being used by some proposing and performing mass deletions. For instance, we are informed that labelling an otherwise acceptable reference, supporting most of the article, under "Further reading" instead of "References" is a deletion-worthy flaw.[69], that not fixing all categories and templates is equally cause for deletion/userification[70], and that the deleting admin is apparently the sole judge of what constitutes a reliable source, even though the source has a long history of debate at WP:RS/N with mixed results, sometimes yes, sometimes no.[71].John Z (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's WP:IAR or WP:BLP or just WP:LAR... Pcap ping 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock for User:TH43 related ips?

User:TH43 was recently blocked for edit warring and vandalism and then found to be using sockpuppets. All of this has not derailed him from his task of purging the Law & Order and Jon & Kate Plus 8 articles of sources he considers unnecessary (he does not believe information needs to be referenced if it has come to pass). He has been coming back using a range of ip addresses that all being with 174.91.xx.xx. A list of the current suspected socks of this user can be found . I would ask that this user be rangeblocked temporarily to see if we can curb the vandalism coming from him on a now daily basis using a slightly different ip. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Law & Order article. Malinaccier has semi-protected the Jon & Kate Plus 8 article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine and thank you, but it unfortunately only turns his attention to other articles, such as List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes and 7th Heaven, the first of which he removed references from without explanation[72] and the latter of which had a link to a separate article on DVDs added in violation of a WP:AFD discussion.[73][74] This person certainly seems to be the poster child for WP:DISRUPT. Redfarmer (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard

This AfD is in need of some cool heads due to WP:COI#Financial issues and generally bad faith atmosphere. The article itself has been fully protected due to edit warring. Pcap ping 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also related to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:TonyTheTiger compensated editing, fwiw. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

I frankly don't care what happens at the BLP RfC anymore but this surely can't be the sort of behaviour we accept around here. MickMacNee already has an appaling block log. I'm out of here, when I log out in a minute I won't be able to log back in, but I suggest you do something about this sort of thing because the only people that will eventually be left on this project if this is tolerated are people like MickMacNee. Is that really what you want? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's leaders 'lead', not 'leave'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As will you, if you don't watch out. Go away. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more than ironic that all of this is going on during the Dramaout.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dramaout ended 6 hours, 19 minutes ago. --Jayron32 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

was going on. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer to see MickMacNee strike out the blatant personal attacks there, calling another person "incompetant" and making allusions that they should be shot in the head is probably a tad bit "over the top" and by tad bit, I mean "absofuckinglutely over the top". That has to stop, now. I will not block, but I would not oppose or object should another admin see this as a gross personal attack. --Jayron32 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MMN's harsh rhetoric shows no sign of stopping[75] I for one considered his earlier statement that editors mentioned above completely inappropriate, and part of an ongoing pattern. I'm heading off to bed right now, so I am not going to block and head off, but I would support a block by an uninvolved administrator. NW (Talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario evading his indef block

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on January 7 for disruptive editing relating to edit warring and constantly inserting unreferenced information into articles. Before his block, a previous investigation found that he frequently edited without logging in, always from IPs in the Atlanta area. StevenMario appears to be continuing this pattern, still editing from IPs from the same area and are editing the same articles with the same pattern that StevenMario followed. The 68.223.0.0/18 range has already been blocked by MuZemike, but today StevenMario returned on 68.219.194.174 - his latest forays have all been in the 68.219.x.x range... I'm afraid we may need a bigger block for this kid... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way - you'd need a formal checkuser done to confirm that they are the same user, and to determine if a second range block is necessary. As it is, the IPs you list here are too far apart to be blocked in one action (the most we can do is a /16 range, such as 12.12.*.*). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that route already - CheckUser was declined with the " Looks like a duck to me" reasoning - it's obvious it's him... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:76.91.189.163 reported at AIV, but somebody neds to block them quickly

Resolved

 – 76.91.189.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See 76.91.189.163 (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Massive undoing of another editor's edits. They need a quick block and all of their edits reverted, really fast. Woogee (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. (Edit-warring block for 31 hrs) I would note that some of their past edits were constructive and thus talking to the user is advised. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)