Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681

User:Alvez3

User:Alvez3 made this posting on my Talk page which IMHO is an unprovoked/unjustified personal attack . He/she changed some long-standing text (in place for at least 2 years) in the Nomenclature section of Byzantine Empire – a section which has been controversial but is now stable and the article itself is FA. I’ve reverted with edit summaries and a posting on the article Talk page explaining why I believed the text should be left as is. He/she hasn’t posted a reply (but has posted his view on my Talk page, but without commenting on the points I made in the article Talk). He’s reverted my reverts (in which I was trying to maintain the long-standing text) 4 times over 7 days. (Sorry, I’ll probably be criticized for my reverts. After my last revert, I did post a 3RR warning on his Talk page - which he deleted - in which I said I wouldn’t revert again even if he reverted. He reverted again.) I think I’ve been civil throughout, but he doesn’t seem to understand that per WP:BRD he needs to obtain consensus to make his change. Is there anything that can be done about that or the personal attack per WP:NPA? (I've notified the User of this thread on his/her Talk page) DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have warned Alvez3 about personal attacks, also about edit warring, and told him to engage in discussion. DeCausa, yes, you were edit warring too - if I blocked Alvez3 I would have to block you as well. I see the page is now locked. Hopefully discussion without personal attacks can proceed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. DeCausa (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaining about edit-warring while edit-warring himself is typical behavior for Decausa. It's something he's done repeatedly. At some point, being lenient just means being taken advantage of. Mindbunny (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

After perusing this thread I visited Byzantine Empire and reverted to the long-standing version. It seemed appropriate to me that that version should prevail on this featured article whilst any discussion took place. Alvez, responded by putting this on my talk page, a personal attack of the same sort that Elen warned him about. I replied to his message on my own talk page and urged him to participate in the discussion at the article talk page, something he still hasn't done. Naturally, since I replied on my own talk page, I dropped a talkback template on his. He responded to that with this (my "demeanor" consisted at that point of a single revert) and this. Take a look at that last one. He's threatening to file a complaint because I let him know that I had replied to him on my talk page. This unfortunate fellow really seems to have gotten the wrong idea about how things work here. Isn't there some way an administrator can help him to see things more clearly?

Also, just as a note, from what I can see at the history page of "Byzantine Empire", no one has committed more than a single revert a day there for at least the last several days. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked him (note, I made a hash of it and accidentally listed it as edit warring to start with, but he hasn't edited the article since this started). He needs to communicate better with people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For information, Alvez3 just before he was blocked posted this on my Talk page in which he accused me of recruiting someone to edit war on my behalf! I presume he's referring to Steven J. Anderson, with whom I've never had any interreaction. I think he's just pretty clueless on Wikipedia processes/policies e.g. he complained about me putting putting an note about the existence of this thread on his Talk page as it "clearly looks like an attempt to influence an ongoing dispute by demonstrating authority where there is none"! DeCausa (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this always bad form: "After perusing this thread I visited Byzantine Empire and reverted" The only effect of reverting because you object to an editor's behavior is to inflame whatever content dispute it is that is aggravating the editor. Other than obvious exceptions like vandalism, edit articles because your opinion about the content, not about the editor's behavior.Mindbunny (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Bunny stop trolling/baiting...none of this is any of your business right? After the last ANI thread where you whined that people shouldn't be following others around...how are you not a hypocrite here? ...and yes, your bad faith edits have my attention.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny has her own problems. It's pointless to engage, just ignore. DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for a page notice on the article for the band Attack Attack!

Due to many not understanding that the use of the term "crabcore" (a joke genre made for the band Attack Attack!) is not a real genre, nor notable, but has had reached much discussion and has gotten the page protected many times for IP addresses referring to the band as such or using it as a joke against them. I've suggested to create a page notice for the band's article for those who are unaware that it is considered vandalism. I've crafted it below and I believe it should be added on as the article's page notice as soon as it can be done. I would have done it myself already, but as you may know; page notices can only be applied by administrators to articles. • GunMetal Angel 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the code for the template from the Caillou page notice due to persistent vandalism on the notorious children's television character being allegedly victim to cancer (being used so as a joke or insult to his appearance). The "crabcore" joke for Attack Attack! began as an Internet meme as an attack on the band since in their video they are shown crouching-down and swaying side-to-side while playing their instruments. So among the case of Caillou having a page notice over the same amount of overdone vandalism appearing on the article, the case for Attack Attack! is practically the same suit of clothes, just in different colors. So how 'bout it? -- GunMetal Angel 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the talk page. BurtAlert (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the editor doesn't know that it's a joke? Good faith attempts to improve an article shouldn't be called vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not responsible for user ignorance. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you were. But you are supposed to assume good faith and welcome the newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the wording of this edit notice is not very welcoming and as written I don't support it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I also think it should be made a good deal more friendly - lose the threat, explain something about the joke, and just say something like "So please don't add it". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to work it out, a user comes there to edit, nothing about crabcore - and he goes to edit and he gets this please don't post the crabcore stuff. IMO just revert and welcome.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm no. This happens in bigger doses then you think. If a page can get protected all for the sole reason of writing "crabcore" on the page numerous times, then yes it needs a page notice, it's not just a few IPs, it's been between 50—100 so far just within the recent 500 edit history. If anyone agrees that the notice may seem harsh, then remove the threat and re-word it, but in the case of the template being added as a page notice, I still remain more on the scale of it needing to be done then suggesting it. • GunMetal Angel 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Please do NOT add any mentions of the term "crabcore" as a serious notation; this is not a real genre. If you have any questions, please ask on the talk page." You can also create a FAQ on the talk page that explains why crabcore shouldn't be added as a genre. If someone enquires about it on the talk page, you can refer them to the FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good basic approach. The specific wording can tweaked further if necessary. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How many times has this been crabcored since last page protection? Is it still a serious problem? As requester Gunmetal Angel you might like to answer this. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the problem was mostly from IPs, and the article was semiprotected for six months on 3 February, this edit notice may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge, good idea. The wording change is appropricate. @Moriori, yes it is a serious problem, everytime the page is unprotected this is bound to come along, having it protected for that exact reason is bad enough. @EdJohnson; we're not supposed to rely on an article's protection to keep back somehing that will never be fixed without an edit notice. Wikipedia is supposed to be something where everyone can edit and without a simple notice of what not to do on a specific article, how is that not needed? Pretty nessesary to me, hence I still stay by that this needs to be done. • GunMetal Angel 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A custom edit notice seems like way to serious a step for... "crabcore". The pace of such edits does not seem all that exceptional, especially with the semi-protection. I cant really support this when frankly its not serious enough to make a 'special case' of it, which is what a custom edit notice implies. -- ۩ Mask 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple IPs

• 1.33.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 119.245.91.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 119.245.89.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'd like to direct your attention here and also at these diffs: [1] [2] [3] and there are many more diffs on the User talk:Bongwarrior history page. This vandal is utilising multiple IPs to attack editors. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just kiddies playing. The pages have been protected for a while. EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User Slrubenstein

Resolved

Please consider yet another evolutionary action for this novice editor This users typical communication style is denigrating by way of unspecified negativity:

• "nothing you have" written is valid; everything you have written is "[completely] worthless".
• After deleting an entire day of my editing effort, without discussion they said "I really do not see how it is a worthwhile use of my time to give you any more feedback". Does this violate WP:Editing policy by removing without discussion?
• following me around, undoing my edits
• demanding expertise (Please consider the WP:experts are scum essay in this reguard.)
• psychobabble where serious discussion with me is warranted: "Wikipedia is not about temptation, and I am not your tutor."

See the discussions hear, here, and here. Slrubenstein lacks knowledge of the Wikipedia culture, is bold, and yet too defensive for communication, remaining silent on issues they might better apologize for. I give it up to you to judge my own hypocritical judgment. I have tried, and so have others. — CpiralCpiral 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset at having your work reverted, in the future you can avooid that by proposing large changes and rewrites on the talkpage before adding them to the article. In this case most of your edits were clearly not based in a sufficient level of knowledge about the topic and in fact completely misrepresented while also not being based in sources. It is a strong word to call your contribution worthless, but in terms of our mission of improving the wikipedia by using the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR to add and expand our article content it was not strictly speaking an wrong evaluation. You are not being quite truthful that Slrubenstein has refused to give you feedback, he has in fact argued at length trying to explain to you why your edits were not an improvement to the article. He said that he would give no more feedback when after extended discussion you still did not appear to understand. He did undid your correction of grammar, but you do not show that he then immediately after proceded to undo his reversal and let your correction stand. Slrubenstein does have an abrasive tone in discussions, that is trur and I have asked him to tone it down sometimes, but he not really being incivil here. But actuallt I do understand his frustration when users undertake major rewrites of articles without doing the basic research necessary for understanding what the actual topic of the article. I don't think there is basis for sanctions here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand me wrongly. I am happy about the reversion, and hope the best afterword, as is evidenced by my repeated efforts to make progress. It seems to me you swerved off early on, and landed at a destination not tied to the original investigative request. Your narrative of events is commendable, but vacant concerning my unmet need, as asserted. My fault and my subjective frame of reference here is not lost to me, and I don't understand why my fault needs to be questioned or pointed out here. Slrubensteins faults are what seems lost here. You have said Slrubenstein is "strong" and "not incivil", but you give no proof, as I have, that there is a problem letting Slrubenstein run rampant. An objective, factual, and specific inquiry into the charges I have laid out here, should be considered.

To answer your other charge against me: per Slrubenstein's talk page, I requested he explain his edit, and his response was relevent: silence. Yes, he did revert (irrelevent), but there was no apology, or effort on his part to acknowledge his errant (and suspicious) behavior and subsequent uncivil remarks to me ("I am not your tutor." he said!)— CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think the problem is that you've been adding original research. You removed sourced material from Cultural relativism, and replaced it with unsourced material such as: "Cultural relativism is the cultural aspect of relativism. Like any science cultural relativism has a philosophy that attempts to justify its structural aspects," and "What is really right philosophically, for being moral, is a question that asks how we know what we know to be morally true in the largest conceivable structure of an absolute, objective reality." [4]

Again, the problem is as the original assertion stated. If there is a serious problem with me, please let it be made a different subject. Thank you. Currently, I am the patient one with the unmet need for recognition of stalking and repeated incivility.— CpiralCpiral 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That kind of edit will always be removed if spotted, because our articles have to comply with the three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. That means you should include reliable sources for any edit likely to be challenged, which is practically everything in an area like this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel like the focus should be on me or my work. Here I am being accused of lying and misbehaving as if I did not already know I was wrong for my action. If one does research on my style, history, and level of quality, they will find differently than to conceive of my portrayal here. Respectfully, perhaps I expect too much from this administrative body, and I can only applaud the good reminders (that I need occasionally) that I need to prove by citing, (such things as that "cultural relativism" relates culture and relativism), and go on, happily patted and advised on a matter differently than I ever expected could be seriously taken up by more than one councilor.

Nothing to see here. Cpiral, you may wish to request input from additional editors if Slrubenstein's explanations do not satisfy you; this is the first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I being clear? What can I do to be actually heard rather than spoken to? Can I get some acknowledgment here, please? — CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but referring to an admin, who has had an account since 2001, as a "novice" is not likely to lead to winning your argument. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Think again, for the linked-to page from the term "novice" shows, indeed that Slrubenstein is a novice editor. Furthermore, I'm not so desparate that I need to flatter my way into the good graces of some lordship's judgement. Who were you referring to? I have limited patience for this so-called "hearing". Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing#The_assumption_of_limitless_patience

• "Novice editor" is a joke.
• SLR's earliest contrib page
• SLR's edit count
• It should have been quite clear from what SLR wrote that he isn't a novice, and is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies.
• You have been answered already more than once, it's simply that the answer isn't one you want to hear: You are wrong. SLR is right. Move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most radical claim of Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is that a set of random processes (including genetic mutation and natural disasters) can produce order."

SLR's first edit! Doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy? Natural selection of course is explicitly non-random, but hey, knowing what you are talking about was never a reason to edit wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elipses, I understand you to say that natural selection is non-randomly "random", and that the future possibilities of life's warmth of mitochondria and fuzziness of mental existence is a strengthening challenge. And in my own way, I similarly agree. But mammalian life will be as narrow in the physics as it is now in the universe. In the metaphysical mystery of "randomness", things exist objectively because societies like Wikipedia believe them to exist. Knowing what one we are ilucidating here, me, or Wikipedia, is speculating as metaphysicians. Any steadfast beliefs I may have may not be, as you say, a reason for me to edit Wikipedia. Your thesis also implies that in the end, the best Darwinian, physically adapted societies and "planettes", accordingly, will survive in existence, and this in turn means we as individuals in a society make metaphysical decisions that risk physical outcomes. Now it seems to me that in the longest surviving societies, knowledge will be widespread in harmonious knowing what to program. We risk as we must...taking care... — CpiralCpiral 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrate the point exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.25.166 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to explain your point, not demonstrate it. Now, reconsidering the original statement I was trying to understand and reflect here, with the additional clue from an IP who claims to know what I only try, I will reconsider, because I care very much. Please advise. The meaning of "random processes (like natural disasters and genetic mutation)" is that it relates to "knowing what you are talking about was never a reason to edit Wikipedia" in the following way: my writing is a disastrous mutation, and it's incomprehensibility, although I may feel comfortable with it, (and carefully select it for posting here) is never a reason to think others should try, because it is a priori wrong, unless cited. Right? Have I got it??

Seriously, I am sorry for being such a dupe for SLR's "novice editor" joke. I have respect for contributors of such magnitude. I would of course not have so quickly grieved or formed an opinion, had I investigated the image of what I now see as the rather large arch hive on the same page as the "barnstar". I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time. I hope SLR stayed busy doing something other than bothering with my whispered pontification.

Honestly, try to understand. I do not like having to summon the ANI, but I only sought a fulfillment of (an illusory and futile) labor. I am wrung-out. — CpiralCpiral 04:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cpiral, Maunus gave you good advice and Slim Virgin explained the problem pretty well. 2/0's comment is a bit misplaced since you're already receiving feedback from other editors, as Beyond My Ken explained. You mention that "I do not have a mastery of the subject, but I am a four-year degree in electrical engineering, and am well read in many disciplines"[5] If you are well-read about cultural relativism then the cure for this dispute is obvious: just cite your edits to reliable sources about that subject. Otherwise, you should probably study the subject a bit before making those types of edits to the article (you don't have to become an expert). Discussing proposed changes on the talk page is also a good practice in these situations. Right now, you are editing like WP:RANDY, which is not a good thing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will laugh, and move on pretending SLrubenstein is a genius politico, feigning a polite silence to set me up because he loves Wikipedia's side-effects. Ha Ha Ha Ha. In all sincerity, without joking, so do I.— CpiralCpiral 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag for the moment. Cpiral, consider this a formal warning: do not make personal attacks against other editors as you did here. Doing so, on an admin board no less, is not conducive to a cooperative environment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I await, but for what? A threat I made?! (I don't think so.) 2over0 and Beyond My Ken said to "move on", and I decided to do so by adding the resolved tag. Please, if the moment is not deemed past, open another case, as this one is too vague so far. Who, pray tell, except a surf or addict will bow down to general denigration or a negation of self, when it is well known that each of us must love and approve of ourself excepting for specific errors? — CpiralCpiral 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've added the "ProveIt" gadget to my editing palette if that placates SLR, Maunus, and SlimVirgin.— CpiralCpiral 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed this ANI proceeding. I see where I was wrong to beleaguer being generally misunderstood, as this is a policy violation forum, and I asked (!) if it violated policy by reverting without discussion! I know this is not a policy violation, but for a novice, any move is questionable. (So I mislead Manaus and SlimVirgin. Very sorry. Thanks for useless input.) I am not comfortable with continuing because my premise was that SLR was a novice editor. When I understood that SLR is a joking administrator of Wikipedia, then I subconsciously dropped my memory of the mention or suggestion (please see that original question mark I made) that any move (such as reverting) is questionable. SLR knows what SLR is doing. When I started "Please consider an evolutionary action" I did not have any action in mind. I was reporting a rogue novice. That report has been made. I don't know what even could be considered an action against good SLR. What wows me to say this is 1) reviewing SLR's home page (which appears to be hung with cited poetry ("Give criticism arms/ And states can be demolished by it") and many beautiful book titles about cultural knowledge), and 2) comparing this proceeding to the one above! [6] I don't want to draw any more attention to SLR or myself such as the Support and Oppose stuff. There is nothing here but my misguided effort to get something done about what appeared to me was a novice editor ignorant of what I consider simple civility. I'm OK, OK? I see where SLR was wrong, but I no longer care one bit about his incivility, misleading "jokes", multiple ANI escapades, and I don't want SLR to change one bit. I am the open-minded, talkative, rational, caring, changling, and certainly, I have every right to avoid being Opposed for any reason. ASAPlease put the resolved template back, someone, for Cpiral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and let me go and write my love poetry. — CpiralCpiral 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

— CpiralCpiral 06:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ap parently we are dumb. I had the problem here. It was Slsuberstein. The title "User Slrubenstein" was meant to organize this mess. I stupidly rejected, and do continue to reject, all descriptions of my problem by others.

I say "stupidly" because apparently, ANI, ala Bite, has a newly uncovered problem... with me, and no other ANI representative, has a problem with Bite's problem with me. Apparently, stupidity is recursive (problems with problems), fractionating like a beautiful fractal. I hope the metting out of the punnishment this silence fills me with, because it concerns the Wikipedia I love, has been as amusing to Bite, as it has to me, so far, inwardly.

I smartly admit I'm amazed at you all's displayed intelligence, except for when immediately after I bite—when most of all, your love must become like a parent' s bitten hand, apparent, displayed, proven love—there non-display, but instead, paralysis on ANI's side, whose only conceivable merit is to wring-out the bush-birds on my side. I have nothing fearing. My love can flow, despite the dam. Love's the way I read WP:policy, that the love can flow by way of forgiveness, tolerance, etc.

Dumb does work, hardly, ever. But please, no more here. Silence like a cancer... I understand such Wikipedia administrative depth as un-democracy, rule-breaking, and I even rationalize all this, the epitome of apparent "inefficiency", as a side-effect of a "people-first" type approach to life. I understand the freedom of abstention, and grant it grudgingly. There seems to be a lot of the idea of "understanding" here, but no action. I love Wikipedia for that, but I am wrung-out here, because I am different, than to be comfortable here, for any of your unstated reasons, Bite.

I may suck here, my fellow picky-eaters of poetry, but I learned to endure and appreciate who and what poetic metaphysical nonsense I am, because I am also rock solid in the physical, and scientific body of Wikipedia. Thus I wish to return and persevere in reasoned discussions of cultural relativity.

Believe me, I will not make the decision of approaching ANI so lightly again, or any version of its scary, stairy escalation lightly, or any other such dim and wasteful distractions as this. Please let me go, somebody who can empathize, and let this be resolved here and now. Bite is not working. Must I escalate this recursive stupidity, this fract-all-unfill, troubled ticket to get resolution here? How dumb are we? I'm too ignorant to know. Peace. Out. — CpiralCpiral 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the resolved tag as you requested, because there's no admin action required at the moment. Cpiral, if you make sure you add reliable sources for all your edits, and stick reasonably closely to what the sources say, all should be well. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Overtly racist edits redux

• Giornorosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dezidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Giornorosso was blocked following this ANI request. Shortly thereafter, User:Dezidor showed up at articles recently edited by Giornorosso. Looking through Dezidor's contributions I noted that they had added Barack Obama's portrait to Mulatto, which is exactly what Giornorosso did in one of the edits I included in the initial report. The IP user:90.177.208.162, which locates to the Czech Republic, seems likely to be involved as well. Again, I am requesting a block for this user. It would be nice if a checkuser could also take a look and if interested editors would go through Dezidor's edit history to look for possible POV issues. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Dezidor indefinitely. The block evasion combined with the racism were both out of line. NW (Talk) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have received an e-mail from Dezidor (talk · contribs), in which he denied any connection with Giornorosso (talk · contribs) and asked me to unblock him. (I don't want to unilaterally reverse the block.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser request

• Sock 1
• Sock 2
• Sock 3

Requesting indef blocks for the users and IP (or rangeblock if using multiple IPs). Requesting checkuser to discover any other latents.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI exists for a reason. All blocked, though. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't traditional socking (only 1 edit per account) and SPI would probably take longer. I do file there normally. Thank you for taking care of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother with the SPI case, I got it. The following are  Confirmed:

• Ggrks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xjaphater2010x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xdesiccatedjap2010x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• True64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Windowsxp2010 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xactionjapx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JPWikiUser (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Youtube2011 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. You do a good job.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User Gawhie and User Yawnii

User:Gawhie[7] and User:Yawnii User talk:Yawnii[8] keep recreating similar pages that are then listed for speedy deletion. Please help slow/stop this. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Though these accounts are suspiciously similar in terms of edits, I don't see an issue here. All of the created pages are template sandbox pages, which are well out of the way of the public eye and not inherently vandalistic. What exactly is problematic about this? elektrikSHOOS 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. I'm going to go ahead and do that now. elektrikSHOOS 16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't look to be in any sandbox - appending /sandbox to a page in actual Wikipedia: space doesn't put in in a sandbox. Or am I missing something? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoop, serves me right for having just a cursory glance at the user talk page. Proceed as normal without me having ever talked. elektrikSHOOS 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything actually wrong with these pages or is it just that they are test pages and so shouldn't be in wikipedia or template name space? if so has anyone suggested they create these pages in user space? If they keep creating pages in user space that serve no purpose and given they don't have any other edits that may be a problem but perhaps the only reason they are creating so many is they keep being deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point - I see no sign of anyone offering help on how to make test edits. I have to rush away now, but I'll try to help later if nobody beats me to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

COI editor adding selfsourced content to Dolphin drive hunting

Resolved

(User blocked 24h.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

A new user Jddlondon who appears to be John Dineley, an aquarium industry consultant and the owner of marineanimalwelfare.com is adding content sourced to the latter to the article, doesn't react to notes and warnings on his talkpage and just started socking as IP 86.161.133.54. Could an admin please take care of this? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• It won't go away by itself.TMCk (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've actually just blocked them; my response was edit-conflicted by your (somewhat impolite) reminder. You're welcome though :) EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well then sorry, wasn't meant to be inpolite and thanks for taking care of.TMCk (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
      Although I don't think a short block for editwarring isthe solution (that's why I brought them here and not to AN3.TMCk (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
      ...though your note might do ;) TMCk (talk)
      • No worries :) The block was only 24 hours because it's their first (and it's partly just to get their attention since they seem to be ignoring everything else). If a short block doesn't work, the next will be much longer. Hopefully that won't be necessary though. EyeSerene^talk 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to out a Wiki user and intimidation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Babasalichai

This is a blatant and clear attempt to out a Wiki user and intimidation. Pls assist. Babasalichai (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sockpuppetry investigations are not WP:OUTING any more than looking up the WHOIS information on an IP account is. Looks to me like an ill-advised attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jonathangluck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jonathanglick13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A quick perusal of the SPI shows from overwhelming behavioral evidence and self-identification that these are all the same user. Since Jonathangluck is currently blocked, this means that he's evading that block. He should have his block reset, possibly extended, and the other two accounts should be indeffed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It can be entertaining when the subject of an SPI goes to the SPI page and digs the hole even deeper. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*passes the popcorn* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Babasalichai and Jonathanglick13 indefblocked; Jonathangluck reblocked and block extended to 48 hours. EyeSerene^talk 10:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudos for that, EyeSerene. I was almost convinced that this would go stale and be archived before any action was taken. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-consensual title-changes

Unresolved

 – Pmanderson blocked for 1 week, has requested unblock.

Perennial WP:MOS pagestalker, Pmanderson (talk · contribs), appears to be engaged in a personal campaign to rid Wikipedia of Endashes. He has been continually arguing that MOS is redundant, and that editors should follow external sources or external style guides, in apparent violation of the guideline WP:DASH. It seems that he is not getting his way in the relevant talkpage discussions, he has started arbitrarily changing text within certain articles, substituting hyphens for the endashes that were there. Examples at Mexican-American War (edit summary bizarrely says "restore from MOS errors") and Eye–hand coordination – a sneaky substitution accompanied by word reordering. He reverts when these actions are undone. He seems so far to have stopped short of page moves, but that avenue would seem to be the logical conclusion if his current actions are not nipped in the bud. I would request a warning from an uninvolved admin for him to desist in such edit-warring, and to resume discussions at WT:MOS. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You must use content dispute resolution and 3RR. There is nothing that ANI can do. TFD (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't much care where its handled, I only brought it here because it seemed like a dispute at MOS had spilled over into article space, and that namespace stability appeared threatened. I wasn't aware of the AN3 case, which was filed only minutes before I filed this. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; this is being discussed at 3RR.

If my old opponent from the date delinking case had bothered to look at Talk:Eye–hand coordination, he would have found that that was a disagreement of substance; if he had looked at Talk:Mexican-American War#regrettable edit, he would have found the "MOS breaches" (as some people call them) and error of substance referred to in the edit summary. I must therefore disappoint his malice.

Please let me know if there is any further interest in this piece of forum-shopping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:LAWYER. As to the allegations of forum-shopping, I answered above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson blocked for a week before the nature of the conflict has even become clear to the stupider among us, like me? I'm in no shape to do the required reading tonight (05:30 in my timezone), but provisionally, even though I generally have a lot of trust in Heimstern, I protest against what looks like a draconian and unexplained block. And "perennial WP:MOS pagestalker" is cheap rhetoric unworthy of you, Ohconfucius; it's only the tone and word-choice that make it sound like a bad thing to take an interest in WP:MOS. Please don't hat or archive this thread until more of us have had a chance to check it out and weigh in. Note that there's only an hour between Oh's originary post and Snottywong's "Resolved". (Or else I can't handle timestamps during this bleak and inhospitable part of the 24 hours; that's possible too.) Bishonen | talk 04:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

To be fair, making a decision whether or not to block now rather than wait for discussion to ensue was probably the correct choice. As ANI thread lengths go on with established contributors, the odds of anyone actually doing anything always seems to quickly approach zero. PMAnderson retains the ability to request an unblock. I think we should wait until he can post a cogent unblock request before considering this further. NW (Talk) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I hadn't even seen this ANI thread when I blocked; it was based on an edit warring report. My rationale is here. The length of the block was based largely upon a long history of edit warring blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson has now posted an unblock request as I expected. I'm going to be away from the computer all day today, so I leave it in the hands of the community. I only ask that you read my rationale (linked above) and give it due consideration before coming to a conclusion about unblocking, shortening the block or not taking action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of POV and Unbalanced tags without discussion

I wrote this lines to denounce a violation of Wikipedia policy. As my edits were not accepted by some users, who later accused me of edit-warring, I had to put those tags to made people discuss seriously the issue. My surprise cames when I see not one but twice the removal of the cited tags by users User:Muboshgu and User:TL565, without any discussion, consensus, or anything similar. Their only responses were "We're balanced. consensus does not require 100% agreement" (citing a consensus that doesnt exists) and "no issue". I had never seen such an aggresive attitude to avoid not the inclusion of sourced content, but even the discussion of that content.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now you're forum shopping. I'd strongly...strongly...suggest dispute resolution. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Sincerely, I dont know whats forum shopping until now, believe it or not, but thanks for the information. I simply thought that here was the appropiate place, sorry if I was wrong.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:HCPUNXKID and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Muboshgu. The page history of Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests is pretty horrific - you, Omar-Toons (talk · contribs) and Muboshgu (talk · contribs) have been edit-warring there. You've also been edit-warring with Omar-Toons at 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests, and there are futher reverts at 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. Frankly the three of you are lucky not to be blocked already. If you want my advice, stop reverting (that goes for all three of you) and stick to WP:BRD. It's not the role of admins to decide what is or isn't POV - content is for editors to work out between themselves on the article talk pages. If you're having difficulty doing this then you should follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution. You might consider, for example, opening a request for comment to get more opinions on the articles. Continuing to edit war will result in blocks for all warring editors. EyeSerene^talk 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I have to say that this is mostly on HCPUNXKID. There have been many users who tried to discuss the issue, but he chose to continue his edits (look in the archives on the talk page of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests). Many users agree on one side, while HCPUNXKID is alone on the other. He has also been adding POV and Unbalanced banners making it seem like there is a big controversy when there have been plenty of discussions about it and a majority disagree that there is a big POV issue. TL565 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The issue had not being discussed, as the same article shows. There are at least 3 different positions: exclusion of W. Sahara protests (Template), inclusion with starting date on October 2010 (W. Sahara subsection) and inclusion with starting date on February 2011 (Timeline), all in contradiction in the article. About that it is a matter of me against all users (as TL565 claims since the start), here [[9]] can be seen that at least 3 other users agreed to include the W. Sahara protests, one more that the number of users that want to exclude it. So that opinion could be majoritary or minoritary, but it is not only mine, as also some relevant sources show, to mention the most relevant [[10]],[[11]]. And about the tags, If I am right, they are not for a big, medium or little controversy (who judges the size of it?), but for when there is controversy between editors. I cant understand erasing them, when they state that they should not be removed. As I said, If I put them was to stop the edit-warring and try to discuss the issue, wich it seems to be imposible to some, according to the removal.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment : HCPUNXKID has been reverted many times since his edits are opposed to consensus (examples of what were supposed to be "discussions", failed since a single user can't accept that his opinion is not the consensual one: [12] and [13]), and not only by Muboshgu, but by many users (including me, TL565, Knowledgekid87, 68.7.78.64 (who participated to the discussion on the talk page) and Kapoon129, among others (these are the ones I found on the main history page, there are more according to the talk page). The main discussion on these protests are ongoing in the main article's talk page, not template's one (examples given).

The template removing is discussed here, even are discussed in the same section HCPUNXKID's edits.

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

An aside comment. I noted this discussion so took a look at 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests and needed to go only two paragraphs to see what a mess it is in. The first intro paragraph has three references, none of which even mention the word Sahrawi, or support claims being made. The second paragraph carries the quote ""ongoing discrimination, poverty and human rights abuses against Sahrawi citizens"" which is not mentioned in the reference supposedly supporting it. I stopped there. If there is a Spanish speaking admin observing here, their help is needed at that article (some refs are in Spanish). Moriori (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted some edits because of sources' gambling, he reverted them back, then I gave up.

You can also see the PoV nature of HCPUNXKID's edits in the same article, since he uses some "sources" that clearly show PoV opinions (Afrol, SPS and... Resistencia Sahraui (!)) as references in some "vicitimisation paragraphs". The problem is that you can not discuss anything with him...

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TfD confusion

There are TfDs open from March 6th onwards, eg here. Is this just as a result of admin backlog, or is discussion still being sought? If so, surely open discussions should remain on the main TfD page until closed? Stu.W UK (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Diarrhea

"When is this POV prolivferation going to stop!?" is a disgusting comment in which the user describes my point of view as being "diarrhea" (Serbo-Croatian "proliv") [14] But that's not all, get the "apology" a few seconds later in the edit summary [15]. There the user actually repeats the obscene personal attack, calls me "diktator", and then proceeds to sombrely assert that he has to remove the comment, but can (luckily) continue "thinking it".

I will add that the user has a long history of personal attacks (WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais), with remarks such as "you shit out your words" ("sereš"), "imbecile", "your IQ is minor", "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village", etc. The user was specifically warned with regard to WP:NPA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment was kind of accident, and it was removed by me a few seconds later, as you confirmed. Your NPA issue happend 2 years ago, when I also had reported you several times. You are manipulating now, just as then, the expressions used. And btw, "proliv" in a conversational context means a long, blind insistence on something you actually know it didn´t happend that way. I removed my comment exactly because I figured the missinterpretation it could have. I removed the comment, but you went there serching for it. I explained it to you on my talk page and apologised to you, twice.

Now, you should follow what was agreed on the mediation process we both participated, and stop nazyfiying a person and a movement that is complex and sensitive in nature (Mihailovic). Your ignorance of facts and insistence on it are quite insultive. A report on that should be donne against you, but I lack patience now.

I apologised twice and the comment was removed by me seconds later. FkpCascais (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a "long history of PA"? Are you joking? And btw, what I said back then was that "I don´t beleave your IQ is minor and you don´t understand things when said over and over again." Quite different, and you´re making me change my mind about that. FkpCascais (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of another user comment on article talk page

Is this OK? The comment was donne by an IP (diff) a long time ago, but DIREKTOR, an editor, simply removed it. Shouldn´t he rather ask some admin to do it? It is unpleasent towards him but I think it doesn´t give him the right to remove it from articles talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, and personal attacks can be removed by their subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit I complained in this section has been modified. FkpCascais (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This,[16] which he deleted today, is a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I of course usually don't touch people's comments, but that IP with the old "you're a communist!" bull finally touched a nerve. Its also very likely a sock of an old "friend". Though we seem to be digressing here? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A personal attack, with no resemblance to anything to do with improving article content, is fair game for zapping. And even if it did have to do with article content, he's slinging mud. If he's got a case, he should start an RFC and provide evidence. If not, he should buzz off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Caring-writer

Can someone deal with this user's edits, please? Particularly the talk page spam should be reverted. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User spammed the talkpages of about 50 other users. Would be quicker if someone with rollback could take care of it. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I could do it, but I'm not sure it qualifies as vandalism. Besides which, the users can decide for themselves whether to revert or not. Meanwhile, the user seems to have stopped after being told to stop. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rolled-back ~ 25 edits by User:Caring-writer. It's prolly fine, but would ask that an admin checks to see I have not mis-used my WP:ROLLBACK privileges.--114.76.107.160 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:Peer Review

There is a bit of a backlog at PR. If a few good editors and admin could take a look, review some articles and send these on their way, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami_casualties_dead

Template:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami_casualties_dead should be semi-protect. There is very big number of revert, and revision undid.--Olli (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, heavy vandalism going on there. Dropped a request at RFPP earlier. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I already semi-protected the template for a week. Some (but not all) of the vandal's IPs have been blocked. — Edokter (talk) — 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Run around block

An IP user from T-Mobile has vandalized a Japanese earthquake page again. This person was IP blocked according to commentary at Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#"Human beings disassembled"?. The user has shifted to another IP range, also from T-Mobile, now as 206.29.188.234 (talk · contribs).

I suppose another IP range block is in order, or perhaps block all T-Mobile addresses? 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has informed me a rangeblock has already been made. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He does not appear to be blocked, since 206.29.188.234 (talk · contribs) just edited from that IP address. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has reappeared at 206.29.188.186 (talk · contribs) ... so the block range needs to be expanded, perhaps to all 206.29.188.xxx range. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of defamatory material

An IP user Special:Contributions/66.108.225.135 as made a very large number of consecutive edits refining and changing potentially defamatory material at Apta (Hasidic dynasty) [revision history of Apta (Hasidic dynasty)]. I would like to request an admin take a look at it, and consider if WP:REVDEL would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Might want to hide this edit.

Ref [17], vandalism edit with phone number. Already reverted. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, I would highly consider emailing emergency﹫wikimedia.org on this one, because, if my slang is still current, "packing a bowl" refers to weed. So...if they are directing people to a phone number (address too) about that, then having WMF involved would be a good thing. Let them know the IP registers out of Costa Mesa, CA at the Orange County Department of Education (so one of the schools). - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdel applied. If law enforcement needs the edit content, direct them to contact an admin. (Probably not me, since I'm not going to be available much longer.) --Chris (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" template takes on a new meaning with this IP obviously... Nate • (chatter) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now suppressed the edit - any Law Enforcement agencies would need contact the Office (which would be the preferred route in any instance) if they need to review the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Knut

Eyes might be needed on the Knut (polar bear) page. It was reported by The AP that the famous polar bear (think back to 2007) has passed away today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent annual creation of role accounts for a class assignment

This report is regarding the following accounts:

• Psyc3330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psy3330 W10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyc3330 w11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 3 accounts appear to have been created at 1-year intervals for a class project at the University of Guelph (random example). Ordinarily I would have taken this to WP:SPI; however, contributions appear to be constructive and in good faith, and no two accounts were ever used at the same time. It appears each successive account was created months after the last edit of the previous account. I notified the currently active account that shared accounts are not allowed ([18]), and it appears the W10 account was also similarly warned ([19]). My question is, what is an appropriate course of action here, if any? I'm leaning towards at the minimum requesting that the w11 account declare on the talk page that he/she used to edit under the other two names, and possibly requesting a block of the other two. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find it hard to take or recommend any enforcement action towards what appears to be a very constructive class project that benefits the project greatly each year (e.g. [20] [21], [22]), as there are apparently no other user conduct issues apart from improperly/inadequately tagged images. I think that one of the problems with shared accounts, however, is attribution. –xeno^talk 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the contributions seem to be constructive (some of the sandbox stuff seemed very good) and that their identity management is nowhere near best practice. However, rather than going for any quick fix I suggest Kuyabribri escalates the question to someone in the Foundation, because they wish to attract and keep new editors (per Sue Gardner's March 2011 Update) and university involvement is part of the picture. No, wait! I appreciate there's something slightly yucky about asking the Foundation for advice – what do they have to do with anything? – but at least they could co-ordinate a discussion about sandbox names (e.g. should there be a naming convention for course roles, in which "Psyc3330" would become something unique like "ca.uoguelph.psychology.3330.Memory") and whether individual students should have their own logins, if only for legal attribution reasons. AFAICS there's potentially a lot of detail here that needs consensus, so trying to create guidelines on the fly will probably be counter-productive. We're not seeing vandalism from this vector, so we have the luxury of time to find an effective solution. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm loath to add only a complaint to a discussion, but I think the attribution/account requirements are rather tenuous and spur more problematic enforcement than they are worth. In this case I think a personal message to each accounts should suffice and unless we have evidence that they really are being used as pure role accounts for a large number of individuals we ought to tread very lightly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's obvious from the editing pattern/rate that it's being used by a good number of people simultaneously (or perhaps it is a very advanced android...), but again, I'm finding it hard to care too much about that, so long as they are benefiting the project with these fully-formed and well-sourced psychology articles (an area that is understaffed as it is). –xeno^talk 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone should tread at all before considering the wider implications. Let's get advice from the people who are running the course (who can describe the dynamics they are seeing on the ground) and whoever around here knows about facilitating collective editing by university classes. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps engage someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination? See also: Wikipedia:School and university projects. –xeno^talk 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. No doubt some models of university class contribution will be more effective than others in attracting editors who will contribute in the longer term. This needs someone who is familiar with the territory. - Pointillist (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've posted a message at User_talk:Sross_(Public_Policy)#Best_practice_for_class_leader_and_student_accounts. - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing me this way. I can't speak for any WMF staff but myself, but I've seen quite a few similar situations with group accounts for classes, because that's just what seems natural to a lot of people trying in good faith to do a transparent Wikipedia project in class (without wading far enough into the rules to find out they are required to use individual accounts). They generally feel persecuted when people start telling them they're doing it wrong and might be blocked. I'd say drafting a guideline about these situations would be really helpful, since over-aggressive enforcement often creates useless stress and bad feelings for instructors who were trying to do the right thing but are too far along once the problem is pointed out to easily change their system. I'd say the guideline should be along the lines of, explain the expectation of individual accounts to the instructors/group accounts, but let them continue through the current assignment or term if it would cause much disruption to switch to individual accounts immediately. The Public Policy Initiative team is working on an information portal for educators who want to do Wikipedia assignments, so hopefully that can be a tool to teach more instructors best practices for these kinds of things before they get started. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Xeno, Sross. We must be extremely careful not to discourage new good faith editors and collaborations. Rjwilmsi 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Also agree. In my opinion some group accounts should be permitted, like constructive academic groups as in this case. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• If group accounts that are editing constructively are normally reviewed as sockpuppet at WP:SPI, something is wrong - role accounts are distinct from sockpuppetry. If they are blocked rather than encouraged to branch into one account per user, then the relevant policy is broken and needs to be fixed. –SJ+ 20:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank heavens we have common sense so we can let them contribute in peace, no? Zakhalesh (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• The username policy is absolutely explicit - see WP:NOSHARE: "User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked." I understood that there was a reason for this, connected with attribution and the license terms. If we are going to make an exception for class projects we should be sure it's legal and document it, not just turn a blind eye. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  According to [23], the licensing angle isn't even salient. And yes, perhaps the policy needs updating to reflect current practice. –xeno^talk 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  If I've understood correctly, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are just the manifestations of consensus with a small amount of law (copyright for example) added, not An Ancient Book of Ancient Law. There's seems to be a clear consensus here to allow constructive use of group accounts for class projects, so I say why not? Zakhalesh (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• (Hope my input here is okay, even though I'm not an admin...) The project has had a positive impact and should be allowed to continue. That said, each member of the project should have his/her own account and the main project user account should be blocked or have its username changed so it reflects that it's used only by the project's head. That way, the project can have a centralized workplace while still fulfilling Wikipedia's licensing, username and account policies. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

posting personal information about another editor

Administrative action is required against User:IntrigueBlue for posting personal information [24] [25] in an attempt link a real-life person to Wikipedia edits - against WP:PRIVACY. IntrigueBlue has been warned to stop disclosing the personal name of his target, [26], and was also chastised in a recent ANI, [27] but the message has not gotten though. "Outing" is a form of harassment and is a serious concern, even if it is not true, and it should not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If Ralph D. Scurfield is claiming elsewhere that he is editing that Wikipedia article, it is hardly a case of outing an editor. Pointing out a credible concern that an article is being edited in POV fashion by someone with a conflict of interest is valid. Resolute 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think this comes under WP:OUTING either. IntrigueBlue hasn't linked a name to an IP address and they've said that one of the accounts "claims to be" rather than "is" the person mentioned. If that is indeed what the account has claimed, then cautiously repeating that claim (ie leaving open the possibility that it may be false) shouldn't be a problem. Reading the ANI thread you've linked, consensus seems to be that this is OK; I'd say IntrigueBlue has posted in line with what they would have understood the conclusion of that thread to be. EyeSerene^talk 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the message as far as I can see - if someone claiming to be Joe Blow is editing Joe Blow's article, then it is worth mentioning it, as there may well be several issues arising. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like IntrigueBlue attempted to respond to this section but it was lost in some sort of strange edit conflict [28]. (I wasn't logged in when I initially edited but logged in in the background then submitted and then had a session error so just resubmitted, I guess this contributed in some way.) I have informed him/her of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation, Nil Einne.

This issue has been discussed at some length, as Onthegogo has observed. However, I'm concerned that he/she may not have completely read the discussion before linking it and starting this new section. The general consensus, following a RFC, was that the only issue was that I stated as fact what was only a claim. In my repeated comment on Talk:Sunshine Village, I corrected this error, after first discussing the matter with the involved administrator. I see no reason to have this discussion again, as to the best of my knowledge it has been adequately addressed. WP:OUTING is explicitly not applicable to repeating information provided by other editors. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with the dismissive responses by Resolute, EyeSerene, and Elen of the Roads (even more so when they repeat the name of the targeted person in this forum). IntrigueBlue is defending his "outing" actions (which by WP:PRIVACY is defined as a form of harassment) by claiming that the target of his harassment has identified himself and has also been removing content from the article. However, the only removal of content from the article in the past week was made by myself, and I am not and have never claimed to be that person. Onthegogo (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's no specific prohibition against an editor using their real name as their user name, although WP:REALNAME points out the inherent issues with doing so. That said, I must concur with Resolute et al that this isn't a case of WP:OUTING, since the editor in question has apparently used their real name as their username. Referring to such an editor, by definition, can't be outing, since they already "outed" themselves. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that the editor in question used their real name as their username is wrong. I can find no evidence of that. The claims of IntrigueBlue are suspect and should be verified as he may have his own COI. Onthegogo (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be something a CheckUser would need to verify, one way or the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement was originally made by 207.229.0.198 here, but was prematurely removed by an administrator during the original ANI process. Unfortunately, there's no way to reverse an edit deletion after the conclusion was overturned, as it most certainly was if you review the original discussion.

Assuming that I have a COI in this matter is a violation of good faith. I do not have any association or prior experience with the subject of the article or the individual in question, and am merely reacting to conduct and discussion on the two articles. As far as COI edits go, please review the edit history. Most of the anon edits, including two by 207.229.0.198, have removed information critical of the organization, as I must observe also applies to your own edits to the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW they can be undeleted if it is decided to do so. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this discussion. IntrigueBlue's position is that because some IP address allegedly once claimed to be Ralph Scurfield, IntrigueBlue and other editors are now permitted to violate BLP policy to insinuate that an identifiable living person is making COI edits? And now IntrigueBlue is insinuating that I have a COI because I have stated my opinion that it is not appropriate to list a minor personnel issue concerning four former employees in an encyclopedic article about a ski resort with 700 employees. Does IntrigueBlue think that every editor who disagrees with him on this article is Ralph Scurfield? If not outing, then it is a violation of BLP policy and it must not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely involved on this, but I hold now as I held during the last ANI discussion on this: IntrigueBlue is stating only things that were explicitly stated on Wikipedia. This is by definition not outing, because it doesn't involve external information. While admins agreed that it is wrong to definitively state that a certain IP is automatically a certain real world identity, since IPs can change, there is nothing wrong with reminding editors that semi-protection is ending and that we might see a repeat of IP editors making changes without discussion. As to whether or not this belongs in the article, that's a content issue, which should be handled at the article talk page; if you (Onthegogo) feel that there is a BLP violation by keeping that info in, then you should raise it on the BLP noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only editor who I think is Ralph Scurfield is the one who explicitly stated that he is Ralph Scurfield. It's not that complicated. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously complaining about IntrigueBlue insinuating you have a COI here after you accused him of same? Seriously? ... Ultimately, the statement that there appear to be POV issues with potentially COI editors is credible. It is also credible to state that BLP issues have occurred in the past at both Sunshine Village and Ralph D. Scurfield and it is prudent to note the fear that these edits could pick back up now that protection has expired. As to the value of the section on the fired employees, I am not a big fan of highlighting it by putting it in its own section, but lets face it, the firings certainly have notability beyond the immediate Calgary/Banff region. Where to place it, and how much emphasis to put on it is an editorial matter, not an administrative one. Resolute 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We're getting hung up on the wrong issue here. Claiming your name is X is not a problem, and people repeating that claim is not an issue - normally. But in this case an IP editor is claiming to be one of the individuals related to the article; this is a BLP issue, not an outing one. We have no way to verify that this individual is as claimed, it could be a spurious attempt to drag his name through the mud (it's hardly uncommon; most people claiming to be XYZ are not that person in my experience), or just a misguided attempt to stand up for him. Who knows. We don't judge. But as this person is a subject ot the article it is strongly recommended not to go around throwing the name out in relation to the IP editor. It is fine to mention that some of the editors on the article may have a COI, but naming is a BLP concern so please do not do so. I'll leave a note for IB. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's more of a concern here. I agree that we should be very cautious about linking real people to problematic behaviour even where they have disclosed their identity; people unfamiliar with Wikipedia often fail to realise that this is a hugely public forum and something that seemed like a good idea at the time can turn up on Google, linked to their RL details, for years to come. It's not usually necessary for managing disruptive behaviour on an article to know who's behind the disruption - we just treat individual edits on their merits and apply the rules accordingly. EyeSerene^talk 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just adding that I don't believe IntrigueBlue is at fault. As I wrote in my first post, on a neutral reading of the previous ANI thread I would have taken from it the same conclusion that IntrigueBlue appears to have done (although personally I feel that the conclusion fails to take full account of the sensitivities surrounding BLP issues). EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• The post is still there, should it be redacted? January (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the parenthetical statement; whether the edit history should be redacted is up to an admin I guess. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the following edits which violate BLP policy should be redacted:

• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]

I hope that an admin reviewing this ANI will redact those edits so this matter can be marked as resolved. Onthegogo (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Libya articles, please

War: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing with respect to vandalism yet, but eyes would be still be useful on Operation Odyssey Dawn, Libya, No-fly zone, and other related articles as the situation heats up. --NellieBly (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Request review of administrator action by User:SarekOfVulcan

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.

• At this point, this is quite stale. Even if Roscelese broke the 1RR, she's not going to be blocked for it three days down the road. Sarek is not going to get desysopped over this, and Haymaker's block has expired. There's literally nothing to gain continuing this discussion, which is generating a lot of heat and very little light. Courcelles 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The issue is whether he has deliberately refused to block the edit-warrior he likes, while blocking the one he dislikes.[33] Review by one or more uninvolved admins would be appreciated. This concerns activity at an article subject to unusual 1RR sanctions, titled The Silent Scream (which I have never edited to the best of my recollection but may have long ago). I am on an iPhone right now. and my ability to present details is limited, but this discussion at Sarek's talk page amply describes the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Review welcomed. It was a close call, and I wanted to block them both for 1RR, but I couldn't justify it. Anythingyouwant supplied diffs on my talk for Rosecelese: the diffs that I used for Haymaker (talk · contribs) were:

• Added "pro-choice activist"
• Restored "pro-choice activist" - first revert
• Added "abortionist"
• Restored "abortionist" - second revert

If an uninvolved admin feels I misread these, feel free to unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): @Anythingyouwant: While I understand that you want to help, I would stear as far away from Haymaker and his ilk as you can. I tried to help out him and another editor (not the one you also discuss) and it became a royal headache. Just don't get in the middle of that mess, it ain't worth it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. As Sarek knows, I am not disputing that Haymaker deserved a block. What I object to is the blatant bias.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosecelese has three diffs:

• changes "pro choice activist" to "political scientist"
• adds "anti abortion activist"
• changes "abortionist" to "abortion provider"

--Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those three diffs are not the same reversion. They add up to one reversion. Roscelese did not revert the same content twice in one day. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the same content, but it still doesn't seem like a 1RR violation. Rewording something that's just been added (ie. "abortionist" to "abortion provider") doesn't really fit the description of reverting - if Haymaker's edit had been to change "abortion provider" to "abortionist" and then I changed it back (instead of vice versa), that would definitely be a revert, but just changing the wording of new content? I don't really think so. Adding "anti-abortion activist" certainly isn't a revert. (I'm not sure re-adding "pro-choice activist" is necessarily a revert, but I'll leave that up to other people.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Removing the phrase "pro-choice activist" was EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert. Because Sarek deliberately ignored it, I recommend that he be desysopped. It's about time that Wikipedia stop the blatant discrimination against people who don't happen to be radically pro-choice. Am I coming across loud and clear now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. No one seems to be arguing that removing "pro-choice activist" wasn't a revert. However, it hasn't magically multiplied into more than one revert. No conspiracy theories, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, your removal of the word "abortionist" a few hours later was also EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert. One plus one equals two, except here? Your opponent in this matter is conveniently muzzled and so cannot speak here. But I can speak here, and can point out that Sarek's POV is obvious from the content edits he's made at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying it in all-caps won't make it so. Changing "abortionist" to "abortion provider" at a first occurrence is no more a revert than changing "anti-abortion activist" to "pro-life activist." It's not undoing someone else's work. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are coming over loud and clear - but perhaps not in a manner which you would appreciate being told. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Roscelese, your removal of the word "abortionist" a few hours later was also EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert"". Anythingyouwant, have you checked what the word "revert" actually means? It means to change *back* to something that was there before. So if someone changes "abortionist" to "abortion provider" when it did not previously say "abortion provider", then that's no more a revert than if I changed "elephant" to "aardvark" when it had previously said "blancmange" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, the argument for imposing the block in this fashion seems to be as follows: an editor can remove as much content as often as he likes, as long as he replaces it with something else. So, LessHeard, if you will support that sort of policy clarification at WP:Revert, then I will consider you totally fair and neutral in this matter. In the mean time, we have an admin, SoK, whose content edits clearly show his POV, and who is exempting people from blocks based on their POV. This general sanction was implemented without so much as mentioning the proposal at the relevant article talk pages, and now the general sanction is being used as an additional tool of abuse. I call 'em like I see 'em. By all means speak to me in any manner you deem straightforward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You will consider me fair and neutral if I support your version of matters? This is despite (nearly) all other commentators here explaining that while you have been reverting (changing something back to a previous version) while the other person has not (substituting a word for another of similar meaning), and you advocating the desysopping of SarekofVulcan for acting in what appears to be the subsequent consensus? I would advise you that I am considered a fair and neutral admin, by persons rather less prejudiced and certainly more conversant with policy than you appear to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're referring to. I did not edit the article in question, and I suggested above a policy clarification to implement the new policy that you are supporting here. Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Psst, it's not AYW whose edits we're discussing. The user in question is still blocked and hasn't been able to comment.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "abortionist" is a revert. "Abortionist" is seen as a pejorative by some. This is word smithing that is similar to "pro-choice" v "pro-abortion". I'm not saying "abortionist" should have been used but that is not the discussion. If the change was made since based on subtle differences in POV then it was a revert since it (even being as little as one word) reversed the intended tone (as inappropriate as it might have been)_ of the editor. The admin is not going to lose the mop over it but should study up on the policies and guidelines if he going to make blocks but let other reverts slide. Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by non-administrator Anythingyouwant, Sarek has admited that he was in a tight situation there and there was really no good answer for the issue. Accept that not everybody is infalible and move on. I may be looking at this from the newbie prospective, but this is a minor flub (and the first one in a bit that I'm aware of Sarek making). Asking for Community based de-sysopping is supposed to be used in cases where there has been a consistent demonstration of abuse of administrative tools. At this time I see no such demonstration. Hasteur (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a close case, and the admin has not acknowledged any imperfection in what he did. That said, it's nothing new at Wikipedia, and I don't have anything more to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This section was closed and hidden while it was only the fourth section from the bottom of the page. I object to such an early closure, and would have liked more input. If there's nothing actionable here, is that because an admin is completely free to not use tools against one editor in the same way that he's used the tools against another editor who's done the exact same thing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was closed because no one except you sees a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you evidently didn't read all the comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarek is on board with a review, and there is an excellent argument that Roscelese violated 1RR and got away with it. The collapse is definitely premature. Lionel (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I amend my statement: It was closed because no one who is able to do anything about sees a need to do anything it. Nor do I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The second problem is that if it's supposed to be a review of SarekVulcan's actions, why was it necessary for Anythingyouwant to oppose everyone who agrees with SV's POV or else finds it's not worth discussing? I think editors would have been more willing to let it be if it was indeed just an open discussion by uninvolved parties of SV's actions rather then as it came across to me, an attempt by AYW to convince people SV was wrong and indeed deserve to be desysopped without winning much support. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling for desysopping here is baseless. Where is the pattern of tool abuse? This is a possible one-off mistake and nothing more. AYW, can you establish a longstanding pattern of abuse? Clearly, there aren't going to be any sanctions nor even warnings for Sarek. The usual protocol would have been to file at RfC/U (don't do it now as it would seem bad faith) and not come here with "Off with his head".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

SoV specifically advised me to bring it here, at his talk page. No, I cannot establish a longstanding pattern of abuse, because I have not encountered SoV until recently. People seem to be telling me here that an administrative action that (let's presume) is POV-biased cannot be remedied in any way whatsoever, without a longstanding pattern of abuse. That seems screwy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While de-sysoping for this lone event is going way too far, a warning may be appropriate so that if this admin continues to make one-sided blocks, there will be more of a case against him in the future. Passionless -Talk 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I respectfully request a warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this thread for a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, what people are telling you, and what you seem determined not to hear is that your interpretation of what happened is the worst possible one, and that they do not agree with your contention that something needs to be done about it. If no administrator is willing to take action, then there is no administrative action to be taken, which is why the thread was collapsed, and should be closed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen here any plausible explanation by anyone who actually has looked at what happened. A lot of talk, Beyond My Ken, but no one actually explaining why removing controversial material from an article that was inserted by another editor is not a revert. Of course, people like Haymaker will continue to get banned and blocked for such behavior, but people who you and Sarek like won't get blocked or banned. It's obscene, and this page should be re-named the "Administrators Defense and Coverup Noticeboard". Such is Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Insulting admins and fighting for justice is a blockable offense you know, even if you are a senior editor with many barnstars. Passionless -Talk 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that fighting for justice is a blockable offense. Anyway, I'm sure this Noticeboard accomplishes a lot of good things, and the same goes for everyone who comments here. I just see no logic or rationality with regard to this particular incident. So maybe it's me who's stark raving mad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When Sarek asked you to come here, it was so that the blocking action itself could be reviewed. It was not so that you could start a desysopping action. After discussion, if a consensus was reached to unblock Haymaker then that would occur. This noticeboard is only the correct venue for desysopping IF and only if there were egregious abuse. You are asking the wrong things and getting frustrated for the wrong reasons. You should have focused on making the argument for unblocking Haymaker not starting a desysopping process. You're barking up the wrong tree. Neither you nor Passionless should be crying injustice. Analogy: A cop hands out a questionable speeding ticket but has a very good record. Do you ask the department to fire him?...especially when the case for the speeding ticket hasn't been heard in court yet?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But I've never said (or thought) that Haymaker shouldn't have been blocked. Roscelese did the exact same thing as Haymaker, and yet only Haymaker was blocked. And incidentally, the edit history of the article shows Sarek has a definite POV in this, and was on Rosecelese's side regarding the content. A warning to Sarek would be fine with me, as I already said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese did not do the same thing at all. '1RR' does not mean people dont get to edit your contribution. Haymaker added a clearly POV description. Roscelese, having already reverted once, decided to work it into a tone more appropriate for an encyclopedia rather then reverting it out. That level-headedness and desire to stay within the rules on a heated topic should be commended, not blocked. -- ۩ Mask 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR means people can edit your contribution once, and no more. Sarek acknowledged that it was a "revert" when Roscelese changed "abortionist" to "abortion provider". However, Sarek asserts that it was not a revert when Roscelese changed "pro choice activist" to "political scientist". The latter change by Roscelese was obviously an attempt to make the person sound like a neutral "political scientist" instead of a biased activist. There is no edit in the universe that is more a revert than this was, and it makes no difference what your politics are. A revert is a revert. The rule is simple: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." This isn't rocket science. I find it kind of funny that not a single person at this page has mentioned the phrase "political scientist" except for me and Diannaa (who merely reported the edits without comment).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this case is pretty simple- two editors both broke 1RR, and an admin blocked only one of the two editors. We are not asking that the admin get in trouble for allegedly taking a side, only that this goes on his record so if a similar situation arises soon that people will remember this case through the warning. I feel the main problem here however is that no admin wants to warn another admin. Passionless -Talk 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim that you are not asking to get the admin in trouble when you have already asked for desysoping and fairly early on. As I've already said, that sort of thing has clearly poisoned the well making it difficult for anyone to feel there's much point discussing this. The fact that there are only apparently 2 users pushing hard on it, and continuing to do so after multiple users have said to drop it or don't agree with their POV doesn't help. And it's clear that not everyone agrees the case is simple or that two editors broke 1RR so to claim the problem is because no one wants to warn is also misleading. In fact it's clear quite a number of editors feel it's a borderline case where SV actions and interpretation were justified even if some of them wouldn't have done the same or even recommend the same in the future. And even most of those who don't feel that SV did the right thing don't think it goes as far as to require a warning. Do remember for an admin a formal warning often doesn't even really matter. If it's been made clear to them in multiple discussions some of the community doesn't agree with what they're done, few are going to argue we need to formally warn them before action can be taken. The question can and will remain about their actions not about what formal warnings they may or may not have received. Ultimately there are always going to be cases which are borderline and not everyone may agree with what happened but that's life and there comes a time when you have to accept people despite having seen all the same evidence and given due consideration to what's been said aren't going to agree with your POV, respect that and move of. It would be nice if in life there was always a simple formula we can use to decide exactly what everything is and always come to an agreement, but life isn't like that, often things are subjective and require human judgement and people having seen the same thing don't agree on the outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The formal definition of a revert (": "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, ...") cannot be read separately from what the restriction on reverting is supposed to accomplish, namely to prevent edit warring. There is a certain amount of judgement involved (a) in labelling edits as reverts and (b) sanctioning editors who exceed the allowed number, based on whether they're editing constructively or edit warring. That judgement should be applied fairly and evenhandedly, and where there are genuine concerns of WP:INVOLVED then the action should be referred elsewhere. Bottom line: I think it was correct not to block the one editor that wasn't, I'm not quite sure if the other should have been, but it seems a reasonable call, and they can request an unblock if they want. However, next time, on this topic, Sarek should pass the decision to someone else. Now, let's all go do something more constructive. Rd232 ^talk 02:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" do not deserve an unblock, as I've said several times. Rd232, the goal of preventing edit-wars is a fine goal, and it can always be accomplished by blocking only one of the two parties such as the party you dislike or disagree with the most --- and yet preventing an edit-war in that manner is (as I said above) an obscene way to implement 1RR. It's a message to the person not blocked that they can violate Wikipedia rules as much as they want, and that anyone who tries to take countermeasures will be blocked. Anyhow, I'll try to go do something constructive now. April 15 is approaching, after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear Rd232 isn't saying the other editor didn't deserve a block because they agreed with their POV but rather the other editor may not have deserved a block because their violation wasn't as clear cut a violation of 1RR Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So here is how I see things; SOV's description of my actions are correct - I added a word, then re-added it, then I added a different word, then re-added it. In order for me to be able to re-add two different edit, both edits that I originally made had to be reverted. Those two reverts were made by Roscelese. I can see where my reverts were more ovbious (sorry about, the 1RR on that article slipped my mind) but Roscelese had to twice remove the material that I added in order for me to be able to re-add it twice. She probably doesn't deserve the same 48 hours that I got but she too broke the 1RR rule on same on the same article that I did. She deserves something.

I don't know what SOV's position on this issue is, as far as I can tell only blocking 1 editor was just an oversight but now that attention has been brought to said oversight it can be solved relatively easily. - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)(copied from Haymaker's talkpage)

It wasn't an oversight, Haymaker -- I tried to apply the same rules to Roscelese's edits that I applied to yours, but I couldn't make it come out the same way. Are there any neutral editors here who can pair up Roscelese's diffs and come up with two reverts in the same way that I paired up Haymaker's diffs?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I counted three uninvolved editors here who came up with two reverts for Roscelese. The definition of a revert is pretty clear, but if you can suggest a clarification of the definition that would be welcome. I didn't want to come to ANI but I followed your suggestion and did so. I also didn't know exactly what to ask for, so I asked for "review" and then "desysopping" and then a "warning". It's hard for an average editor to know exactly what the options are. Nothing personal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three uninvolved editors telling you it wasnt a 1RR violation as well, nice of you to leave that part out. -- ۩ Mask 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is surreal. Sarek asked above: "Are there any neutral editors here who can pair up Roscelese's diffs and come up with two reverts in the same way that I paired up Haymaker's diffs?" I was answering that question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• (Comment by uninvolved administrator) The call for desysopping are absurd and should not be repeated. I would probably also have left Roscelese (hence R.) but blocked Haymaker (hence H.). Whereas H. seems to have refused to consider the proposed changes at all (by outright-reverting every attempted change), R. tried after every revert to compromise. Roscelese's reverts were not ideal, but in my opinion he was open to compromise and seemed to be embracing the principle of WP:BRD; Haymaker, however, was just trying to 'own' the article. I agree with Sarak's actions here, and see no merit to this complaint. AGK [•] 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The upbeat vandal

MrMan12321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do feel a little bad about bringing this here, but user MrMan12321 is an SPA whose sole purpose is to leave 1-line compliments on people's talk pages under the heading "Well done!". I'm not going to raise any complaints, but I would like to raise awareness of this.AerobicFox (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this lemon may have soured after I brought this up. A recent post by him on my talk page seems not so nice.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since this user is basically a bot that searches for random contributors from the Special:Recentchanges page, and then congratulate them for that contribution, and since I believe I speak for all when I say such a bot would never be approved, I thus am voting to have this user deactivated, the same way we would pull the plug on such a bot.AerobicFox (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Don't we all want to have the gift of manliness bestowed upon us? sonia♫ 08:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Editor notified. "Be not afraid of manliness: some are born manly, some achieve manliness and some have manliness, erm, thrust upon them."--Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well done, he was already notified. 2 notices is admittedly more manly though.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Initial notification did not use {{subst:ANI-notice}} and wasn't an otherwise obvious notification.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well! I archived mine out of sight. This is quite annoying, especially when in the middle of fixing up a complex table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Creepy. Congratulating female contributors for being "manly males" seems quite inappropriate though. I blocked it. —Ruud 21:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, in this cynical world, a truly sincere "well-done" is rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is automatically revoking talk page access appropriate here, Ruud? I didn't think that was standard policy at all unless the user abuses their own talk page. Silverseren^C 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It can mail to unblock-en-l if it desires so. Consider it an occupational hazard of award-givers to be mistaken for trolls. —Ruud 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. I thought you weren't allowed to revoke talk page access unless they abuse it? Silverseren^C 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to wait for that. —Ruud 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate, all blocked users should have the opportunity to request unblocks unless they have abused their talk pages - for starters it makes sure that blocks are applied appropriately, as sometimes admins make mistakes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have the unblock-en-l mailing list. —Ruud 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't reasonable. Most people aren't able to navigate bureaucracies well enough to figure that out. I'm really good at navigating bureaucracies and I have x thousand edits and I didn't know about that - I would have ended up emailing arbcom if I was blocked with talk access revoked (but 99%+ of users won't have heard of arbcom). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The e-mail address is display to any user who is blocked and tries to edit a page. —Ruud 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why on Earth have they been marked as "Banned" [34] ? Also, why was their talk page access removed? I do, personally, suspect possible troll - but this seems extremely extreme. Especially the 'ban' thing.  Chzz  ►  23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of preventative measure I suppose. But I don't understand why talk page access was revoked at all. Ruud's explanations up above make no sense to me. Silverseren^C 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the admin was trying to be, dare I say it, manly? I don't think there is too much to worry about, but unblocking its talk page may be a good idea.AerobicFox (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that people consider saving their energy for worthwhile cases. Yes, rules are great and they should always be followed meticulously, but is it really worth spending a couple more hours debating a satisfactory result? Several admins must have read this section, and if they want they can enable talk page access—I don't imagine that would cause much drama, although a brief discussion with the blocking admin would be polite. Meanwhile, there are lots of unresolved tendentious editing cases to be finalized. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already asked the blocking admin, Ruud, to restore talk page access above. But he went on about having people use the unblock mailing list, something very few (pretty much none) new users would know about or bother to use. Silverseren^C 08:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Somehow I doubt Mr. Manly is a new user; 2. There is already a template on the user's talk page pointing to this ANI discussion which points to the mailing list. Good RBI by Ruud, with the talkpage disabling helping the "ignore" part. I think Ruud's ban (now undone, but whatever) was fine. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The block wasn't actually lifted. Just the "Banned" message from the talk page. mechamind90 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think allowing this user to communicate further in any form on-wiki is a good idea, you either have a seriously bad sense of judgement or need a reality check. —Ruud 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But mebbe he was just trying to reach out to the other men on this manly Wiki while we write articles on manly topics like Key West, Fire Island, & San Francisco! (Okay, someone had to allude back to that unforgettable & manly SNL sketch. Feel free to close this thread now.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that there are five users including myself that are advocating for allowance of talk page access, I think it should probably be restored. We're not advocating an unblock, but just an avenue of discussion with the user. Silverseren^C 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Might as well. I think he's flown the coop anyway, unless he's communicating behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has an admin given talk page access back yet or is this section just being ignored? Silverseren^C 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The talk page is not protected. You can leave a note on it if you want, mentioning the unblock mailing list, if for some reason you think the person might make use of it, though IMHO it's just an invitation to more trolling. I'd say what we currently are seeing re that user is a community ban in the old traditional sense, namely, a block that no admin is willing to lift. That seems fine to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• *waits* Silverseren^C 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Add me to the pile on of non-admins who think that talk page access shouldn't be revoked without cause, which hasn't been shown here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

" "  Chzz  ►  08:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So, including myself, that's five people now who feel that talk page access should be restored. Oh, and i'm going to keep bumping this discussion section away from archiving forever if necessary until I get some admin response. Silverseren^C 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know admins are reading this. :/ Silverseren^C 06:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*bumps yet again* Silverseren^C 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Six people. Passionless -Talk 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Silverseren^C 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seven people. Has this manly man done anything that's actually disruptive? Reyk _YO! 02:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The only disruptive thing the user has done is use the recent changes page to find users to give this "Manliness Award" to on their talk page. He gave this to 70 or so people in a short period of time, so he was blocked in a preventative manner. The logical next step would be then to use the user's talk page to explain to him why this was improper and get him to agree to stop, as it is clear that he did interact with people that spoke with him. However, Ruud's block also included removal of talk page access, which makes it impossible for there to be discussion with the user in order to see if he can agree to edit in a more productive manner. Admin Ruud has refused to give back talk page access to the user, continually citing that the user can just use the unblock mailing list in order to get himself unblocked, which is entirely unrealistic, I think. Silverseren^C 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Per this discussion, I've restored talk page access. To my surprise, talk page access and talk page protection are two different things: I had always thought that unchecking the permit talk page editing button resulted in the page being fully protected, but apparently not. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Really though, it shouldn't have taken this long and I shouldn't have had to be so persistent for policy to actually be followed. :/ (That's not directed at you, i'm just saying in general) Silverseren^C 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru

After lying dormant for a fortnight, QuackGuru has returned to Talk:Pseudoscience and is again insisting on the addition of nonsense to the article (every pseudoscience is a health threat, apparently) based on a literal reading of a source that implicitly only claims to speak authoritatively about something else.

Last time this was reported by Ludwigs2, Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 for reporting it, and now Arbcom is concerned with all aspects of the matter. I do not intend to become disruptive in any way, and I am doing my best not to explode and say anything that can be misunderstood that way, but can some admin please support me in my endeavour to stay calm by doing something about QG. It shouldn't be hard since the article is under pseudoscience sanctions.

In the four stages of competence model this user is very obviously at level 1 for competence in evaluating reliable sources (see how he argues against DGG, an academic librarian who has read the source in question, insisting only that he is right and DGG is wrong, but not giving any comprehensible reason [35]), and his continued insistence that everybody should follow his arguments, which everybody but himself can see are completely useless, makes it impossible to fix the actual sourcing problems -- now that we have all been reminded the protection is over. Hans Adler 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For some background on QuackGuru, see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling/Evidence#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing.

Background of QuackGuru's current activity: His last edit to Pseudoscience was this. The main difference is visible in the first sentences:

1. "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health."
2. "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health."

Version 1 resulted from the attempt by another editor to replace QG's unreasonable text with something reasonable. Unfortunately it misused a source, but without QG's interference this problem should not be hard to fix. Version 2 is QG's version. It is almost literally from this source, but taken blatantly out of context since in the original context the statement is obviously only about health-related pseudoscience etc. Astrology and belief in ghosts may be serious issues (or maybe not), but no serious scholar would claim they are a threat to public health, or at least not without giving a very detailed explanation why. (Which this source does not do.) QuackGuru is now vehemently and in many places denying there is anything wrong with his version 2, while attacking me for reverting to version 1 (at a time when I was not aware it was not correctly sourced). Hans Adler 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute or a long-term editor behavior issue that will require an RfC. What can be done at ANI? Ocaasi (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a refusal to engage in meaningful conversation by an editor who always behaves that way. It's not a content dispute. And trying to push obvious nonsense to an article based on some pseudo-sourcing comes close enough to vandalism and WP:POINT violations. (Actually, he can't help behaving like that, but per WP:COMPETENCE that's not a sufficient excuse.) If pseudoscience arbitration enforcement can be used to block an editor who reports disruptive behaviour at ANI, then surely it can also be used to block QuackGuru. I would suggest giving him a stern warning first.

I am not starting an RfC because it is very likely that he will get extensive support from the many pseudosceptic editors who recognise him as an ally. If that happens the RfC will be derailed, and the only way to put it back on track would be to shout the pseudosceptics down and shut them up. If someone has to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so I prefer another solution.

Of course we can always do the QuackGuru 2 RfC, let it be derailed, and then run to Arbcom. But why keep me busy for such a predictable result? Just to keep me from doing mathematical research or writing new Wikipedia articles? See also: WP:BUREAUCRACY. Hans Adler 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru: as someone who is generally sympathetic to your point of view and thoroughly WP:INVOLVED but only peripherally involved in this particular flare up at this article, I would like to advise that you back off from that article for a while and concentrate on some non-controversial improvements to the encyclopedia. The same holds for everyone involved at the ArbCom, really, though this is just my personal point of view. The article will still be there when that wraps up, and maybe someone else will even have improved it. The writing for the other side essay has some good advice for improving the editing atmosphere at an article by exchanging WP:BATTLEGROUND for collaboration. It works best if everyone does it, but even applied unilaterally you can reap the benefits of crowding out inferior sourcing by focusing on the highest caliber material. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit problems with List of The Annoying Orange episodes by various users

There has been an ongoing problem with the above page that I have mentioned, specifically regarding the division of the list into "seasons". There are no reliable sources available to confirm that there are actual "seasons" for Annoying Orange episodes. Normally such incidents are requested to have the differences cited. However, the incidents have happened too often and a list would take up way too much space (it's at least 500 edits, if not more; [[36]] would be a better link IMO). There is a hidden comment placed at the top of the page that clearly states that season divisions are not to be added unless there is a reliable source for those actions. (I would like to add that the article was put through an AfD review, which ended with a consensus of keep.)

Two examples of people that refuse to follow the directive are User:Fuzzyball321, whom I have had to warn twice about adding season designations to the page (having done so twice over a period of 10 days, re his talk page. Another is an anonymous IP, User:68.195.37.107, who was [warned twice] on his talk page he has since blanked regarding disruptive edits. He also disregarded other editors' concerns by putting in his edit summary "It would be better with all of the seasons. The episodes all together look horrible! Let's just separate it out, okay?" in spite of the warning. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed its why I nommed it for AFD awhile back, people adding Production Codes, Seasons and even future episodes without sourcing. Not that there is any sourcing for anything else their either. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated though, the consensus was Keep. The issue is not whether or not the page should be deleted, it's whether or not action should be taken when there's a clear violation of a warning.--173.54.203.93 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may ask the obvious question, has anyone considered putting {{unreferenced}} at the top of the page then detailing on the Talk page what needs citations? So far IP 173.54.&c has simply been edit-warring over this point, rather than trying to explain to other editors what the problem is. That will get 173.54.&c nowhere except for a 3RR block, which I'd hate to see happen. (FWIW, I think you guys have a valid point -- where does this information about "production codes" come from? And if there is no reliable source, it shouldn't be in this article. But I'm not warning or banning anyone for adding it; policy doesn't allow Admins to ban people for inserting information that is crap.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a {{unreferenced}} tag on there already and these edits still happened. There is also a rather pointed hidden comment that editors see once they click to edit the page that says "do not add episodes that don't exist and do not add season divisions unless there are sources to prove otherwise." I don't see what blocking me for removing violations of that comment will accomplish because I'm not the one causing the problem. The production code argument is valid but no one has been willing to take them off the page. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And now I know why the tag was removed...User:68.195.37.107 removed it, along with the hidden comment I cited. I returned the tag to the page and reworded the comment. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed admin deletion and protection of Web 3.0 by Ruud Koot

Web 3.0 has come and gone over time, usually for POV and poor sourcing issues. However this is one of those topics within a developing field that almost inevitably will become WP:Notable at some time in the near future. In recent weeks it has returned and grown, in a manner that's as well ref'ed as most around here, and even avoiding a vanity spam that has afflicted these articles.

Just now, Ruud Koot has redirected it back to Web 2.0 and protected it. Undiscussed, unwarranted, mop abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What an incredible display of WP:AGF. If you had bothered to ask, I could have have explained to you that article has been deleted on no less than 3 separate occasions and in its latest form was still mostly a copy of the section it now redirects back to. —Ruud 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion possibly, but why protect as well? Why no prior discussion? Admins are not arbiters of content, despite far too many of them thinking that this is so. Web 3.0 is very obviously a growing topic. It has been judged to not be notable in the past, but it would be strange to assume that it will not become clearly so in the future. Yet your unilateral protection of this topic excludes all of those lesser mortals who are not admins from any contribution to this area. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the log?</rhetorical> —Ruud 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The last activity was more than two years ago. I don't know what you're trying to prove with that log. Notability could have, and likely has, changed significantly since then. Silverseren^C 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There were attempts in the past 2 weeks to recreate the article pasting content from Web 2.0, undoing the previous merge.[37] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet, looking at the talk page, I can see that there was no attempt at discussion before the article was turned back into a redirect. Silverseren^C 05:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was unmerged by a very infrequent enwiki contributor who is a regular at Dutch wikipedia. Ruud explained the situation on restoring the redirect.[38] The user doesn't seem to have objected and as Ruud is also an nlwiki contributor, it's quite possible (I haven't tried to check) that they know each other from there. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We've all seen words like "inevitably will become WP:Notable" in countless AfD's. The answer is always the same. Write an article after it's notable, not before. Andy should understand this by now, 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've never been too bothered about deletion before. However this involved protection too, preventing other GF editors recreating a notable article. It was also undiscussed, without the appropriate AfD that has been applied in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Write the new article at WP:AI and when there's enough sources to establish notability, request unprotection at DRV. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why anyone should be required to assume good faith with the administrator actions of Ruud Koot, he has a history of abuse of the tools. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Page moves and subsequent abusive move protections by Ruud Koot for what happened last time he decided protecting pages on his preferred versions. O Fenian (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. The article was deleted via AFD and then recreated and re-deleted multiple times. Salting is the absolutely usual and conventional response to that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that we're supposed to work by consensus, not the whim of individual admins. If it had been through AfD so many times without salting, why should one person go against this? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So open a DRV about the salting and look for consensus about whether salting this multiply-recreated and deleted, contentious article was proper or not. It looks perfectly proper to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Andy Dingley, Administrators are not supposed to do things unilaterally if the action is likely to be contentious. Based on the previously cited example and this, I would suggest that if the original party thinks this is a systemic abuse of "Janitor's Closet Keys" to open a RFC/U on Rund and move forward with the DR process. Hasteur (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worthwhile to point out this ANI section above that involves Ruud making an action and refusing to undue it even when multiple users bring up that s/he should? Silverseren^C 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The history of problems is cause for concern, IMHO, but there's no reason to continue this thread. It's not an issue. They salted a redirect with legitimate reason, and the user who brought it up here didn't previously discuss with Ruud. Non-issue. Swarm ^X 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see an issue of concern on Ruud's part there. This is one of the most heavily trafficked admin pages on the site, and days and days went by with who knows how many admins seeing that thread and not restoring talk page access, so Ruud's judgment was obviously not that bad (IMO it was good). I do see an issue of concern with Silver Seren's pointy bumping of that thread over several days, followed by several additional editors appearing out of nowhere to support restoring talk page access, followed by Silver Seren telling MrMan12321 "A lot of us would like to get your account unblocked"[39] when nobody on that thread supported unblocking (just restoration of talk page access). Silver Seren has not been in apparent user-talk communication with those other editors recently[40] so if "A lot of us would like to get your account unblocked" reflects Silver Seren's actual knowledge of other editors desires, that suggests some kind of off-wiki coordination took place. Not good. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I just made that assumption based on the ANI section above, where at least one user specifically stated their dislike of the block in the first place. I have had no communication with other users in any fashion. In response to your accusations, might I not question your own steadfast backing of admin Ruud both in the above ANI section and this section? And also the fact that you joined a mere week and a half ago and started posting in complicated areas quite quickly, such as ARBCOM, ANI, In the News, and various Reference Desk sections? Silverseren^C 07:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I accept your explanation per AGF even though I still don't see where anyone in the thread expressed dislike of the block (just the talk page access removal and the "ban" template), unless you mean Sonia's post which I interpreted as verbal irony. Ruud is an extremely good contributor though admittedly a bit rouge as an admin. I probably shouldn't encourage that in the current climate, but it seems to me that his actions in these two incidents are justifiable and that others are going out of their way to attack him, making themselves enablers of crappy editing in the process, so I felt I had to speak up for him. Obviously I didn't just join a week and a half ago.[41] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackash have a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Wikipedia articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Wikipedia. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one [42] in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one proposing mediation, I have just said that I am happy to participate. If you start the process stating what issues you wish to be mediated, any editor is free to add their own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I'll list on Friday as I don't have the time until then. Feel free to list for mediation if you want or if you have the time. Blackash have a chat 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you may be banned from this topic. It might be better to see how you feel about the article after that ban (if it happens) expires. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I’m ready to list, but you seem unsure. Are you still willing to go ahead with formal meditation. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking me this question? I have made clear that I am willing to participate in any dispute resolution process. You are proposing formal mediation and it is up to you to decide what issues you want mediated the propose this formally. If it is accepted then the mediators will ask all editors if the wish to be involved. As you may be getting a topic ban I suggest that it would be better for you to wait but it is entirely up to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, listing now. I didn't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine. So thank you for again confirming. [43] Blackash have a chat 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban again

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Slowart and Blackash have a known commercial interest in this subject. That is what this is all about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not planing on contributing any more unless Blackash goes unchecked in describing my work, removing, redefining or watering down the word arborsculpture. Check my edit history please, I proposed topic ban for myself and Blackash as I don't need these endless battles, and to be honest, the subject deserves better. Yes the title issue should be revisited but keep me out of it please. Slowart (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There is no established name yet [44] the discussion that lead to this wording [45]. Wikipedia describes not prescribes. Me and my life partner at Pooktre don't care what the name of the article is as long the title not linked to a method or leads to one artist. So Pooktre and Arborsculpture are both out as the title. Google Pooktre it leads to us google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. If you are interested here is a link to a page with the alternative names suggested for the title with references and quotes. Blackash have a chat 09:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another COI edit

Blackash has just made this [46]. Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How about full page protection

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Wikipedia's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.

I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant Blackash have a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I have already explained, the reason that I reverted was that the edit was made by an editor with a potential COI. You do not seem to understand what this means. Both you and Slowart have a commercial interest in this subject that potentially conflicts with your editing here. You should both refrain from making edits that involve the name of the art or current practitioners of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No you said, you reverted an IP,comment diff of Martin's revert. Going by your reasoning above you should have also reverted the 3 IPs who had mirrored Slowart's edits removing cite content, but you didn't.Blackash have a chat 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
5. Are willing to support removal of cited content [47] and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. [48] This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title [49] and this is good example of their style of argument [50]. Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Wikipedia has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is extremely likely that the battle about "arborsculpture" has been waged on the Internet since 2008 or earlier—see northey reams pooktre arborsculpture for examples; Blackash has declared "I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI" a number of times (example). Wikipedia cannot allow those with an external agenda to decide what terminology is used in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note I didn't suggest or ask for the arborsculpture article be moved or what the new name should be. [51]. This is where there was more discussion after the move [52] As to the google link Johnuniq put up, Bluerasberry addressed this when Colincbn brought this same issue up at the NPOV noticeboard. "[53] Bluerasberry quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone." reply link

As to listing for meditation Colincbn was going to list on the 23rd of Sep 2010 as there had been a consensus to on the talk page link but by 28th he hadn't so I ask him on his talk page and then I listed on the 6 Oct 2010 Blackash have a chat 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest there is anything wrong with promoting your work. Nor am I suggesting a canvassing problem. What I am saying is the bleeding obvious: you have a COI and have used many Internet forums to promote your work and your POV. And now you are using articles on Wikipedia to do the same, and that has to stop—you should no longer be permitted to make edits that concern your clear COI. The Google search link shows you have conducted a campaign since at least 2008, and you will never be convinced by discussion or mediation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I was trying to get the title change to Pooktre I would have a clear COI. But a practitioner discussing the overall name of a art form is only a potential COI if that. I'll state again, I don't care what the overall name of the art form is as long as it neutral. I would be willing to believe that I'm a tree trainer but like all other artists (with the exception of Richard Reames) in this field I don't believe I'm a arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Full Protection - Not only is it not within the guideline of WP:FULL to protect a page because it gets vandalized, but if wikipedia fully protected pages because of vandalism or COI editing, then there wouldn't be too many unlocked pages to edit, now would there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, but that is not the issue. The person suggesting page protection has no experience with Wikipedia other than with Tree shaping, and naturally the page is not going to be protected, as I explained above. The issue concerns the fact that Blackash in particular has a long-term interest in suppressing use of the term "arborsculpture", both off wiki (see my Google search link above at timestamp 03:20, 14 March), and on wiki. There is another frustrated editor with a COI (Slowart) who occasionally (over a long period) attempts to restore "arborsculpture" to the lead of the article, but Blackash spends more time dominating the article. The question raised at ANI is whether any editors should be topic banned (yes, of course at least the two editors with an acknowledged COI concerning the terminology should be topic banned). Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. Pointing out online that arborsculpture is not the overall name or that it leads to Richard Reames is not suppressing. (Both points can be verified) Asking other editor's opinions on wiki how much weight Arborsculpture should be given in the article compared to it's references is also not suppressing. Johnuniq just what do you think my long term interest is? I haven't ever said that I have a COI about the overall name. As a practitioner discussing the overall name I only have a potential COI if that. Blackash have a chat 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google search shows you have been arguing the case off-wiki since 2008, and it is not acceptable to continue the argument on-wiki. Your edits always end up by removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article, which coincidentally matches your off-wiki promotions of your business which uses different terminology. Eventually sufficient editors will choose to get involved in order to support the very reasonable request for a topic ban for at least the two editors with clear COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Your understanding of COI is faulty like your claim that my edits always end up removing "arborsculpture" from the lead.

• My suggested compromise when arborsculpture wasn't in the lead diff Please note arborsculpture is one of the words in the compromise. My edit on the article putting the suggested compromise in place. [54] Please note arborsculpture is still in the lead.
• WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
  • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [55]
  • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [56]
  • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [57]
    • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This listing is now showing the pro arborsculpture editors tactics and its starting to look like anywhere I've gone and requested for outside editors opinion on content for Tree shaping. They come in and fill the pages with rhetoric. Mostly these editors don't answer content related questions and they throw mud. I rebut with diffs because if I don't most editors would logically believe them. Blackash have a chat 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not pro, nor anti, arborsculpture. Nor am I pro/anti pooktre. I am simply pro Wikipedia. Colincbn (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Subject Ban-including all editors porting ongoing partisan arguments into this forum, as all appear to be part of the problem. Allow TalkPage ad lib. .These are good editors facing our times as best they can- but this is a group who are apparently using the article to try to change the English language. Here in NoCalifornia there is neither "Arborsculpture" nor "Treeshaping". Disneyland has informed visitors for 60 years- the park's history is filled with magical topiaries- from promenades of Mickey Mouse ficus, to societies of anthropomorphic cacti, to gant electrified tree houses, &theyre all referred to as topiary. Not "Imagineered Sculptured Plants". With appreciation for WhatamIdoing's high-minded position elsewhere, and with respect to the volumes already written- this business offers high instruction about our resolution process- IE., it really doesnt work so well, does it? Barring "changes of heart", any *mutual* subject-banning is probly far more efficient- and ultimately most fair where any editor evidences intransigence.
B/c WP process inevitably gives 'first-strike' users a break. This has long been established within WP policy. This is exactly how WP:Edit wars are won according to the article: It pays to initiate an edit war. We've seen it pay well. Today we're seeing Israel admitting to training teams of paid WP article-seeders who'll cunningly insert pro-Zionist political content wherever possible. Why? Because it works. Because our policies give that "activism" a break. Dont look for "fair" in "resolution". It pays to start an edit war. And that's what this is, in effect.
But WP is a human system with other human faults. Our mediation process does not work. It relies on

1. Two open-minded, open- hearted adversaries and
2. a mediator able to make cogent contributions via some overall understanding of human nature as well as important technical, and any ancillary 'market' issues at stake, and then decide an authoritative yet non-binding resolution-

&How likely is that synergy? You can say "Good editors resolve disputes". Well, but not quite. I see "Good editors" who have no effect at all when there's more at stake than good editing. Apparently "good editors" also quick-delete spam and promotion.

Provided no cliques &/or puppets are involved- I suspect *mutual* WP:Topic bans of intransigents eventually results in fair articles [and Titles] overall, with less time spent re-hashing events. I'm usually for more gentleness, but WP articles should nOT become a primary resource for politics and gain. I do suggest all editors consider using mutual banning more frequently wherever intransigence is apparent. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Well said, although I'm innocent and therefor unworthy of your suspicions. Topiary at Disneyland really is topiary. Proceed with topic ban IMHO. Slowart (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that we are not discussing who is "innocent" or otherwise. Discussions like this arise when normal talk page debate cannot resolve an issue (for example, there is a discussion below about whether "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles"). No one is suggesting that an editor has done anything "wrong" in this case, other than it is totally impossible to achieve stability in the Tree shaping article because of the entrenched interests involved. If a topic ban were placed, it is likely that more arguments will occur, but they will be resolved in due course because they will be between experienced editors who only want what is right for Wikipedia, with no outside influence that may affect their judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilarleo, I think it's important to remember that topiary is not the same thing as tree shaping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, neither does your link refer to what most arborists call tree shaping. The term 'tree shaping' does not occur in that article at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but I linked it because of its pictures, not because of the text. It shows the trees by Axel Erlandson, whose important contributions to the art form you will find described in the article at Tree shaping#Chronology_of_notable_practitioners.

The fact is that a welded metal frame stuffed with sphagnum moss and covered by little houseplants—which is modern topiary, shown at the Disney link—is simply not the same thing as weaving living tree trunks into a basket shape (the first image in the Gilroy Gardens link). If you actually look at the pictures, it's obvious that they are different things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, hello. I see I have may have engaged you- unlike others. Thank you.

btw, all- the topic here is a mutual editor Subject Ban. Revisiting previous disputes is essentially off-topic to this page. Please let's return any re-naming argument to where it is well-supported. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling this is going to end up burning out just like the three CoIs (one brought by Blackash herself). Where are the admins at ANI? Colincbn (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Colincbn I can only remember 2 COI: this 1, the 2nd that lead to here, I’ve searched and can’t find the 3th one. Please give a link. Blackash have a chat 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How much longer?

Other than one of the editors up for topic banning there have been only two editors who oppose the ban. One of them is AfD Hero who was the one that changed the article name with no discussion,thus creating this wave of conflict, in the first place. The other prefers mediation, however that has been being attempted for over a year with no success. The time has come to make a solid decision about what to do. Do we allow commercially involved entities to edit articles for their own interests or do we stop it. Do we topic ban or capitulate? Hurry up and make a stand, this is why you were given the mop and bucket. The time of the volunteer editors that make this site work is valuable. (P.S. I had to restore this from the archives because even after all of this no admins are doing anything)Colincbn (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pandelver posting to many Wikiprojects about an AFD

I've noticed that User:Pandelver is posting a comment on the talk pages of numerous wikiprojects asking them to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey (see his edit history [58]). Most of the wikiprojects are completely unrelated to the subject of the AFD discussion. It isn't clear to me what he is intending with these posts, but it is certainly disruptive to post the same comment on apparently every wikiproject he can find when the discussion doesn't involve those wikiprojects. I was hoping an admin could get him to stop doing this and take whatever other actions might be appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion [59]. Calathan (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pandelver (talk · contribs) has spammed several unrelated WikiProjects about an AfD of an article s/he created. A rollback of these edits is desired. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just revert the inappropriate notices; the editor has already been informed of the canvassing policy. Unless there is some indication of bad faith there is no reason to involve an administrator. Skomorokh 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When I started typing my post here, he was still posting to more wikiprojects, and I was worried he wasn't going to stop. But he does seem to have stopped just before I posted here. Calathan (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Calathan (talk), Elizium23 (talk), Farix (t | c), not canvassing but non-partisanly notifying whole WikiProjects and certainly not all WikiProjects, not individual members nor perspective subsets, in a balanced breadth across the topical board of those whose stated topic areas are germane, without regard to what their particular positions may be, thanks. So limited and specific and certainly nonpartisan: the contents of the notices carefully paid some attention to the variety of non-similar POVs which might be joined in 2 articles being discussed, and a specific potential 3rd. Not to WikiProjects with no relation to the topic. No invitations to any individuals in per se. Not to WikiProjects with no relation to the topic, though some of your own views may reflect the different perspectives on relatedness which the various members of projects too will have, so this is to that extent as subjectively objective for me as for you; those who take an interest in any topic upon being aware of its existence will be the demonstration of who considers themselves or their colleagues relevant, it seems. No invitations to any individuals in per se. After several days, this particular AfD had only 3 people discussing it, and an administrator reminded us that at least 7 days were routine, so sought more relevant voices, whatever they might say being up to them; and took inspiration from the 4th voice who did not comment directly but showed this person had propagated the AfD discussion area to 4 'lists' of articles to be examined. Also asked that person what this propagation did and how it worked, but have not so far seen an answer. Welcome all views, and do not by personal policy condone the conceptual paradigm (also one of many perspectives) of opposing views so much as collaboration among the many perspectives which make a whole. In order not to advocate any particular view, but to better Wikipedia's balanced, mini-comprehensive consideration of its content. Do you find the notices in question disinterested enough, or have you noticed anyone left out whom you would suggest for active invitation? - Pandelver (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Has his own licensing policy

See User:Pandelver#My Licensing policy:

"My 3 requirements attendant upon or restricting all forms of copyright and public domain release in every other respect, are that I always require:

(1) notice to be given directly to me, prior to release, whenever material I have produced is quoted, excerpted, or included in other writings, presentations, correspondence, or works, paraphrased, copied, published, or distributed (2) a courtesy copy, prior to release, of your product from you or from the reuser whenever material I have produced is copied, published, or distributed;

which notice and delivery are in addition to

(3) proper attribution to me within the new format or work, attribution to any collaborating authors, and all other terms of the relevant licenses.

To request a contact method in fulfillment of these requirements, please indicate your need and ask my on my Discussion (talk) page and correspond with me about it there"
No one has notified him of this discussion so I will now. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that shit is right out. In my view, this user should by blocked until he agrees to remove this from his user page and understands that the only licensing policy that applies to his contributions is the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL as described in the notice under the editing box. This just can't be permitted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is something I didn't know about. It looks like he's using this template on his user page. Of course he's also imposing a lot of conditions on use of his contributions that he really can't impose, but I'm a little surprised about the template. It looks like it has been around since 2004 and there are over 400 users who have this on their user pages. Also, there are a number of similar templates. Is this really a good thing? Have the lawyers looked at these templates to see if they conflict with the standard licenses that apply to all user contributions? Even if they don't conflict, doesn't the existence of these templates just create confusion with different editors claiming to license their contributions under different terms? Sorry if these are foolish questions and this was all sorted long ago, but I've been around for a while and I've never heard of this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In a certain sense, a block isn't really necessary on the alternate license, because it has no validity. Every time xe clicks the "save page" box, that's automatically agreeing to our Terms of Use, and I'm pretty sure WMF never agree to his/hers. I mean, yes, someone who can explain it well should prolly leave a message to let xem know how submitting here works, but I don't see how the "claim" is blockable. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But making phony legal claims about the licensing of your work, even if they're totally unenforceable, tends to muddy the waters and create confusion for those who wish to reuse our content under the licenses we provide. I found this deletion discussion regarding the template that was closed as "no consensus," but, really, isn't this something the lawyers should look at? Is there an easy way to pass a note to the WMF and ask if it's an issue? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the template they have released their contributions into the public domain. Would that not mean that there was no need to pay any attention to the 3 requirements. Even if it doesn't they need to be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - editors have been banned for making absolutely ridiculous legal threats. The "alternative licencing" page should be deleted as it will not serve any purpose apart from confusing editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's licencing and that users can't override them. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Steven J. Anderson in that I don't believe that he should be contributing text here until he acknowledges his understanding that he may not override WMF:Terms of Use. Unless WMF is willing to waive those, the more restrictive terms are completely unacceptable. In terms of the PD, I'm afraid that it is also questionable under ToU, which says: "all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works." If material is public domain, derivative works may be released under copyright. I don't know how much WMF cares about the more liberal release, but the more restrictive terms just don't work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to tell him. The chap is completely clueless, but very keen to learn. And why does that template exist in the first place? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand what that person is trying to do, then yes it clueless, but it seems s/he is trying to multi-license to the PD "but not really". As for the multi-license templates, basically they're attempts by contributors to relax the GFDL/BY-SA copyleft on their contributions, so that downstream parties can then add new restrictions to later derivative versions. There was a big talkpage spam campaign circa 2004 to get people to use them for bogus reasons that I won't bore you with, but it was somewhat successful and the meme stuck around. To some extent the templates also reflect the ideological schism over copyleft in the FOSS world. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine, but it's just the text in the box. The "three requirements" place additional restrictions than would be allowed by GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like this boils down to two questions.

1. If we're agreed that the "three requirements" are out, what are we going to do about it? No one has said anything on his talk page yet. It seems to me best that an administrator do the talking.

2. How can we be sure that {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine? Have the foundation's attorneys looked at this and given advice? If not, what's the best way to contact them? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multilicensing under PD is perfectly fine. We have lots of PD text in Wikipedia (from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for example). Users are free to multi-license in this way as well. They cannot, however, alter or add conditions to the default cc-by-sa licensing. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell him that the multilicensing is fine, but his additions won't stick. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How does that prove multilicensing is fine? We have a lot of CC-By-SA-only text on Wikipedia, too, but contributors are not permitted that liberty (unless they are importing something in which they share copyright); they are required to multilicense. I don't particularly care if somebody wants to release their content under more liberal allowance than ToU, but, then, I wasn't here when it was decided that CC-By and other licenses which would allow derivatives to be copyrighted should not be the one we use. There must be some reason that the language in ToU is written as it is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your pronouncement that "multilicensing under pd is perfectly fine" doesn't carry any more weight than the many other user comments for and against such licensing unless you are a lawyer offering legal advice. Are you? To my understanding it is not ok to append unenforceable language to a contract (which I suppose this is) under the rubric that it can be ignored because it's unenforceable. I'll ask again. Does anyone here know how to contact the foundations lawyers so we can get this definitively resolved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think it's necessary. I contact them occasionally about issues at WP:CP. I'm not sure if we're still with our interim attorney, but I can find out. However, before I give it a whirl, I'd like to make sure that I know exactly what we're wanting covered here. :) I'd also like to know if anybody has run this by them before, if anybody knows. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-licensing has been around forever, and before the GFDL-to-CC switchover, the file upload dialogs explicitly encouraged it. I have a low opinion of the practice myself and never engaged in it, but it is basically recognized by WP:C, which says "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here..." Multi-licensing looks to me like an instance of this. It says your stuff is available under GFDL/CC as required, and that you're also exercising your right to extend additional licenses. IANAL, YMMV, etc. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• My, what a tempest. Warm thanks to one of you for describing me as "clueless but eager to learn," as an acquaintance says, "I resemble that remark" (a pun, it seems, on "resent"). Since the extended issues whose skin is barely exposed by you all here is fascinating but beyond my regulatory ken, the multilicensing template which you say has been kicking around here since 2004 is it? and the 3 requirements is simply herewith removed. I must admit that in this rare case, I have only scanned some of the details in your comments, while usually attending, so little is missed which might be of consequence, to the whole of people's posts, as even dictions vary among us, and where the gems are mined is not always evident at quick or even third read.

Only thing to reproduce here is the final line from under the 3 requirements, which was the only bit not quoted, and probably shows my philosophical offering to fellow at Wikipedia best:

"Thank you!

I also encourage you to give these same 3 courtesies to all authors of content under all licenses, even when they have not asked for them, it's great collegiality, ethical respect, kindness, intelligent honesty and appreciation on your part and mine. Wikipedia's part of the real world."

On second thought, I'll leave an re-edited version of just the "I encourage," not as requirements, but as suggestions for civility among us and people in their communications everywhere in every time!

Cheers, and tea instead for all! - Pandelver (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment After a further discussion, he has taken it all down. He's also refactored the mess he made below. Please cut him some slack, I believe he means absolutely the best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Becoming seriously disruptive at Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey

Note his recent edit [60] where he has decimated and refactored the comment of another editor. Note also. I have restored the comment. Can someone please check this and keep an eye on the AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pondering a snow close as delete. The consensus is not going to change, and it would be a quick way to stop the disruption and discussion flooding. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That would just lead to DRV. Either close it early and nominate it at AfD again or, better still, leave it alone. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wikinews links regarding Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami

Hi. It has been brought to our attention that an as yet unnamed editor on WP has been removing links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, to our articles concerning the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. I'll show you what was posted to us in the early hours of this morning, and by whom.

"As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)"

Since Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, I find this behaviour to be totally unacceptable, and would request that whoever is responsible for this (I have requested the name of the "established editor" at Wikinews), is dealt with by whatever means are necessary unpleasant, and would ask the administrators here to review the situation, and see what can be done (if anything). The fact that you link to us from the Main page is wonderful, but I can't honestly see why someone would do this without even making note of it, and then make such an appalling statement as "Wikinews articles are not worth linking to". We do a lot of work to make sure what we publish is relevant, accurate, and appropriate to the situation we're covering.

Your help in looking into this issue would be welcomed.

BarkingFish 13:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (admin @ en.wikinews, My talk page at ENWN)

I see nothing actionable per se in removing wikinews links from wikipedia, sister project or not. I'd suggest it's only actionable if it becomes a revert war to remove said links. Just my non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If we are dealing with an IP, we (here at en.Wiki) could do a CU and find out who they are. Otherwise, they should be sternly warned that something like this isn't something they need to be doing without consensus. I would wait until the name of the user is found and then deal with it on our end since this was done on en.Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear who the user is if one looks at the talk page for the earthquake. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Things are a bit hectic at Fukushima I nuclear accidents. But the issue or removal was raised at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews a day ago without receiving any justification. My suggestion would be to readd and explain that again at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews suggesting discussion rather than edit-summary-less reverting (btw: I haven't checked if that was generally or always the case, navigating the page history is a pain). The same might applies mutatis mutandis to the International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. We are still far away from and endless discussion or revert-war on the subject that would require action here... L.tak (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. Whether you agree with it or not, any major current event will have an article started within a few minutes on Wikipedia and will be rapidly updated in almost real time. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here. Taking the Japan earthquake article as an example - our first coverage was approx 1/2 hour after the event [61] and unless I'm missing an earlier article, the first coverage on Wikinews was FOUR hours later [62] - since we're outpacing wikinews by a ridiculous margin, linking to them is pointless. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 2 Things. Compare your "first coverage" with ours, and look at the difference. You must understand that because we're published over Google News, our stories undergo a full peer review process confirming the absence of copyvio, plagiarism and general errors in work prior to their publication. Your articles undergo no review whatsoever before someone slaps them up, they only get taken down after something's already been done wrongly. Our story was actually started at 9:26AM UTC, yours at 6:18AM. Maybe we are being outpaced by Wikipedia, so what? The fact is we're publishing news - you're publishing an encyclopedia. Either way, we consider that our articles are worth linking to - that's part of the reason we publish them. If we're not useful in articles, why do you link us from your main page? BarkingFish 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • While our initial article was very minimal, it rapidly expanded into well referenced and useful information. By the time your article went live, our article [63] was at least equal and arguably superior to yours and evolving information had been available for the previous four hours for anyone desparate for an overview of what was happening while Wikinews had nothing on offer. While our articles are not reviewed before publication, high profile events attract prolific effort and errors are quickly found and corrected, often within seconds. If a news service is being beaten timewise by us doesn't that make it redundant? By the time your articles go up, we've got the information already here - it's pointless linking to your articles. I'm going to propose that your main page link be removed as it's simply no longer useful to redirect people away from here to you. For better or worse WP:NOTNEWS is no longer in effect and a separate wikiproject for news articles is no longer viable. Exxolon (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that the first article on the BBC's website concerning the Earthquake (albeit as an across the screen-rolling news-type of thing was more than 25 minutes after you put it up here, does that mean the BBC News Online service is redundant to Wikipedia too? I doubt it. BarkingFish 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is just an edit removing some links. Do we "sternly warn" people for removing wikilinks? Ohconfucius stated their reasoning for removing the links on their talk page, it doesn't sound unreasonable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. It's not unreasonable a place for BarkingFish to bring this up, in an effort to get eyes here to look at it, but we can probably point people on this thread to the thread at the main article's talk page. Keeps things central, apart from anything else. I've placed my view on the dispute there. It's certainly something consensus is required for, and it looks to be vaguely against Ohconfucious just now. In xyr defence, WP:BRD is quite applicable, although edit summaries would have been nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has BarkingFish tried discussing it with the person removing the links, or even on the talkpages of the affected articles? That's always the first step of dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This whole situation is utterly unacceptable. We always link Wikipedia from Wikinews, because it is a sister project, and as a family, the projects should support themselves. This is not the case, though. I reverted like twice an editor (user:Gold Hat) some days ago after removing Wikinews links from the eq/ts page, they gave no reason at all. This needs to be solved; Wikipedia is becoming a diva these days. "There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here." – WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE NEWS, okay? Diego Grez (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Funny that. Sniping at Wikipedia and its contributors has become de rigueur on Wikinews, yet as soon as links start disappearing you're all over here playing up the "sister project" angle. the wub "?!" 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I object to that. I'm a Wikipedian every bit as much as a Wikinewsie. I also question what relevance that issue over there has to a content dispute over here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I second what BRS says, I'm also a Wikipedian anyway, but this is kind of stupid, and disruptive. Links to Wikinews do any damage whatsoever to Wikipedia? No. So...? --Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
        • We're a diva because we're better. WP:NOTNEWS is universally ignored, like it or not. Wikinews links should not get higher priority just because - only if they are useful. Exxolon (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
          • So you're openly admitting that Wikipedians ignore an actual site policy, in favour of publishing stuff which isn't supposed to be here. I'm gonna prove theWub's point now... "Like that's anything new?" :) BarkingFish 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not required to carry links to Wikinews, nor must they link to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc.). Indeed, the quality, reliability, and relevance of other WMF projects varies quite a bit from project to project and even from page to page within a given project. The implicit or explicit assumption made by some individuals here that Wikipedia is obliged to link to other projects wherever and whenever possible is not justified by policy or practice.

While I share concerns about the tendency for Wikipedia to be treated as a wire service and the effects of instantaneous news updates on our goals as an encyclopedia project, that problem is unlikely to be solved by mandatory Wikinews links. Links to sister projects should continue to be evaluated in the same way that we evaluate any other external link. Demands that we 'deal with this by whatever means are necessary' come across as a tad overwrought, given that your contributions seem to show no attempts whatsoever to resolve this issue, BarkingFish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat unfair to BarkingFish. This post here is exactly an effort to deal with the situation. No, it isn't in the correct place, but xe's trying to sort things out as best as possible - which is to try and find people over here to look at things. Remember, at the time of the original post there was no indication to the poster as to what user or even which article(s) to look at.
Sister project links are not dealt with in (quite) the same fashion as all internal links; my interpretation of the relevant guideline is in a more suitable place - an article talk page. This ANI thread has served its usefulness and the content dispute should now be worked out over there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't just consider that to be "somewhat" unfair, I consider it to be very unfair. My contribution here, TenOfAllTrades, was an attempt to raise the concern with people who actually have the ability to review issues like this, since I don't have that facility to hand myself (I'm not an admin here), and I find your comments about my "demands" (which I wasn't, it was a request, which you're free to ignore), to be frankly insulting. This is my contribution to attempting to resolve the issue - as an administrator of Wikinews, I have no power whatsoever to use my position there to negotiate with individual users here over something which affects the project I work on. As for theWub saying that our project has become de rigeur for sniping at WP and its contributors, proof of such an allegation would be welcomed. If it's raised, it will be dealt with. BarkingFish 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That's an awfully charitable reading of BarkingFish's request. He wasn't looking for people over here to "look at things", he was asking us to shoot first and ask questions later — it's difficult to read his 'I'm not an editor, I'm an admin' declaration followed by a demand that we "[deal] with [the responsible editor] by whatever means are necessary" in any other way.

Based on his comments immediately above, it's obvious that if he did have an admin bit on enwiki, he would be misusing it right now to threaten the editor who removed the links. While I have not participated at Wikinews, I have had very...mixed...experiences in dealing with administrators on some of our other 'sister' projects (including Wikiversity and Commons). If BarkingFish believes that one must have the "power" of an admin's position (ha!) in order to discuss article content on Wikipedia, then Wikinews administrators obviously have a very different set of prerogatives and responsibilities from those enjoyed (ha! again) by admins on enwiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm about to say is "awfully charitable" too, because it could be a lot worse. What I meant by the comment above is obvious to me, but it may not be to others. There is a clear difference between an administrator discussing something with a user, and a regular user discussing something with another user. I don't believe I should have the "power" of an admin's position to discuss content, simply that my position there means precisely bugger all here. I will however reword my initial comments, since it's patently obvious to me that you in particular are offended by them. BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Barkingfish. You've edited on Wikpedia, you know that you discuss edits with other editors on article talk pages or on user talk pages. What you don't do is charge in here, state that you find "this behaviour to be totally unacceptable" and demand that Wikipedia administrators deal with someone "by whatever means are necessary." Especially over some links that may not be needed in an encyclopedic article. Don't you think that your behaviour might be a bit aggressive, over the top, and a poor reflection on the project that you represent? 86.159.92.13 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@IP Above - Frankly, yes I do think they were aggressive, no I don't think it's a poor reflection on the project I represent, it's an accurate reflection of how a project feels when we're told that basically we're redundant to an encyclopedia which isn't a bloody news source. We record the news, you record the events which made the news. There is a big difference, and the quicker Wikipedia realises that it's not a news service, it's an encyclopedia the better.BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Everyone: The 'means necessary' could be as simple as a quiet word, or whatever. An unfortunate choice of words, but okay, it's happened - and now been struck as not a great way of putting it. However, there's a real need for those in this road-to-nowhere argument to sit back and cool it - especially you, BarkingFish. The last thing I want is for this discussion to flare into a disruptive dramafest - especially when the content dispute is being discussed in a mature, constructive way elsewhere now that the ball's rolling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also: A proposal on T:MP directly related to this thread. —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems there is a noticeable degree of antipathy between theoretical "sister" projects. Like at Commons, where you can bring up the fact that a malcontent has been indef'd here and they continue to edit freely at Commons, and the response is, "Yeh, so?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comment. The Wikinews community has only just given itself a good hard shake and realised that Wikipedia is not the Antichrist - last thing I want to see is a reversion to old attitudes. I don't feel this thread is helping either project's view of the other - as someone who contributes to both (albeit currently low-activity here), I really want to take the two and bang their heads together when arguments like this get heated. Can I get a bot to trout every single active contributor to both projects? I'm kidding.... I think. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.59.87.102

Would someone take a look at the edit history of this IP, please. He or she is adding unsourced information to infoboxes, or changing what's there without providing a source. Most problematic is the unsourced addition of religions. They also like to add or change cause of death and generally make unnecessary edits or ones that don't improve the article. I've posted several times on their talk page, but there's been no response. I'm not sure if their edits rise to the level of "disruptive", but the unwillingness to communicate seems like a problem. Maybe a nudge from an admin might get them to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is somebody's sock or not (you seem to think so), but I've nudged via a 24 hour block. I think it's risen to the level of disruptive; you'v ebeen patient and very communicative. The refusal to respond or moderate behavior alone is concerning, but the repeated violations of WP:BLP are a more serious issue. If this is a clueless user, 24 hours may be enough to cause them to pay attention. If there is block evasion going on, as I gather you may think, 24 hours is insufficient response. A WP:SPI might be a good idea? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did have socking suspicions, but I'm less certain of that now. I will most probably not file an SPI unless the situation becomes clearer to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some protection for Leo Prime?

Some sock puppeteer has been attacking the page Leo Prime and talk page under new accounts continuously. He gets blocked and makes a new account a couple days later. Is there a way to protect it against new users? Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Go to WP:RFPP and ask for extended semi-protection. That will fend off the riff-raff to some extend at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done for a week, some socks blocked. TNXMan 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's amazing how someone can get so obsessed over one particular thing, but it happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Note: This conversation isn't going to lead anywhere; it is beyond the scope of ANI. Please consider an WP:RfC/U if behavioral issues impede progress towards building the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly throwing allegations of personal bias against well-established editors that disagree with him. I'd like to ask an administrator to step in and perhaps issue a warning for this to stop.

Under his definition "non-neutral parties" are anyone who disagrees with his position.

Danlaycock (talk · contribs) automatically became an "open supporter of Somaliland" when he uploaded a photo of a map of the Horn of Africa showing Somaliland separate from Somalia. Quote: "One of those accounts has protested that I have no proof that he is a supporter of Somaliland's independence and that he is therefore indeed a "neutral" Rfc participant. I believe this is absurd since he recently uploaded a non-free fringe map depicting an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by the Somalia it is internationally recognized as being an autonomous region of."

Middayexpress opened a thread on the ANI in January, where he introduced both Danlaycock and I (Night w (talk · contribs) as "open supporters of Somaliland".

In February, I weighed in on an RfC with which he was involved, where I was immediately labelled as one of the "old pro-secessionist Somaliland accounts".

Recently, Danlaycock was labelled as "one of the pro-Somaliland accounts" when he opined on another RfC on the same page. In the same RfC, after repeatedly asking the other user to desist, he was labelled, often offhandedly, as "partisan", an "open supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence".

Can someone stop this please? They're baseless accusations associated with a subject where I very rarely edit. Nightw 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only by coincidence that I happen to see this thread, but myself and several other users have previously noted both biased editing and bad faith assumptions on the part of Middayexpress. There was a strong consensus that the the article for Somalia was biased, but when it was rewritten accordingly, they accused virtually every other editor of bias and bad faith. I can dig up diffs if need be, but I thought I'd mention that there's a pretty clear history of this behavior. Swarm ^X 06:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I, too, have been the target of Middayexpress' baseless accusations of Somaliland bias. Night is absolutely correct in his assessment that if anyone disagrees with Middayexpress' very rigid POV, he or she is automatically labeled a Somaliland nationalist. --Taivo (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User:Copper button has been notified of this discussion due to his participation in the discussion on Talk:al-Shabaab TDL (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress' response

All of the accounts above are accounts that I have encountered in some form or another on the Somali-related articles. User:Swarm is an account I encountered in a separate, long-resolved discussion on the Somalia talk page who doesn't appear to like me very much and who, together with User:Danlaycock, actually tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to get me blocked only last month [64]. The User:Night w and User:Taivo accounts are both indeed open supporters of Somaliland, a self-declared sovereign state that is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia (as can be readily observed, for example, via their many pro-Somaliland comments here). Nightw above links to a Third Opinion discussion on the Al-Shabaab talk page, where I indeed pointed out to him the basic fact that he is an open supporter of Somaliland's secession; however, he neglects to mention that I did so in the first place not to "attack" him as he absurdly insinuates but because he attempted to weigh in on a Third Opinion discussion that I and another party were having over the same Somaliland region's alleged ties with the Al-Shabaab insurgent group in southern Somalia while WP:Third opinion quite clearly stipulates that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" (which of course automatically rules him out, as well as all of the other accounts listed above).

Basically, the sole purpose of Nightw's post above is to attempt to demonize me; there was no recent "incident" to report. As can be easily confirmed by checking my contributions, this is a user with whom I have actually not had any contact for months; the same goes for Taivo. So why the AN/I post, you ask? Because presently, there is an Rfc going on on the Al-Shabaab talk page over the same Somaliland-related issue I mentioned earlier (and which none of the accounts above were even involved in to begin with, Danlaycock/TDL notwithstanding; he belatedly attempted to provide a "neutral" third opinion anyway). However, that same WP:Third opinion instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" of course still makes it difficult for the OP (and the other parties) to credibly weigh in on it, as he attempted to do before. So trying to demonize me as much as possible -- although, again, we haven't even had any contact for months -- is pretty much the only avenue that's left. Note that at the top of this AN/I board, it is also emphasized in bold letters that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". Nightw never even bothered contacting me about any grievance he may have had (and that's probably because he wasn't even involved in said talk page discussion to begin with); the only message I got from him was a notification of this self-serving, opportunistic post. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Danlaycock's response

This issue first arose during this discussion on AN/I. I was previously aware of the dispute, although I had not commented on the matter, and noticed that Middayexpress had failed to notify the involved editors ([65]) that he had just reported them to AN/I. When I left a response I was immediately personally attacked. Middayexpress insisted that because I had uploaded this map I was obviously not neutral. Middayexpress repeatedly accused me of not including the source of the map, of lying about the source, and suggested that it was from a "partisan source" in spite of the fact that the source of the map was clear in the fair use rational from the very beginning.

The dispute latter resurfaced due to an issue on the al-Shabaab article which Middayexpress brought up on the RS Noticeboard. Knowing the history, I suspected the other editor hadn't been notified, which turned out to be the case again, so I notified User:Copper_button and left a comment pointing out that Copper_button didn't dispute the reliability of the source, but rather was advocating for a reword using the same sources. Once again, I was immediately attacked, and labeled as "one of a group of accounts that are open supporters of Somaliland's secession".

Since this time, Middayexpress had repeatedly suggested that since I uploaded this map I'm biased pro-Somaliland: [66] [67] [68].

He's also suggested that I (and Night) can't comment on the al-Shabaab article because of our alleged bias: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74].

Other recent examples where Middayexpress has accused editors of being "Open supporters of Somaliland" (or some variant of this): [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81].

I've repeatedly requested that if Middayexpress has an issue with me personally, that s/he should take it to AN/I and focus on the content on the talk page. I've also suggested multiple times that if s/he objects to the map I uploaded, the solution is to file a WP:FFD: [82] [83] [84]. However, s/he has refused to do this and seems to prefer to keep it around so that it can be used as "evidence" of my pro-Somaliland bias whenever I make a comment.

And finally, it seems from the post by Middayexpress directly above that s/he's still making these unsupported "open supporters of Somaliland" personal attacks against several established users. TDL (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the full extent of my Somalia related edit history in article space is: 11 edits to Somaliland, 8 to Somalia, 2 to East Africa, and uploading the map discussed above. I've reverted plenty of "pro-Somaliland" edits ([85] [86]), so beyond the fact that the attacks are uncalled for, they aren't justified. Middayexpress edits almost exclusively East African (predominantly Somali) related articles. I've been editing here for almost 6 years and have never been so much as warned for my actions, let alone blocked. Midddayexpress' history speaks for itself. TDL (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the attempts to tie old, completely unrelated, long-resolved disputes to the current dispute -- which neither you nor any of the other complaining accounts were even involved in to begin with -- via carefully-selected difs continue. Unfortunately, editing mainly East African articles is not a crime, especially for someone (i.e. me) who is an active member of several such WikiProjects [87]. I could easily return the favor if I wanted to and dig into your history, scrounging up whatever random "dirt" I could find and then likewise try and link that to the current dispute, but I don't need to. The other actual disputant has already weighed in, and like me, he has no issue with the nature of our dispute. Only editors whom for the most part I haven't even had contact with for months and who (quite apparently) still hold grudges are upset. Very telling. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress' reply

The foregoing post by User:Danlaycock/TDL is an utterly disingenuous but rather predictable attempt to cast aspersions on my edits by attempting to tie previous run-ins on other pages (some from months ago) that I have had with his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts that also regularly post on the List of sovereign states article (including User:Night w and User:Taivo) with the completely separate, current dispute involving just myself and User:Copper button on the Al-Shabaab article's talk page. As can clearly be seen here, this dispute never involved any of the accounts above (though Danlaycock/TDL certainly tried to get in on it), nor was there any "incident" to report, Again, per his own admission ("You will recall that I did hold back from offering an opinion when the third opinion was requested previously" [88]), he never could provide a "neutral" third party opinion in the first place after the Third Opinion initiative had already been filed by Copper button (the other actual disputant) because of WP:Third opinion's clear instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". Copper button subsequently filed an Rfc to help resolve the matter between myself and him [89], in the process again logically listing just myself and him as the two disputants, just as he had done with the earlier Third Opinion initiative (c.f. [90]). Danlaycock/TDL then rather predictably showed up again yesterday, trying very hard to share his supposedly "neutral" opinion (remember that this is someone who just last month tried to have me blocked on another article [91]) -- this despite the fact that I had repeatedly pointed out to him that WP:Third opinion's neutral third party directive still applied since a "Respondent or Third party is the person (usually a third opinion contributor) providing the third opinion" [92]. Besides the transparent, all-but-the-kitchen sink attempt to demonize me above, Danlaycock/TDL also clearly missed the instruction at the top of this AN/I board not to "clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" and that "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues". Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've explained to you several times, all of the policy you quote here refers exclusively to WP:3Os. As you correctly pointed out, I intentionally didn't partake in the third opinion, because I knew that you would just attack me as non-neutral. However, the third opinion took place a month ago and little progress has been made. The current discussion is as a result of a WP:RFC. WP:3O policy doesn't forbid me from contributing to WP:RFCs, or to the article in general. Please explain why you think I should be banned from this article?

PS: Continuing your personal attacks here, as you did with the comments "his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts", isn't going to help your situation. I'd suggest retracting this statement. TDL (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never forbidden you from contributing material to the article nor requested that you be "banned" from editing it, so those strawman arguments are beside the point. It's the fact that you are clearly not a neutral editor vis-a-vis one of the two disputants (i.e. me) that makes it unlikely that you can offer a truly neutral third party opinion. Indeed, you even at one point accused [93] me of being a "Somali nationalist" without my even having so much as once divulged my ethnicity anywhere on this website. That is both highly presumptuous and contrary to Wikipedia's instruction that third parties should "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and "Mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart". Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress continues to call me an "open supporter of Somaliland" while failing to note that he is far more active in an anti-Somaliland campaign than anyone he has mentioned as a "Somaliland supporter". My position has always been clear--Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state and should be set apart from other state names by italics with note on its disputed status. That is hardly the position of "a supporter of Somaliland". Indeed, Middayexpress' objections to the very mention of Somaliland, even when italicized with a note on its disputed status, is a clear indication that his own bias colors anything he says about other editors. Middayexpress, parroting Danlaycock above, your continued personal attacks and comments here are not going to help your situation. --Taivo (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly having to point out the basic fact that Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia [94] to folks who have stated outright that "there is a country named "Somaliland". It doesn't exist as a "fringe" theory--it exists" [95] is not being "anti-Somaliland". It's just stating facts. It's also difficult to see how I am involved, as you say, in an "anti-Somaliland campaign" when I actually furnished most of the images and a lot of the text on the articles of the sub-regions of and people from the territory, just like I've done with just about every other Somali region. As one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, this is to be expected. Unprovoked personal attacks from editors I haven't even had any contact with for months, on the other hand, are completely uncalled for. Let it go already; this is not the place to carry on disputes. Besides being plain unhealthy, holding grudges is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. In future, it would be best to concentrate on working together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination. Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where has anyone disagree with you over the fact that Somalia claims Somaliland as an autonomous region? The fact that Somaliland declared independence and controls it's territory, in spite of being completely unrecognized by other states, doesn't contradict this. Just because other states don't recognize Somaliland doesn't mean that RS don't consider it to be de facto independent. [96] This is notable information that belongs in an encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kindly stop talking about the politics of secession. They are irrelevant to the dispute between Copper button and I -- not you or any of the other accounts above -- and an unwelcome distraction from the ongoing RFC regarding the two proposed draft paragraphs (the incumbent one vs. Copper's new proposed draft edit). Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I declare my interest as having been involved in discussion with this editor in January 2010 (and not since, as I recall). This is the editor who once argued that all pro-Somaliland-independence sources were inherently unreliable, and therefore that pro-Somaliland arguments are unsourced (curiously, this didn't apply to anti-Somaliland-independence sources, which were treated as paragons of neutrality even when they were openly campaigning). Shoot, this is the editor who once sustained an argument that any state that does not control 100% of its claimed territory does not de facto exist - a suggestion that would doubtless come as something of a surprise to those in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, China, India and many others who are, we are presumably to believe, experiencing mass delusions about their countries' de facto existence.

We should not be surprised that he's still labelling as "open supporters of Somaliland" anyone who does not accept that the pro-Somaliland-independence POV must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Doubtless we've seen many other people saying many similar things in other subject areas. But if this is still going on, I think we as a community need to consider whether it is really constructive having someone editing these articles who is so consistently unable to see past their own POV on their subject matter. Pfainuk talk 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The User:Pfainuk above is yet another one of the aforementioned group of accounts from the List of sovereign states article. That unprovoked personal attack above is another very transparent attempt to cast aspersions on my edits by (a) completely misrepresenting the actual nature of previous, long-resolved and unrelated disputes, and (b) trying to then tie those previous run-ins on other pages (some from months ago) that I have had with his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts that also regularly post on said article with the completely separate, current dispute involving just myself and User:Copper button on the Al-Shabaab article's talk page. As can clearly be seen here, this dispute never involved any of the accounts above, nor was there any "incident" to report, The user has also clearly missed the instruction at the top of this AN/I board not to "clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" and that "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues". Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, please retract the statement "his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts". Continuing with these personal attacks here (with no justification) isn't going to help your situation. Do you have any intention of stopping the personal attacks? TDL (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be "that guy", but is it possible an admin could resolve this soon? I feel like this is getting cluttered with accusation/counter-accusation as spillover from the talk page or something and it's clear to me that neither one of these editors are willing to work together let alone be the bigger man and just let the other have the last word. It'd be nice if this got resolved soon. Sorry, just my opinion. Dachknanddarice (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. I tried to end my first post today on a positive note, indicating that "in future, it would be best to concentrate on working together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination", But of course, that fell on deaf ears. My offer, however, still stands and was sincere. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Middayexpress, is not only your personal accusations against any editor as being "pro-Somaliland" if they are other than strictly against mentioning Somaliland in any way shape or form. Indeed, there was a mediation earlier this year on how to treat Somaliland in the East Africa article. Throughout the mediation you were absolutely, positively focused on preventing any mention of Somaliland whatsoever in text or in footnote. You were completely inflexible in your POV and eventually simply abandoned the mediation because no other editor was being as inflexible and uncompromising as you were. When the other editors began editing based on the non-Middayexpress consensus, you started an edit war on the matter. Don't start trying to sound like an editor that plays well with others. You don't. --Taivo (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I could easily debunk your comments above regarding who supposedly started "edit wars" from old, completely unrelated and long-resolved disputes on other pages and launch more counter-accusations of my own. However, I won't take the bait because those unhelpful remarks are completely irrelevant to the actual ongoing dispute and Rfc (that neither you nor any of the other accounts above were a part of in the first place). Looks like I will have to be the bigger man that Dachknanddarice alluded to. My offer to work together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination still stands. Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try (and have attempted) to work together with you to address these issues. However, you've repeatedly refused to consider my arguments with statements such as "No point in addressing a user who probably shouldn't even be responding to the Rfc in the first place" because in your words I'm "an open supporter of the Somaliland region's self-declared independence". If you are willing to agree to cease making these completely unsupported personal attacks, and to stop insisting that I shouldn't be allowed to contribute on the al-Shabaab talk page, then perhaps we can work together to solve these issue? If not, then I don't see much hope of a collaborative environment developing. TDL (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

...and as I'm sure you're already aware (since I did, after all, tell you as much [97]), I also indicated that I would first "ask an admin whether this quite logical precept still applies" viz. whether or not WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" still applies to third party RFC respondents since WIki defines a "Respondent or Third party [as] the person (usually a third opinion contributor) providing the third opinion" [98]. The admin has since contacted me back, indicating that "in practice, partisans or participants in a dispute often comment at related RFCs" and that "there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping this from happening". However, he has not addressed whether or not there is a policy actually permitting or forbidding this. I'll try and ask another admin just to make sure. Middayexpress (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear here, your answers to my questions are:

• a) you have no intention of stopping your unsupported personal attacks, such as calling other editors "partisans"?
• b) you intend to continue to insist that editors who disagree with your POV should not be allowed to respond on Talk:al-Shabaab?

Unless you change your position on these issues, I'm not sure how we'd be able to "work together". TDL (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That reference to "partisans" above is a direct quote from WP:Third opinion, actually. If you have an issue with it, take it up on the article's talk page, not with me; I unfortunately didn't write the material. This petty back and forth and relentless cluttering of the board with irrelevant accusations must come to an end sooner or later. Looks like I will again have to be the bigger man that Dachknanddarice alluded to and say go ahead and weigh in on the Rfc. Only this time, actually try and heed WP:RFC's instructions to "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified of this discussion as the second editor currently involved at Talk:al-Shabaab but I'm not really involved in this dispute, which seems to have different roots. Although I've found trying to negotiate with User:Middayexpress quite frustrating at times, I don't think anything happened that needs administrator intervention. My only request would be for comments at our RFC (Talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC) which has so far only attracted one other editor. --Copper button 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While my negotiations with Copper button have also been somewhat frustrating, I also would not characterize them as requiring administrative intervention. Indeed, prior to the Third Opinion and Rfc stalemates, much (albeit slow) progress had been made. As I indicated in my talk page remarks, I also welcome Rfc comments. However, they must respect WP:RFC's aforementioned instructions to "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress, working with you has been frustrating every single time that we have crossed paths. Your absolute refusal to admit of any mention of Somaliland as a de facto state--either in text or footnote and marked as disputed--leads to a complete breakdown of communication in every case. --Taivo (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring. Try and understand that this issue has nothing to do with the relative merits of Somaliland's self-declared independence. Kindly keep personal opinions regarding the politics of secession out of it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree that Middayexpress's repeated assumptions of bad faith and bias are extremely counter-productive and cross the boundaries of civility. I won't further extend this thread with my own horror stories, but I just want to stress that some intervention is needed- without the above dramafest. For reference, more of this behavior (POV pushing and accusations alike) can be seen at Talk:Somalia. Regards,Swarm ^X 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no word from an admin? Nightw 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you want an Admin to do? Believe it or not, Admins aren't cops, we don't go around looking for people who deserve sanctioning. Well, none of us who are still around do stuff like that; the cowboys have got tired, moved on, or had their Admin bits revoked. Have you followed the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Or at least tried mediation? (No, I'm not volunteering: once upon a time I tried to be a Mediator, back before most of you had even heard of Wikipedia; I did a crappy job of it & resigned.) We have a conflict which, if you take the time to think it thru, is based on nationalist pride: I doubt any Somali is very happy about the situation in Somalia, & are going to approach the subject from the heart not from the head. So unless you folks involved try the DR path, I'd be surprised if any Admin will touch this: they want to know first that every other step has been tried before considering whether to block or ban anyone -- which is all an Admin can do. And only will do if this is clearly the community's consensus. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the help. Swarm ^X 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin feedback

This particular diff is concerning, when on the talk page of an article User:Middayexpress removes User:Danlaycock's protest about being labeled "an open supporter of Somaliland" and does it again. (Is this habitual? He explained the first as an "edit conflict", and perhaps it was, but if so it was an edit conflict over 30 minutes in the making, and he did include the content placed by the contributor after Danlaycock.) Assuming good faith here, I would urge Middayexpress to change his practice of composing and saving notes in such a way that he overrides the existing page when he edit conflicts. If you get an edit conflict, open the current talk page in a new tab and paste your answer into it to avoid doing this. This is particularly important if the edit conflict may seem self-serving, as here. Future edit conflicts that result in the removal of comments by people with whom you are in dispute may not be regarded as accidental, now that you know how to avoid them.

No matter how politely it is put, it is a personal attack to refer to somebody as an "open" anything unless they self-profess to be that thing and particularly when they repeatedly deny they are that thing. While it is important to be able to note bias, Middayexpress, you seem to be adopting the stance that people are "open supporters" on very flimsy evidence. Moreover, you appoint yourself the sole arbiter of that evidence when you draw conclusions from it and continuously assert those conclusions as fact without reference to the evidence. Sometimes it is necessary to point out what you perceive to be a conflict in a discussion (with diffs), particularly when editors unfamiliar with the history may be viewing it, but you can't dismiss the arguments of others based on what you perceive to be their affiliations. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a battleground. While conversations about article content may sometimes become heated, creating factions (in this case, by labeling your opponents into an ideological team) goes against our policies. You may not be alone in this behavior, but I note that in the diff provided above to show provocative behavior on the part of Danlaycock, he is responding to what is obviously yet another personal attack against him and others you have labeled in this way.

All this said, llywrch is giving good advice in the section above: ANI cannot resolve situations like this. If the situation continues, WP:RfC/U may be the appropriate next step. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress' reply

User:Moonriddengirl's remarks are duly noted. However, there are a couple of facts she appears to have missed. Firstly, as I explained [99] on the article's talk page, I did not mean to "delete" User:Danlaycock's comments. This is something that accidentally happened during the so-called "edit conflict" window one runs into when someone has already posted a newer post while one is still working on one's own, older post. This is what I explained happened to Danlaycock/TDL, and s/he claimed that s/he understood the situation [100], so I'm not sure what the problem is now.

Secondly, if calling other editors "open supporters" of anything is wrong, then both Danlaycock/TDL and I are guilty of this since s/he obliquely insinuated [101] that I was an "open Somali nationalist" without my even having so much as divulged my ethnic background anywhere on this website. Note that this is not a personal attack on the user and I do not wish to see any "action" come out of it; we all make mistakes and this is no big deal as far as I'm concerned.

In short, this whole AN/I post is much ado about thing. None of the complaining editors were participants in the actual dispute on the Al-Shabaab talk page. The "disputes" they have actually linked to are old, unrelated and long-resolved ones (at least one of which User:Llywrch above also presided over), The actual dispute on the Al-Shabaab article only involved myself and User:Copper button, as can be verified in the list of disputants Copper button cited here and here. There was no "incident" to report. In fact, the only actual disputant involved in the dispute (Copper button) has already indicated [102] that "although I've found trying to negotiate with User:Middayexpress quite frustrating at times, I don't think anything happened that needs administrator intervention. My only request would be for comments at our RFC (Talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC) which has so far only attracted one other editor". As I indicated both in my response above to Copper button's comments and in my earlier talk page remarks, I also welcome Rfc comments. However, they must respect WP:RFC's aforementioned instructions to "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it has happened multiple times; I linked another above (and [here again). Too, the explanation of edit conflict becomes problematic when you do manage to include the intervening edits by another contributor, and only remove that of the person with whom you are arguing. Nevertheless, I am assuming good faith and cautioning you to stop, with an explanation of how to avoid running into problems for continuing to do so this.

I addressed this comment as well, when I wrote the following:

You may not be alone in this behavior, but I note that in the diff provided above to show provocative behavior on the part of Danlaycock, he is responding to what is obviously yet another personal attack against him and others you have labeled in this way.

It was in direct and immediate response to a provocative comment by you, which is visible in the note to which he was responding: "In any event, I shall shortly contact an admin to monitor this Rfc in case one of the pro-Somaliland accounts just so happens to show up." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually encountered several of those "edit conflict" things because the user at various times was writing to me (and vice versa) in real time. As indicated, he also wrote that "it can happen to anyone" [103], so I'm still not sure why this obvious mistake is an issue. That comment you describe as provocative also was not directed at Danlaycock (who was not part of the dispute), but at the actual disputant Copper button and was an indication that I was weary of non-neutral accounts from past disputes attempting to weigh in on the Rfc Copper had just filed. I had WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" in mind when I wrote that. At any rate, as I indicated, if calling other editors "open supporters" of anything is wrong, then both Danlaycock/TDL and I are guilty of this since s/he obliquely insinuated [104] that I was an "open Somali nationalist" without my even having so much as divulged my ethnic background anywhere on this website. Note that this is still not a personal attack on the user and I still do not wish to see any "action" come out of it; we all make mistakes and this is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. I would just like at this point to continue with the Rfc as put forth by Copper button (the other actual disputant). I have already indicated to Danlaycock above that I do not have objections if he participates as a third party provided that he tries to observe WP:RFC's instructions to "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he wrote; I'm not he. As an uninvolved administrator responding to a notice on the administrator's noticeboard, I'm telling you what I see: a pattern of removing the comments of others. It is puzzling that in one case you removed one, but not another; here you did not remove the edit of the immediate prior poster, Copper button, but did remove the edit of the one before him]. I don't know how this happened. But, again, in spite of this oddity, my recommendation to you was based on the presumption that this did somehow happen inadvertently. I've told you how to stop doing it; if you don't do it anymore, it should not be an issue. Be careful.

In terms of the other...even if you had another contributor in mind as "one of the pro-Somaliland accounts" in that instance, you have described him in that way previously, here. Hence, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone other than you to know that you are not including among those "pro-Somaliland accounts" there.

If you need me to further explain, I'm willing to do so, but I would suggest that if you wish to return you attention to the current RfC, as you indicate, you do. Continuing to post here will only continue to draw attention to this thread, generate more responses and expand it. (That said, I may collapse or archive the thread at some point; I've already noted that this needs to be dealt with elsewhere.) If you are mindful of the need not to factionalize other contributors, this may be the end of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One last reply: As explained, the deletions were a mistake that occurred because I was attempting to post material that I had been writing when the user in question had alreaady posted his material i.e. an "edit conflict". The user also clearly indicated that he understood this ("it can happen to anyone" [105]). I did not encounter such issues with User:Copper button because he and I rarely wrote to each other in real time. In fact, our posts/replies were sometimes days apart. I have never purposely deleted anyone's comments on Wikipedia, nor would I even think of doing so; it's also a pointless exercise since the posts are stored in the article's edit history. Bottom line, the deletions were a mistake and the editor whose posts I may have deleted indicated that he understood this. I have also twice already indicated that I acknowledge that referring to accounts as "pro anything" may not have been the right thing to do; but this, of coursre, applies not just to me but to other editors too. In short, the dispute was only between Copper button and I, not any of the complaining accounts above. User:Danlaycock/TDL wanted to weigh in on the Rfc that was subsequently filed by Copper button, but I was weary of him doing so because of WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". I have now softened my position on that matter, and have already indicated above to Danlaycock/TDL that I have no objections to his participating as a third party in the Rfc provided that he "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that just because I tried to AGF when you deleted my comments, doesn't mean that I was particuarly convinced by your explanation of an "edit conflict". As Moonriddengirl points out, it's puzzling since your edit was 30 minutes after mine, and you managed to avoid deleting Copper's post which came between ours. On top of that, it happend twice in a short period of time. Maybe it was just a lack of knowledge of how to properly deal with edit conflicts, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But in the future make sure that you're more careful, because no one likes to have their comments tampered with.

And your comments that "in case one of the pro-Somaliland accounts just so happens to show up" were clearly directed at me, since the previous time I had taken part in the discussion I was labbeled "one of a group of accounts that are open supporters of Somaliland's secession". How else was I to interpret these comments?

That being said, it seems that you've acknowledged that your actions were wrong ("referring to accounts as "pro anything" may not have been the right thing to do"), so perhaps we can put this issue behind us and focus on the content without all the personal attacks? TDL (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now. I think I know better than to purposely delete another editor's comments. Firstly, you would obviously notice your missing comments right away, so what's the point? Those same comments are also stored in the article's edit history, so again, no point in doing so. It was gracious of you to concede after I had explained to you what likely happened that this was probably a mistake on my part because it obviously was. It's also pretty obvious who my earlier "pro-Somaliland" comments were directed at, and I don't believe I ever denied it. However, I have conceded that referring to accounts as "pro anything" may not have been the right thing to do; but this, of course, applies not just to me but to other editors too. As both User:Copper button and I (the actual disputants) have already indicated, we have no issues with how the negotiations were going and would like to finally get some neutral third party feedback on which of the two proposed draft paragraphs are best for the Al-Shabaab article. Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• On closer examination, your explanation that you removed the content due to an edit conflict is obviously untrue. I'd have missed that, if you hadn't have been so persistent. The bare facts of the matter are as follows:
• Danlaycock left a note at 18:30
• Copper button left his note 27 minutes later
• Your note, in which you claim to have edit conflicted with Danlaycock is a response to Copper button's note.

You could not have edit conflicted with a note left 27 minutes before the post to which you were responding. Given that, I'm now warning you as an uninvolved administrator that any further incidences of removing talk page notes left by others will be regarded as disruptive and may result in sanctions against your account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not familiar with the current issue, but I've stepped in on a dispute similar before, although I can't remember which one. I think that on protocol it would be very hard for administrator's to do much at this point, and this whole thread has become muddled up. Per llywrch above, admins shouldn't really make blocks on old conflicts, no matter how justified they are, and admins should not be pushed into doing something so harshly. Per Moonriddengirl, I suggest a WP:RfC/U to sort it out. It'll allow for a clear statement, hopefully backed up with diffs, for each editor to make, and I do hope they are worded in ways that don't unjustifiably call any editors open anythings. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no "incident" to report, as the complaining editors weren't even a part of the dispute in question. Most of them I haven't even had dealings with in months. The dispute on the Al-Shabaab talk page only involved User:Copper button and I (c.f. [106], [107]), and neither one of us has issues with how the negotiations were going (viz. [108] "although I've found trying to negotiate with User:Middayexpress quite frustrating at times, I don't think anything happened that needs administrator intervention. My only request would be for comments at our RFC (Talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC) which has so far only attracted one other editor"). It's much ado about nothing, and a major distraction from the actual issue at hand, which is deciding which of the two proposed draft paragraphs is the better option for the article. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would an RfC/U accomplish? There's plenty of editors who can vouch that this is a problem. Midday just deliberately ignores any such statements. Swarm ^X 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To claim that another editor "deliberately ignores" something is clearly not assuming good faith. The fact remains that the dispute in question was only ever between Copper button and I, not any other accounts; and neither of the two actual disputants has an issue with how the negotiations were going. The continued unprovoked personal accusations by accounts from old, unrelated, long-resolved disputes are contrary to AN/I's instruction above to "not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" and are an unwelcome distraction from the actual issue at hand (viz. the incumbent draft paragraph vs. Copper's new proposed draft edit). Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to assume good faith after you've repeatedly accused me and other editors of being biased. If we weren't beyond AGF, we wouldn't be here. Swarm ^X 20:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your very first post on this discussion page was a series of personal accusations against me, nevermind the fact that I have not had any dealings with you in weeks. All I have been doing since then is defending myself against them. Let it go already. Holding grudges doesn't do you any good. Middayexpress (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of an RfC/U is to document community standing on an issue, which may then enable administrators to take action. Administrators generally do not act without clear evidence of policy violations or without strong community consensus. I'm archiving this conversation; please, consider an WP:RfC/U for persistent concerns. ANI just really can't help here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User "Johan se"

Johan se (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated inappropriate edits to article Helena Mattsson. Ignores requests to stop it. See such request. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor has only a couple dozen edits since coming on board in the summer of 2009, and every one of them was to that particular article. If it happens again, take it to WP:AIV, unless someone here decides to ice that guy right now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I have taken it to AIV, as there is no evidence the editor is here for any useful purpose. But if they reject it for some reason, it's still here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a rejection template on the account because the account was not warned about its behavior. This is what is says in the big green box at the top of the page:

2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

The account had not even a level one warning on its talk page. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For a registered account that's obviously doing nothing useful, admins will typically block it. It's a question of how many times do you want to deal with that guy? He's been doing this stuff for almost 2 years now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Use a 4im template. Then put his name back on AIV. He has never been told on his talk page that his edits to Helena Mattsson are vandalism by anyone. (In reality, his copyvio uploads are the problem and seem to be out of the scope of AIV.)--Guerillero | My Talk 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pandelver posting to many Wikiprojects about an AFD

I've noticed that User:Pandelver is posting a comment on the talk pages of numerous wikiprojects asking them to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey (see his edit history [109]). Most of the wikiprojects are completely unrelated to the subject of the AFD discussion. It isn't clear to me what he is intending with these posts, but it is certainly disruptive to post the same comment on apparently every wikiproject he can find when the discussion doesn't involve those wikiprojects. I was hoping an admin could get him to stop doing this and take whatever other actions might be appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion [110]. Calathan (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pandelver (talk · contribs) has spammed several unrelated WikiProjects about an AfD of an article s/he created. A rollback of these edits is desired. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just revert the inappropriate notices; the editor has already been informed of the canvassing policy. Unless there is some indication of bad faith there is no reason to involve an administrator. Skomorokh 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When I started typing my post here, he was still posting to more wikiprojects, and I was worried he wasn't going to stop. But he does seem to have stopped just before I posted here. Calathan (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Calathan (talk), Elizium23 (talk), Farix (t | c), not canvassing but non-partisanly notifying whole WikiProjects and certainly not all WikiProjects, not individual members nor perspective subsets, in a balanced breadth across the topical board of those whose stated topic areas are germane, without regard to what their particular positions may be, thanks. So limited and specific and certainly nonpartisan: the contents of the notices carefully paid some attention to the variety of non-similar POVs which might be joined in 2 articles being discussed, and a specific potential 3rd. Not to WikiProjects with no relation to the topic. No invitations to any individuals in per se. Not to WikiProjects with no relation to the topic, though some of your own views may reflect the different perspectives on relatedness which the various members of projects too will have, so this is to that extent as subjectively objective for me as for you; those who take an interest in any topic upon being aware of its existence will be the demonstration of who considers themselves or their colleagues relevant, it seems. No invitations to any individuals in per se. After several days, this particular AfD had only 3 people discussing it, and an administrator reminded us that at least 7 days were routine, so sought more relevant voices, whatever they might say being up to them; and took inspiration from the 4th voice who did not comment directly but showed this person had propagated the AfD discussion area to 4 'lists' of articles to be examined. Also asked that person what this propagation did and how it worked, but have not so far seen an answer. Welcome all views, and do not by personal policy condone the conceptual paradigm (also one of many perspectives) of opposing views so much as collaboration among the many perspectives which make a whole. In order not to advocate any particular view, but to better Wikipedia's balanced, mini-comprehensive consideration of its content. Do you find the notices in question disinterested enough, or have you noticed anyone left out whom you would suggest for active invitation? - Pandelver (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Has his own licensing policy

See User:Pandelver#My Licensing policy:

"My 3 requirements attendant upon or restricting all forms of copyright and public domain release in every other respect, are that I always require:

(1) notice to be given directly to me, prior to release, whenever material I have produced is quoted, excerpted, or included in other writings, presentations, correspondence, or works, paraphrased, copied, published, or distributed (2) a courtesy copy, prior to release, of your product from you or from the reuser whenever material I have produced is copied, published, or distributed;

which notice and delivery are in addition to

(3) proper attribution to me within the new format or work, attribution to any collaborating authors, and all other terms of the relevant licenses.

To request a contact method in fulfillment of these requirements, please indicate your need and ask my on my Discussion (talk) page and correspond with me about it there"
No one has notified him of this discussion so I will now. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that shit is right out. In my view, this user should by blocked until he agrees to remove this from his user page and understands that the only licensing policy that applies to his contributions is the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL as described in the notice under the editing box. This just can't be permitted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is something I didn't know about. It looks like he's using this template on his user page. Of course he's also imposing a lot of conditions on use of his contributions that he really can't impose, but I'm a little surprised about the template. It looks like it has been around since 2004 and there are over 400 users who have this on their user pages. Also, there are a number of similar templates. Is this really a good thing? Have the lawyers looked at these templates to see if they conflict with the standard licenses that apply to all user contributions? Even if they don't conflict, doesn't the existence of these templates just create confusion with different editors claiming to license their contributions under different terms? Sorry if these are foolish questions and this was all sorted long ago, but I've been around for a while and I've never heard of this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In a certain sense, a block isn't really necessary on the alternate license, because it has no validity. Every time xe clicks the "save page" box, that's automatically agreeing to our Terms of Use, and I'm pretty sure WMF never agree to his/hers. I mean, yes, someone who can explain it well should prolly leave a message to let xem know how submitting here works, but I don't see how the "claim" is blockable. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But making phony legal claims about the licensing of your work, even if they're totally unenforceable, tends to muddy the waters and create confusion for those who wish to reuse our content under the licenses we provide. I found this deletion discussion regarding the template that was closed as "no consensus," but, really, isn't this something the lawyers should look at? Is there an easy way to pass a note to the WMF and ask if it's an issue? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the template they have released their contributions into the public domain. Would that not mean that there was no need to pay any attention to the 3 requirements. Even if it doesn't they need to be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - editors have been banned for making absolutely ridiculous legal threats. The "alternative licencing" page should be deleted as it will not serve any purpose apart from confusing editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's licencing and that users can't override them. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Steven J. Anderson in that I don't believe that he should be contributing text here until he acknowledges his understanding that he may not override WMF:Terms of Use. Unless WMF is willing to waive those, the more restrictive terms are completely unacceptable. In terms of the PD, I'm afraid that it is also questionable under ToU, which says: "all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works." If material is public domain, derivative works may be released under copyright. I don't know how much WMF cares about the more liberal release, but the more restrictive terms just don't work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to tell him. The chap is completely clueless, but very keen to learn. And why does that template exist in the first place? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand what that person is trying to do, then yes it clueless, but it seems s/he is trying to multi-license to the PD "but not really". As for the multi-license templates, basically they're attempts by contributors to relax the GFDL/BY-SA copyleft on their contributions, so that downstream parties can then add new restrictions to later derivative versions. There was a big talkpage spam campaign circa 2004 to get people to use them for bogus reasons that I won't bore you with, but it was somewhat successful and the meme stuck around. To some extent the templates also reflect the ideological schism over copyleft in the FOSS world. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine, but it's just the text in the box. The "three requirements" place additional restrictions than would be allowed by GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like this boils down to two questions.

1. If we're agreed that the "three requirements" are out, what are we going to do about it? No one has said anything on his talk page yet. It seems to me best that an administrator do the talking.

2. How can we be sure that {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine? Have the foundation's attorneys looked at this and given advice? If not, what's the best way to contact them? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multilicensing under PD is perfectly fine. We have lots of PD text in Wikipedia (from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for example). Users are free to multi-license in this way as well. They cannot, however, alter or add conditions to the default cc-by-sa licensing. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell him that the multilicensing is fine, but his additions won't stick. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How does that prove multilicensing is fine? We have a lot of CC-By-SA-only text on Wikipedia, too, but contributors are not permitted that liberty (unless they are importing something in which they share copyright); they are required to multilicense. I don't particularly care if somebody wants to release their content under more liberal allowance than ToU, but, then, I wasn't here when it was decided that CC-By and other licenses which would allow derivatives to be copyrighted should not be the one we use. There must be some reason that the language in ToU is written as it is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your pronouncement that "multilicensing under pd is perfectly fine" doesn't carry any more weight than the many other user comments for and against such licensing unless you are a lawyer offering legal advice. Are you? To my understanding it is not ok to append unenforceable language to a contract (which I suppose this is) under the rubric that it can be ignored because it's unenforceable. I'll ask again. Does anyone here know how to contact the foundations lawyers so we can get this definitively resolved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think it's necessary. I contact them occasionally about issues at WP:CP. I'm not sure if we're still with our interim attorney, but I can find out. However, before I give it a whirl, I'd like to make sure that I know exactly what we're wanting covered here. :) I'd also like to know if anybody has run this by them before, if anybody knows. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-licensing has been around forever, and before the GFDL-to-CC switchover, the file upload dialogs explicitly encouraged it. I have a low opinion of the practice myself and never engaged in it, but it is basically recognized by WP:C, which says "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here..." Multi-licensing looks to me like an instance of this. It says your stuff is available under GFDL/CC as required, and that you're also exercising your right to extend additional licenses. IANAL, YMMV, etc. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• My, what a tempest. Warm thanks to one of you for describing me as "clueless but eager to learn," as an acquaintance says, "I resemble that remark" (a pun, it seems, on "resent"). Since the extended issues whose skin is barely exposed by you all here is fascinating but beyond my regulatory ken, the multilicensing template which you say has been kicking around here since 2004 is it? and the 3 requirements is simply herewith removed. I must admit that in this rare case, I have only scanned some of the details in your comments, while usually attending, so little is missed which might be of consequence, to the whole of people's posts, as even dictions vary among us, and where the gems are mined is not always evident at quick or even third read.

Only thing to reproduce here is the final line from under the 3 requirements, which was the only bit not quoted, and probably shows my philosophical offering to fellow at Wikipedia best:

"Thank you!

I also encourage you to give these same 3 courtesies to all authors of content under all licenses, even when they have not asked for them, it's great collegiality, ethical respect, kindness, intelligent honesty and appreciation on your part and mine. Wikipedia's part of the real world."

On second thought, I'll leave an re-edited version of just the "I encourage," not as requirements, but as suggestions for civility among us and people in their communications everywhere in every time!

Cheers, and tea instead for all! - Pandelver (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment After a further discussion, he has taken it all down. He's also refactored the mess he made below. Please cut him some slack, I believe he means absolutely the best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Becoming seriously disruptive at Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey

Note his recent edit [111] where he has decimated and refactored the comment of another editor. Note also. I have restored the comment. Can someone please check this and keep an eye on the AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pondering a snow close as delete. The consensus is not going to change, and it would be a quick way to stop the disruption and discussion flooding. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That would just lead to DRV. Either close it early and nominate it at AfD again or, better still, leave it alone. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse-ting

This editor appears in need of admin intervention, after removing a section from WQA with edit summary whining fool stirs yet expects to go unchallenged!. The editor's talk page, along with numerous personal attacks shown by edit summaries in the contribs, make it so clear to me that interactions would be unproductive that I am simply bringing the issue here rather than attempting discussion. I will give notification of this section. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Based upon that diff, and the declarations on their user page, "fuck off" [112] and "I hope Wikipedia's many thousands of fights continue it's what these self righteous tossers want" [113], and clear personal attack [114] I suggest an indefinite block, until the user can demonstrate understanding of basic Wikipedia civility requirements.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked.  Chzz  ►  20:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

User:99.59.87.102

Would someone take a look at the edit history of this IP, please. He or she is adding unsourced information to infoboxes, or changing what's there without providing a source. Most problematic is the unsourced addition of religions. They also like to add or change cause of death and generally make unnecessary edits or ones that don't improve the article. I've posted several times on their talk page, but there's been no response. I'm not sure if their edits rise to the level of "disruptive", but the unwillingness to communicate seems like a problem. Maybe a nudge from an admin might get them to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is somebody's sock or not (you seem to think so), but I've nudged via a 24 hour block. I think it's risen to the level of disruptive; you'v ebeen patient and very communicative. The refusal to respond or moderate behavior alone is concerning, but the repeated violations of WP:BLP are a more serious issue. If this is a clueless user, 24 hours may be enough to cause them to pay attention. If there is block evasion going on, as I gather you may think, 24 hours is insufficient response. A WP:SPI might be a good idea? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did have socking suspicions, but I'm less certain of that now. I will most probably not file an SPI unless the situation becomes clearer to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some protection for Leo Prime?

Some sock puppeteer has been attacking the page Leo Prime and talk page under new accounts continuously. He gets blocked and makes a new account a couple days later. Is there a way to protect it against new users? Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Go to WP:RFPP and ask for extended semi-protection. That will fend off the riff-raff to some extend at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done for a week, some socks blocked. TNXMan 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's amazing how someone can get so obsessed over one particular thing, but it happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bakans POV editor

• 97.102.153.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• VJ-Yugo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.102.58.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:97.102.153.253 has been repeatedly blocked for pro-Serbia/Yugoslav POV-pushing on a number of Balkans articles, and I gave them a 1-month block today - going by Talk:1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, there's a pretty good chance it's the indef-blocked User:VJ-Yugo (same articles, same edits, same POV). So far it looks like it's been a pretty static IP, but a new one, User:97.102.58.155 has just popped up with this - I've given that one a 24-hour preventative block in case it was meant as a threat of further POV disruption. My guess is the IP range is too big for a range block, but I'd just like to ask for a bit of vigilance on Balkans articles in case this presages a new POV assault. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

request review of block to user:67.168.153.41

I would like an uninvolved admin to review the block of 67.168.153.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I was tempted to also block their talk page access, but wanted to allow other admins to review the situation so that I can attempt to recluse myself from any further admin actions regarding the user.

The initial warning to their talk page was for adding unsourced content to an article, to which I replied to their questions on their talk page - during which I had to point them a couple times to WP:CIVIL. They then accused me of "raping" their talk page and escallated to personal attacks, for which I issued a pair of NPA warnings. Their comment replying to the third warning was rude, but I chose to ignore it and let the issue drop. However, a few minutes later they issued a fake user-block notice onto my talk page for "edit warring" on their talk page (I never reverted even once on that talk page). Due to the continued harassment, I blocked the IP. They then accused me of vandalizing their talk page by issuing a block after I had been "blocked". I responded to that comment - but feel it best if I not continue to respond to their claims and accusations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have been better to report to AIV and have an uninvolved admin execute a block (and if it had been me responding it would have been 31 hours, since there is no indication this is the same person who edited WP previously), but the ip was uninterested in consensus and was being disingenuous in their responses. Reasonable block, but maybe shortening it would be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gross incivility and personal attacks

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

The above user's comments are disruptive, in spite of them knowing the applicable policies.

• "Another creationist POV"[115]
• "POV pushing...always entertaining."[116]

In response to those comments, a user requested that they assume good faith, etc.[117]
LeftCoast replied:

• "...I don't give a shit. If he's a dumbfuck that thinks that creationism is real, then he really should be assigned to the denialist bin of the local mental institution...."; "...I don't do well with admins with their pretentious attitudes because they're fat little unemployed fucks who get erections by pretending to be powerful here."; "I really really [...] don't give a shit about hurting some creationists little feelings. Fuck that shit."(diff)

The other user seemed offended by the response in a subsequent comment,[118] to which LeftCoast replied, "... You should review that bullshit policy about personal attacks..."[119] Their actions are a big deal because they seem to be openly attacking people of religion with no intention of stopping. See their userpage for context on their personal beliefs. This seems like a matter where some outside intervention is required, and I don't think I'm able to individually resolve the matter. Swarm ^X 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a little love note there. - Philippe 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra set of eyes on this. Unfortunately, I don't think the feeling's mutual.[120] Swarm ^X 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this gentleman has crossed the boundaries of civility. However, I'm now involved and (as an involved party) can't take an administrative action against him. I strongly urge others to look carefully at whether or not he's capable of collaborative work in this environment. - Philippe 07:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are you involved, Philippe? Because you left a note on his talk page? That sounds to me as if you were acting as an admin. Are you involved in an editing dispute with him? If not, I don't think you're involved. Are you saying no admin can block a user they've previously warned? Can admins check me on this? Is Phillipe involved? Take a look at his user page. He's just about declaring war on the rest of Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Phillipe means that they've left a warning so now they're involved. From what I can see, they have no other involvement with this user. Which, of course doesn't make sense. I don't think they're really involved at all. All the same, can someone else take a look? Swarm ^X 09:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that admins ought to avoid taking admin actions in situations where theya re involved as an editor. I read the comment (now removed) that Philippe added, it was a warning, wearing the hat of an admin. (And I might add, a very politely worded warning.) No, assuming that is the only interaction Philippe is not involved, in the sense of editor involvement. --SPhilbrickT 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not involved, either; I support a block. The only reason I'm not imposing one is because I seldom seem to block for long enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Take a look at his user page. It's a big "SCREW YOU". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• He's on compulsory holiday for a couple of weeks now. Moreschi (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone had to lock his talkpage access as well. For someone who clearly prides themselves on their intelligence, he seems curiously ignorant of the usual rules of civilized discourse. Moreschi (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

His last talk page edit is interesting. To quote But I did prove a major point to my friends on Facebook. Polite POV bullshit trumps accurate, evidence-based editing with pointed commentary and you know what, he's right. The problem is civil POV pushing. Some of our cranks and nutters have discovered that if they act like angels (and throwing in a dash of wikilawyery and soupery) while the "mainstreamers" lose their temper and act like complete dicks they can outlast the mainstreamers. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote at the top of my user page seems apropos here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really tired; got a heavy RL workload at the moment. Apologies in advance if it makes me a bit incoherent. :) It seems very likely that this is somebody's sock, based on the edit summary here. User:MuZemike seems to suggest socking could be an issue [User_talk:MuZemike#Does_this_kind_of_thing_warrant_a_sock-drawer_check.3F here]. I don't know if this is some kind of WP:POINT, but a finite block may not really be the answer, that taken into account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• It's funny that the concern about civil POV pushers has been brought up while a the thread below this one deals with that very thing and is largely ignored. I also agree that this is probably a sock. Swarm ^X 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've put an opinion below, but I'm afraid that while this section is the kind of problem that ANI is designed the handle, the section below just really is not. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're right. That is an RfC/U → topic ban proposal issue. Sorry. Swarm ^X 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: I don't think there was any resolution to my complaint, and I can't find the (or don't have the level to access the archives of this section)

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".

I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary work for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Good advice, Nil Einne. I started to try to figger the problem, full of good will, but it was just too much work and TLDR, and I couldn't work it out from the user talkpage. Sorry, Gharr, but there's competition for admin attention on this board. You need to present your complaint in a more accessible and less time-consuming way. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Alex F

Resolved

 – IP blocked. –MuZemike 23:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alex F blocked my account for falsely calling me a sock puppet. I would like to complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.183.249 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Complain away - but we can't help you if you don't say which account you're talking about. Wknight94 ^talk 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If I'd venture a guess, that would be User:Zac711.--Atlan (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Quit evading your block, and then we may have something to discuss. –MuZemike 23:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User Markelmitchell's disruptive edits

I'd like to ask for help with a troublesome editor, Markelmitchell, who makes unconstructive edits to numerous WP:Albums articles on a daily basis, particularly to track listings by adding boldface, small scripts, and other unexplained, unnecessary content changes, such as to In My Own Words (one of too many to cite, see user's edit history). I've posted warnings at his talk page, but he has not responded and has continued with disruptive editing. Asked for another editor's assistance, who gave me advice that has lead me to here, after failed AIV report, as somewhat of a last resort. Not sure where to go, so what can be done? Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A fine, recent example, at 51/50 Ratchet; small script, bold. Dan56 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor's continueted disruptive editing wasn't disruptive enough for the vandalism noticeboard. One user's been more helpful than both noticeboards in assisting me with this Makrelmell, but the disruptive editor has ignored the latter's comments to his talk page as well. Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This aint enough to make a case for vandalism? It seems pretty deliberate that this nonresponsive fellow is being more than unconstructive, not adhering to WP guidelines and reverting constructive edits without cause nor explanation. I've been blocked before with reverting other vandals, and this dude comes and goes with jerkoff edits and does not answer for them? C'mon. Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE violation at Conventional PCI

Despite quite clear instructions from Philippe not to, a certain editor insists on posting links to infringing material to the article and talk page [121]. Could someone clean this up? Cheers, —Ruud 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and Detrimental Edits by Jack Sebastian

Summary

User:Jack Sebastian has been hounding me for days to the point of now making article-harming edits. Below is a history, item (3) is the serious one, the rest shows his attitude.

I also note he has a recent history on this notice board.

History

(1) We had a disagreement over the article Justified (TV series). (There is no admin involvement.)

After two net edits [122][123] there by me, he advised me that I had "violated" wp:3rr and then lectured [124][125] me on how to indent my comments (!) on talk pages.

(2) He followed me to an unrelated page, and advised me [126] not to make edits [127][128][talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japan_Trench] which were correct, despite his lack of understanding. (The information was later made more exact, but my edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg Eurasian>North American) were correct as made.)

I advised him [129] his hounding was unwanted. He advised [130] me that he was acting for my own good and that I would regret not having his advice.

(3) He then followed me to a page he had never edited, Excalibur (film), partially reverting [131] my edit, thereby (b) removing a citation for a direct verbatim quote, and creating a bogus quote from an editor's summary, (b) changing a balanced comment reflecting mixed reviews to a wholly positive one, and (c) leaving an obvious spelling error. He reverted to these blatant errors twice even when they were explicitly brought to his attention on the talk page [132] and in the edit summaries.

I "restored [the] balanced critical reaction, restored [the] source for verbatim quote, and [the] restored proper English spelling" [133]. He insisted he knew I was a troubled editor "I know about you from another page" [134], and again reverted [135] his ungrammatical and unbalanced statement with a bogus quote.

I left the mistakes stand to come here before further conflict. It's obvious this isn't about content any more - it's about emotions. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

End of Medeis' Complaint

Wow, when I advised the editor to learn more about WP:LEDE, and maybe to ask an admin about how we currently implement that part of the MOS, I guess I should have expected that it was going to turn into a Thing with her.

Now, for a bit more accurate interpretation of events:

1. Medeis is a bit off on her revert counting (1, 2, 3, 4). Last time I checked, that's at least three reverts (I counted one of them as a successive edit as opposed to an outright revert). Rather than reporting the user, I went to Medeis' user talk page and let them know they were in violation, and to use the article discussion page to argue for their edit. I also took the time to point out to her that she needed to indent her posts - perhaps a trivial thing, but annoying as hell when you are trying to follow a discussion and one person treats the discussion like their comments need not be following others. It's a pet peeve of mine, but I certainly wasn't lecturing her; indeed, I even offered to help her along "the learning curve", especially since she seemed to confuse outdenting with proper indentation.
2. Actually, i didn't even go to the page being discussed; I simply pointed out (pretty nicely, I thought) that adding uncited information is a sure recipe for getting reverted, and to respect the collaborative process. Medeis' response was to remove the post and then post in my page that I was hounding her, threatening to report me if I posted in her page again. Again, I didn't go to the article in question, but was simply responding to a comment from Medeis who stated that a sourced article was wrong, and that her single academic course meant that she didn't need to add such "rather basic and well known information" without citation. As to the statement that she'd "regret not having my advice", one need only go to the link that she thoughtfully provided to see that this is a fairly uncharitable and incorrect interpretation of the post. I respected her wishes and have not posted on her page since.
3. The only part of this accusation that is correct is that I had not in fact posted to Excalibur before. The one time I'd read the article, it seemed fairly well-done. After watching it again recently (big Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson fan), I went back to the page to see i there was anything I could add. Yep, i noticed Medeis' edits, and they were the only recent ones that were wrong. I thought I fixed it, and went to the article discussion to further discuss the matter.

Without delving too far into content issues, Medeis keeps adding content to the Lede and nowhere else in the article. This was pointed out by several other edits when it first popped up in the Justified article, but she doesn't appear willing to read WP:LEDE, which marks it as both an introduction to the subject matter as well as an summary of the article.

And that "obvious spelling error"? I left off the 'i' in the word 'it' - mea culpa. I think it uncharitable in the extreme to think that I'd revert any spelling fix, and esp. one dealing with a simple typo. Almost everyone knows what a stickler I am for both perfect grammar and spelling. If I've corrected someone's grammar in an article, it isn't a personal attack - its a fix to the article. I am not going to see a typo fix as an affront to my person. Saying that this is about emotion and not content is both silly and absurdly egoistic. It isn't about her.

Long story short (too late!), Medeis needs to grow a thicker skin and maybe consider the advice - even of the unsolicited sort - that she is getting from several different editors. No one is out to get her or hound her, and I could frankly care less about her edits. Prior to the Justified edits, I'd never run into her (though wikistalk says that we both have non-proximally contributed to two other articles last year). All I feel I did was offer advice, and found myself defenestrated for my effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian forgets his own admission [136] "As for where I edit, I will edit whereever I wish. If I happen to see a problematic edit of yours - well, I know about you from another page, so I know you better than someone off the street. " that he is following me around for my own good, [137] putting the lie to the excuse above that he simply happened by chance to revert me on an article he had never before edited.

The "four" edits Jack Sebastian supplies are two separate sequential edits by me which count as two, not four reverts. But this is not about content. I have not accused Jack Sebastian of a spelling error. I have accused him of ignoring content entirely while stalking me, which he still justifies as being helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting tedious. If Medeis would be so good as to point out all the many, many articles where I am supposedly stalking her at, that would be nifty. As it is, there appears to be only two articles where we've have interacted at all. I guess its too much to actually ask her to read the policies and guidelines regarding the accusations that she's making. As it is, it's tedious, stupid and tendentious to state one thing, add a supposedly supporting link that says nothing of the kind. Clearly, she's made up her mind that attacking, and not learning, is the better course of action. I won't waste any more time trying to assist her or correct her clearly inaccurate assessments; her links do that for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And maybe Medeis could stop refactoring my post, putting it in its own special little category. I've now removed it three times, which means this clever girls has added it more than three times. Also, it bears pointing out that Medeis has been altering her initial post successively now; the response I'd posted above is not to the initial complaint filed. I'm close to losing my patience and calling for her block for tendentious editing and edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note the sexual harassment: "this clever girl". I am not following this person from page to page, appointing myself as his guardian and editor, claiming like him the right to determine how I should indent my comments or complaining that I should not edit them. This is a very simple matter and has nothing to do with content - just his highly inappropriate and unwanted stalker-like personal attention. Please advise him to cease harassing me. μηδείς (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would susgst that both parites agree to disengage from each other for a few days.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no sexual harassment either. Making that statement serves to discredit claims of harassment because it makes it look like you don't know what that means.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst not sexual harrisment it is condenseding. I think that both sides need to cool down and get a sence of persepctive.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done anything that requires me to 'calm down', SS, so don't treat our behavior as being equal - it is not. I freely admit to being condescending to someone who:

• is disruptive to the point of exasperation;
• doesn't appear to want to indent in discussions, or even use talk discussions to collaboratively edit with others (as per WP:TALK);
• doesn't listen to multiple editors (not just myself) when advised as to what and what doesn't belong in the Lede (as per WP:LEDE), and;
• seems fully willing to refactor the edits of others without allowing even the most innocent fixes (ie, indenting) of her comments (violating WP:REFACTOR). :::Additionally, her page is littered with requests and warnings to stop edit-warring - something she has clearly engaged in the two articles I've had the misfortune to find myself sharing editing space with (who knows how far her nonsense extends?

And now, she pulls out that conversation-killing claim of sexually harassment??? Clearly, she doesn't understand the term, and I've had enough - this completely asinine behavior on the part of Medeis needs to cease immediately. Drop an obviously inflammatory statement like that an you deserve to be blocked until the cows come home, have a steak and head on off to bed. I would like to ask that - because her behavior is exceptionally disruptive - that she be blocked. Ask yourself if you think that being accused of sexual harassment is an effective editing technique. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was briefly involved in the conversation on Justified and must concur with JS's assessment of that specific situation. Medeis struck me as being (perhaps unintentionally) combative in that thread and, quite frankly, a little insulting. I don't know if that helps the ANI peeps figure this out at all but I thought I'd throw it out there. While this type of edit is not my usual forte, I've done the same thing Jack did here and checked several of the edits of someone who has dropped in what i know to be problematic material based on the policies that pertain to the projects I'm most familiar with. it's hardly stalking; it's quality control. Millahnna (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here?

Uelen#Weather what the hell is going on with the temperatures chart here? It very obviously a hoax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.183.89 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some bad editing. I have restored a previous version of the page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's done that on several articles. I've reverted him. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put a level 1 template on their talk. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did the same thing on article Yakutsk look at the history with the minuses maybe is there a way to stop this? 91.121.183.89 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plainly it is vandalism, which we do our best to keep up with, but the task is large and difficult. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC

Resolved

 – RfC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the Family Research Council page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally added after a long discussion before it was removed after a vote counting discussion. For that reason, I opened a RfC on the question. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --RL0919 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

David Cote

Articles about a filmmaker called "David Cote" have been repeatedly recreated on Wikipedia, with deliberate, concerted attempts to circumvent policies and guidelines. The latest is M. David Cote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Background

David Cote (film director) was created in October 2010, and deleted following an AfD.

The discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director), was affected by numerous sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka/Archive) and manipulated in other ways, e.g. NickSoroka (talk · contribs) a) edited the article removing display of the deletion notice [138] and b) moved the AfD page changing the word deLetion (with an L for Lima) to deIetion (with an I for India) [139].

• NickSoroka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The article has been repeatedly recreated under different names, by various (now confirmed) socks;

• Dave Cote
• David Cote (Actor)
• Cote, David
• Overwriting David_Cote_(writer) [140]

Various articles for creation have been declined, including Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Cote.

Feb-March 2011

M. David Cote was created by JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) on 10 Feb [141].

It has also been edited by Davecotefilm (talk · contribs) here and IP 70.69.60.99 (talk · contribs) here. That IP has also added links on other pages, e.g. [142] [143] [144]. The same IP also had a single post in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director) [145].

• user:Davecotefilm appears to be an SPA (one edit to this article) and is a violation of WP:Username policy.
• JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) appears to be a SPA (only edits to this article).
• IP 154.5.190.200 (talk · contribs) has only one edit within the past three years and that is to this article.
• IP 24.82.162.63 (talk · contribs) has only one edit within the past three years and that is to this article.

Actions

As it matter is likely to require various admin (and CU) actions, I bring it to ANI, to keep things in one place. Please advise if SPI and/or AfD is required. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Since the original article already went through the AfD process, and presumably no DRV was initiated at the time, wouldn't it be easier in the long run to delete and salt? It would be more efficient than just playing whack-a-mole across several IP blocks or socks. Just my 2p worth... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the spammy article M. David Cote to the dab page David Cote because the title blacklist stopped me from redirecting it to David Cote (film director). That should at least keep the spam content away from search engines for a while. Could an admin please delete and salt the redirect? File:Davecotefilm02.jpg should also be deleted from commons, per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a history of activity here, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka. As far as that goes, the accounts in the SPI archive are  Stale, but Davecotefilm (talk · contribs) and JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) are  Likely matches to each other. If someone could add this to the SPI page, it would help keep everything together. TNXMan 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Added.[146] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article salted, but image not deleted as Twinkle fails when I try (Ah, it's Commons) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

David Cote (writer), about a different David Cote than the main subject of this thread, also looks somewhat marginal and COI-ish. Sigh. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Racist anon on Talk:Hristo Tatarchev

User: 79.125.227.27/User:79.125.225.85/possibly a few others insists on using the talk page as a forum in which to write about their anti-Bulgarian racist theories. They keeps reverting my attempts at blanking their edits to the talk page. The anon's opinions have nothing to do with the topic of the article. — Toдor Boжinov — 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The anon apparently doesn't know what talkpages are for. Please explain it to them. Meanwhile, I have reverted them, and will semi-protect the page if they keep up their edit war. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC). P.S., TodorBozhinov, you must alert the I.Ps on their talkpages that they are being discussed on ANI. {{subst:ANI-notice}} is convenient for the purpose. Bishonen | talk.

Thanks for the semi-protection! I think they do know what a talk page is and what it's used for. They've been alerted that it's not to be used for personal opinions on vaguely related matters, and they clearly associate it and differentiate it from the article page in mainspace.[147] I wasn't aware that I'm supposed to notify the anon, I'll do that immediately. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I also added {{Talk header}} and {{Not a forum}} to the talk page. This should help clarify to the anon and others what that talk page is for. BurtAlert (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call, BurtAlert. I haven't semi'd it yet, Todor—I like to avoid that on a talkpage, if possible—I've just warned them I will do so if they keep reverting you.[148] Bishonen | talk 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Oh, sorry, I misread that. That's cool, the talk page doesn't have to be semi-prorected unless they come back reverting. Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 12:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology, fringe POV pushing, meat-puppetry and general disruption

An admin's attention would be much appreciated at Talk:Astrology. Pro-astrology, fringe POV-pushers are causing all kinds of ruckus and apparently coordinating their activities offsite. Familiarity with the pseudoscience arbitration would be useful. I'm wondering personally if it isn't time for an admin to hand out official warnings about the arbitration case and discretionary sanctions, so that escalations of disruption can be more easily handled at AE. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this move in the hope that an administrator will be more reasonable than the pseudo-skeptic trolls on the Astrology page. Disciplinary action is called for due to obstructing Wikipedia policy implementation as per WP:FRINGE/PS and violating the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. 99.240.213.177 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's... unexpected to see a non-logged-in user pop up at AN/I on their second edit, to complain about WP:FRINGE/PS. The original problem was one of extensive synchronised pov-pushing and sneaky offsite collaboration by a blogger who complained about WP:FRINGE/PS (before deleting their post when I pointed it out on-wiki). Just saying... bobrayner (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole debate is over whether the lede should say astrology "is" a pseudoscience or "generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community." The second version is more in alignment with the arbitration case, which specifically puts astrology in the "generally considered pseudoscience" group. There has been a lot of nonsense in the argument, from both sides, including many accusations, name-calling, etc. It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. Mystylplx (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I is more concerned with behavioural drama than content, I think. There's a lot of potential for this to spill out into other venues (for instance, a few days ago somebody was complaining on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view) and the subject has spawned huge threads. So, it might be wise to try hard to keep the content dispute corralled on Talk:Astrology, even if some side-issues (AE, meatpuppetry, disagreements with policy) inevitably end up on other pages. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the issue here is off wiki canvassing as well as trying to claim that eliciting views on a wiki notice board is in some way analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Protected for several weeks as an interim measure to stop further edit-warring while I sort this out. Clearly some "rent-a-crowd" astroturfing going on, doubtless being coordinated via some mailing list or other. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:AN#Astrology bannings. Moreschi (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Hlm87 20

User:Hlm87 20 has repeatedly been recreating the article for Joe Rogalski (ice hockey) which was deleted following an AfD[[149], and has since been Speedy Deleted after Hlm87 20 reposted it, but he just creates it again. His User talk:Hlm87 20 page is filled with deletion notifications. What can be done to prevent his continued disruptive behavior? Onthegogo (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Salted for a week. In the future, requests like this can go to WP:RFPP. TNXMan 18:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...and user warned and referred to WP:NHOCKEY. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks by Tony1

John Vandenberg, an active arbitrator with knowledge of the off-wiki events behind the dispute, has agreed [150] to work on mediating the dispute in private. He will contact all involved parties and report back in a few days with a public statement about the results. He says that this will be easier if we wait for his announcement before discussing more onwiki. Let's give him a chance to try that approach. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony1 has removed the conversations regarding the incident from his talk page and I have collapsed the ones on my page. I'd like to give this the best possible chance, so I do agree we should all take a few steps back here and let the dispute resolution play out. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest we archive this and let John post on AN.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s persistent mean spirited behavior towards my friends and repeated threats to harass my friends and I was the main incident that motivated me to want to leave Wikipedia. However since making the decision to leave, I have seen his behavior continue to get worse, and I firmly believe that his actions are hurting the project.

While I will not repeat the details of stories that I cannot independently verify, I have been told by at least two people that I am not the first editor he has chased away from the project, and by many, many people that I am not the only one that finds him impossible to approach.

This conversation, specifically the comments here and here demonstrate that Tony1 is paranoid about 'his' idea being stolen and willing to threaten me to keep me from moving forward with my own plans, which as I detailed at the beginning of that conversation, are nothing like his. He makes frequent mention of confidential information, and uses that as a defense, however in my conversations with him the most I was ever told was a broad outline of his plans. Everything I remember from those conversations I posted in the on his talk page in order to try to draw contrast between his and my ideas.

Secondly, Tony1's treatment of other contributors is also less than ideal. His over the top criticisms of featured sounds candidates, mind you almost exclusively those submitted by other Wikipedians, prompted this response by La Pianista.

Finally, this comment and this comment were utterly inappropriate and were what promoted me to file the ANI.

Tony1 is out of line, and his actions are hurting the featured sounds process and driving away users. It needs to stop.

Sven Manguard Wha? 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't get is, from what I can tell, Tony1's supposed Intellectual Property is... cooperating wth producers of music, such as schools. Durova, before she left, talked about doing that all the time, and, indeed, did set up such cooperations with organisations such as the Tropenmuseum, and was working on others, including a phonograph cylinder library, and a music school.

So I don't understand Tony's very vicious attack on Sven, which directly derailed an attempt to get things for Wikipedia, because... only he's allowed to cooperate with others? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over what I can see of the convo, it looks to me like Tony's got some ownership issues at the very least, and may be slanting toward legal threats with his not-so-subtle hinting. I fail to see how either helps the Wikipedia project as a whole. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Tony is getting close to making legal threats (talking about "intellectual property" certainly has that connotation). It's not quite over the line yet but if it gets worse it would be problematical. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you want, Sven? That Tony be blocked? Banned? Both of you are arguing over some petty nonsense that could be resolved by one or both of you shutting up and forgetting about featured sounds for a month. I don't know what an admin is supposed to do here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know. Certainly the community wouldn't support a block, let alone a ban. I suppose what I want is three things.

1) I want an acknowledgment by uninvolved third parties that there is indeed an issue here, and that it isn't just me that's causing it.

2) I want the threats made by Tony1 either voluntarily redacted or I want the community to tell him rather clearly that if went through with such a thing that it would not be tolerated.

3) I want him to agree to leave me alone, period. If I do return, I will return to Featured Sounds in a severely diminished capacity, so there will be no excuse for us to cross paths. I don't want a repeat of this type of thing, and at this point I don't believe that we will ever be able to communicate with each other effectively, so I'd much rather us no communicate at all.

I've already gotten the first of those, as well as an outpouring of support (and one user giving me a proper friendly wringing out) but I'm not going to come back with these issues hanging over my head, whether coming back is something that I or others want or not. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any issue of "intellectual property" here – we're talking, apparently, abut soliciting people to create featured sounds. It would be absurd for Tony to email people to tell them not to donate to Wikipedia simply because he didn't personally solicit them to do so; at the same time, I suppose nobody can stop him from doing so, just like I could email people to tell them not to edit articles if I wanted to. But if I did that it would be a quite selfish reaction to not being the person who had invited them. So I think both editors need to simply leave each other alone; there's no reason they cannot both solicit featured sounds. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree—there's obviously a dispute here, to which both involved parties have responded less-than-satisfactorily, but if both leave it alone, the matter is largely resolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, I do believe I have reacted in an entirely appropriate way. This thread seems to be full of lies and misapprehensions. Who has made legal threats? There has been theft of intellectual propertly after confidentiality was assured in writing, and a breach of that confidentiality to more than one other person. I repeat here that if I believe the theft is acted on, I will inform those who are participating of the theft. Now Carl, who is talking of emailing people and asking them to stop donating to WP? Where did that come from, or did you make it up? Where did the "harass my friends" come from? Fetchcomm, how can you judge whether the IP matter is "petty"?

"I agree that Tony is getting close to making legal threats (talking about "intellectual property" certainly has that connotation)". In what way are they legal theats? They're promises that I will inform others if he steals my IP. It's not on-wiki, it concerns the property of a WMF chapter, actually, which has resulted in an unusual meeting of the board to discuss the matter. And what rubbish is that that Sven M was retiring yesterday? Stay retired and that will be fine. Until your latest tirade and personal attacks on me, I was willing to turn the other cheek; now I am not. Tony (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What IP matter? Sven's not affiliated with your university and his proposal is completely unrelated to yours. It's the same as me asking my friend, "Do you want to record this song for me?" Tony, you said very clearly, "I will be emailing everyone who participates in your scheme to inform them of such". So please don't play the "I never said that" card. Because you sure said you would email people. Lastly, Tony, "Your patent disregard for confidentiality here has now changed my mind. Please, do not return. You are not yet mature enough to be an editor." [151] is inappropriate. And that is what I meant when I said your reaction was not the best. Will you stop pushing this issue, now, and let WMAU or whoever handle the whole partnership whatnot, and stay away from Sven? And Sven, will you do the same? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And will someone from Wikimedia Australia please explain this whole "confidentiality" thing? Did Sven sign a legally binding confidentiality clause (if there's such a thing) and then violate it? Is it still valid even if the alleged partnership fell through? I don't exactly buy this legal situation and I'd like clarification from someone official and uninvolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(With my president of Wikimedia Australia hat on) Sven has not signed any confidentiality clause with Wikimedia Australia. As I understand it, there was an agreement between Tony and Sven. I am not privy to that agreement; all I can say is that I hope Sven abides by any agreement he has made with Tony, irrespective of whether it was legally binding or merely rooted in good-faith, and irrespective of any personal conflicts they may have.
I am not going to say anything in regards to the partnership other that Sven's statements about it are inappropriate in a public forum, especially as they are factually incorrect, and I think he should redact them. I hope that Tony and Sven can go back to their separate corners (and/or take it offwiki) so Tony and the chapter can continue building the partnership without this public mess which threatens to turn our partner off completely. IMO Sven is free to undertake any project provided it does not break good-faith agreements he has made with Tony. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If confidentiality (whether implied or a formal agreement) was broken that's disappointing to say the least. If it was formal then there may even be legals issues. However as with others, I have strong doubts from what I've read that there is anything that even the most enthusiastic lawyer will call IP involved. Can any evidence be provided for some IP? If not (even if it's because you still want to keep confidentiality) I'm not sure whether continually repeating the claim helps anything. In any case, this whole case reminds me of why people should take great care when sharing their confidential ideas with people who could be considering the same thing and people who have such ideas should take great care when before they read such ideas. However I also agree what's been done here doesn't really seem to be a legal thread. This doesn't mean it's okay, it could potentially have the same chilling effect. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I've tried to make it clear, (although I've not linked to it directly from this ANI,) that everything that Tony1 told me was very general information. If he told me any details, such as which university he planned to partner with, I've forgotten them. I don't log IRC conversations, and Tony1 hasn't made his logs available if he keeps them, so I'm not entirely sure what exactly he claims I agreed to. I might well have said that I agreed not to copy his idea, and it is worth noting that I have neither the resources nor the desire to do so. I want to get my friends to submit my recordings, and the extent of the involvement with my or another local university would be them letting my friends use a university owned recording studio (mostly to save us a formidable sum of money). As to me saying that I would not share his idea, the closest I can imaging coming to 'confidentiality', I might have agreed not to talk about it on Wikipedia out of courtesy, but I'm smart enough not to agree to anything remotely coming close to a legally binding agreement, and the moment he accused me of stealing his idea, I feel like I had every right to present an overview of what he told me in order to contrast it with my, clearly different, plan. I honestly don't think that any half qualified legal expert would agree that that 'partnering with a university to produce free music' comes close to the threshold for a protectable idea anyways. I suspect that the reason Tony1 is so protective here is that he wants credit and recognition if and when the proposal goes through, which he believes means that he has to be 'first' to seal a collaboration deal. I honestly couldn't give a crap about recognition, and I'm not out to try to steal glory from him, but he feels threatened none the less. Either way, I suppose he has succeeded at whatever he has tried to do, because one of my friends has pulled out because of the fight, and at this point I don't feel that getting new original content is worth facing the nearly inevitable fight with Tony1 that doing so would lead to. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell is there "confidential" "IP" as part of a wikipedia project? This isn't a business network. It's a FREE encyclopedia built around FOSS software and free content in significant part to distance itself from the stinky world of "confidential IP". Sheesh. It sounds at minimum like somebody has a COI or at least a problem with the open culture that's supposedly one of our core values. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Point-blank question: Tony, is this about the idea of soliciting others to make sounds for Wikipedia? Because, from everything I've read, I see nothing but that idea. If you're accusing Sven of more than that, please state, in general terms, how it extends beyond that. If it is thatr, and given that Durova has very publicly talked about plans to bring in, for example, Juliard to Featured Sounds, then this is clearly harassment, and I Support a block of Tony.

Tony brought the matter up on wiki first, by accusing Sven of a claimed violation of IP, and threatening to destroy any attempts by Sven to seek out potential Featured Sounds from others. If there's nothing more than the idea of claimign sounds for Wikipedia that Tony's getting upset about, Tony needs blocked. We cannot have a user intentionally sabotaging all efforts to get material for Wikipedia which are not started by him.

There are clear legal threats, and the people attacking Sven seem to be presuming that Tony has a case. I have seen no evidence in the least that Tony has one, and the idea that someone can claim blanket rights to seeking out material for Wikipedia is appalling.

I expect to see a robust defense of his position by Tony, explaining what sort of things beyond the idea of contacting people and organizations to work with Wikipedia he feels is being violated. If he feels he has control over the idea of contacting organizatons or people, and has the right to harass anyone else attempting that, he must be blocked: Whatever good he might do would be counteracted by the dozens of people he would be throwing up a blanket prevention of any activity intended to help Wikipedia, with threats of harassment on the side.

The ball is in Tony's court. Perhaps there's something more to it, but if there is, he needs to give some vague clue. As I said, Durova has contacted organisations to provide content for Wikipedia before, including the Tropenmuseum partnership, and an attempt to contact universities, recording archives, and other such locations. Her ideas were widespread public knowledge at the time - which was also a period when Tony was very active in Featured sounds. So if Tony is claiming Durova's ideas as his own, he is a complete and total hypocrite.

This is why I think we need and must expect an exact statement of what IP Tony feels Sven violated, either explicit, or at least a very general description of the type of IP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam, I very much doubt that the partnership that Tony is working on is similar to any of Durova's ideas. However that is besides the point; the partnership that Tony is working on is not just ideas; it has a lot of meat on the bones. I don't know what Tony has shared with Sven, however if it is some of the documents that I am across, they are undeniably Tony's "intellectual property" (for want of a better word). The simple fact is that this should never have been brought onto Wikipedia. It would be foolish for Tony to describe the partnership publicly on Wikipedia in order to prove anything to you or anyone else, as that would spell the end of the partnership. As you may be aware, this wouldn't be the first time that a partnership has failed because conflicts between Wikipedians have trumped the good of project, and the partner has backed away from the lack of professionalism on display. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read the conversations, and it appears Sven merely wanted to set up an informal arrangement that would get his friends access to a recording studio at a university. I am sure Tony has a complicated plan, however, the question is, what aspect of Tony's plan does he think that Sven violated? Because I've tried to get an answer from him several times, and he has so far never said anything to contradict my view that he apparently considers any cooperation with an organisation for Wikipedia purposes to violate his IP. Again, unless some element of Sven's plan is not found in the Durova plans, and is found in Tony's, then there's a major problem, and it doesn't matter how complex parts of the plan which Sven apparently does not know about is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would probably be a bad idea for Tony to describe the partnership publicly here if confidentiality matters, to prove something to us. I think many of us would be happy to let Tony get back to his? work in private and respect his confidentiality. The problem I and I'm pretty sure others have is that whatever Sven may or may not have done wrong, Tony is the one making claims of Sven having broken agreements and stealing his IP and then making threats to tell others of this. As I've said I don't personally regard this as a legal threat but it still has a chilling effect and I think it's only fair for us to tell Tony to put up or shut up. Either he explains to the community in sufficient detail so we can determine if his claims have any merit or he withdraws his claims and doesn't make them on wikipedia again. Now if he does that but continues to make the claims and threats elsewhere or even carries them out, that would be unfortunate but given the minimal involvement of wikipedia in this, I don't think it's something we should get involved in. As for Sven, he? obviously should drop this once Tony has and I would also suggest he withdraw/remove any statements others feel are unhelpful or misleading but I haven't actually publicly seen anything that comes close to what Tony has done. Without looking in to all the details including those which remain private or confidential, none of us can really know how much fault each party has so as I said in my earlier reply none of this means Tony is totally in the wrong and Sven is in the right. Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On face value, this appears to be an editor attempting to prevent something from happening by arguing that he holds the intellectual property rights to it. Regardless of whether this claim has any merit, I would have said it was a fairly clear legal threat, and Tony1 should be blocked unless he agrees to withdraw it. Wikipedia does not recognise IP rights (certainly not in the way being presented here) - if he wants to pursue that, he needs to take it offwiki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is getting way out of hand. I'd like to see a succinct two or three-sentence summary of what's actually happening here, because I can't make head nor tail of it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In a nutshell, Tony allegedly disclosed sensitive information to Sven, allegedly accused Sven of disseminating said information, and made half-legal threats to him. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • But there are lots more points and claims involved in that, of which I'm not entirely sure and won't even try to articulate at the moment. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The blockable offence here appears to be "legal threats", yet you call them "half-legal threats". Can you explain what you mean by that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

        • I wonder what a "half-legal" threat is. I get a mental picture of a guy getting both a court order and a blackjack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

        • Tony says that he will inform Sven's friends that Sven is breaching IP rights. Sven disputes said IP rights, and fears damage done to contributors' willingness to donate their time and talents. Jujutacular ^talk 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, there's nothing even remotely "legal threat" about that, whatever we may think about it morally or ethically. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) @Malleus: "Half-legal" in that he accuses Sven of "[stealing] intellectual property," which only has connotations of legal action.
            • Regarding concerns about Tony's approach to assessing featured material and his interactions with other users: it's frankly off-topic. He has made several questionable comments, but discussing those further only causes needless drama. Let's stick to what the admins can deal with. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
              • An accusation of stealing carries no implication of legal action to follow. But frankly I'm no wiser about what's triggered this brouhahah now than I was before, because much of it seems to have brewed up on IRC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I think that another aspect of this discussion ought to focus on Sven Manguard's questionable history, possibly a sockpuppet. See his earliest edits, especially his use of "userspace", removal of welcome template, and a warning to an IP. Asalamalakum^Talk 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sven isn't a sock. See here. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Just for purposes of discussion, the above edit is Asalamalakum (talk · contribs)'s third edit, after de-redlinking his own user and talk pages. Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Smells like foot odor to me. No one who knows html enough to use text shadows in their sig would still use the long-deprecated font tag as well, I'm thinking. {{checkuser needed}}? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Adam and Ellen on this one. From where I am sitting, "There has been theft of intellectual propertly after confidentiality was assured in writing, and a breach of that confidentiality to more than one other person. I repeat here that if I believe the theft is acted on, I will inform those who are participating of the theft" is very clearly a threat in the spirit of WP:NLT, as Tony is leveling a threat intended to chill Sven's participation as well as to harrass other potential contributors. I would like to see a very good explanation as to why he should not be blocked until the threat is revoked. Resolute 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, as John Vandenberg says, this should not have been brought onwiki because, as the IP editor says, this isn't a business network. Tony needs seriously to strike these threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have, in the interim, attempted an unofficial solution as the Featured Sound director,: [152]. It is my hope that Tony will accept that this is the only way to stop the current haemorrhage of most of the major featured sound contributors over Tony's behaviour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of resolving it somewhere other than this. I hope that John Vandenberg and Adam Cuerden can find some resolution with the involved editors. We can give them some time to work on it; they can always come back here if they are unsuccessful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I categorically deny seeing any of the documents that John Vandenburg says were prepared. Everything I've said is from my memory of conversations, and I've said everything I know, as best as I can remember. If they are incorrect, it is not deliberate, the conversation took place months ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Tony has rejected the possibility of an informal solution, so I must ask for Tony to be, at the minimum, topic banned from Featured Sounds for not less than one month. At the moment, the choices are between getting Tony out of there, and losing all contributors because of him.

This is not the first time Tony has driven off contributors due to incivility and rudeness; about three years ago, Tony1 and Kleinzach managed to kill all participation at featured sounds due to their rudeness there. See, for example, such gems as:

2008 rudeness and the results

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates/Archive_2#Call_for_the_deletion_of_this_process
• [153]

Tony was also prone to gross exaggerations when attacking people. For example:

“ No way. It says "and are soon to be closed". Just what "soon" means is not for you alone to govern. Soon is not one or two days. Why is there a red link in my watchlist if you closed it properly? The recording is disgustingly bad musically; the technical quality is woeful. Even though consideration is given because it's a historical performance, in my view, it doesn't pass. There was 'ONE' support (not counting the co-nominators, of course). Either revert this promotion and do it properly, or I'll take it straight to the removal list. Tony (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ”

However, it had three supports, and had been open 8 days.

Such behaviour had the end result of making featured sounds a hostile environment, and the project was abandoned by almost all the people who had been instrumental in building it up, including Durova, me, Seddon, and many others.

I was willing to have Tony back while he was acting politely and building consensus, but he basically killed the process three years ago, and I'm not willing to let him do it again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked - I have blocked Tony1, as I do believe his statements about IP rights, confidentiality clauses etc are having the effect of a legal threat, and are causing damage to the Featured Sounds project. He may be unblocked if he will redact all statements relating to this dispute, and agree that he will not discuss this matter on-wiki again. In addition, I believe he should agree to stay away from Featured Sounds at least until the off wiki matter is resolved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish it didn't have to come to that, but, at the moment, we're in the awkward situation where he refuses to even help mitigate the results of his actions - or accept that his actions cause any problem. At least it gives me a chance of trying to pull back some of the lost contributors.

Thank you, though I do hope he sees sense, and that the block can eventually be lifted, though I must say, unfortunately, that I think it'd be highly disruptive to have him back in featured sounds in the near to medium future.

I don't know. He's a very prickly individual, but he usually means well. He just doesn't deal at all well with anything but immediate acquisition to how he thinks should be done - case in point, here, where he threatens to attack Featured sounds' main page attempt unless the sound file - which had no other opposes but him - isn't promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen, concur with that action. The problem here is, I think, we are dealing with vague issues and very few details. Clearly some sort of dispute is going down, but unless both parties want to explain themselves in detail we can only really go off behaviour here. Allusions to "partnerships" and "documents" just strikes me as strange full stop, I'd definitely encourage both Tony and Sven to take the time to explain in more detail what the hell they are talking about! But judging from the on wiki activity Tony needs to step back and re-assess his approach to the dispute. (FWIW it seems silly in general to be arguing about attempts to get new featured sounds on WP, we should be encouraging each other as much as possible. And secret partnerships don't seem to be very much in the spirit of WP's openness :S) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• When dealing in this legalistic area of copyrights, we may read too much into the actual manifestation of that legal right as regards WP. We are all working for a GFDL project, so that any ownership and benefit would ultimately be that of WP. What Tony seems to be upset about is that Sven appears to have taken an idea he has spent time in hatching, and running a 'light' version. I don't know enough about the FS project to know whether Sven's proposition is mutually exclusive to Tony's. But judging from Tony's rather violent reaction, I would speculate that it would be impossible to run with both ideas. Given that Tony divulged certain elements of his plan to Sven, and that Sven seems to have gone to someone else and said he doesn't care for Tony's idea and will run with his own, it strikes me this uncollegiate and unfriendly behaviour which is the root cause of the rancour. The implications that legal threats are imminent appears exaggerated. I think we are all clear that there have not been any legal threats, so the block appears utterly groundless. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• That was my reading of it too, although I'm willing to see Sven's assessment of it too (which appears to be along the lines of "I could do something too to help out, but this IMO is a better scheme" and they got mixed up together as opposing rather than complementary). My issue is with these references to documents, confidential information and the threats of harassment (on and off wiki) if Sven pursues his scheme. They violate the spirit of WP:LEGAL IMO. I'm still struggling to see what element of some sort of partnership or scheme *could* be Tony's IP, I can buy that he has worked hard on it and might feel undermined by Sven's actions, not that this excuses the language/behaviour, and perhaps that can be dealt with. But I'm totally lost as to why this is all a secret. Can someone please just bloody well explain what this "partnership" and other proposal actually are. Secrecy is a really bad thing, and is exactly what leads to issues such as this. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I find I'm in agreement with Ohconfucius, in that I can see a threat of sorts (to inform people of his belief that his IP was stolen), but there was no legal threat made. In regard to the secrecy, when working with potential partners outside of WP it may be required to keep negotiations confidential, and as far as I am aware that is the case here. It isn't about secret projects, but about respecting the interests of the potential partners. I am aware of the proposal, and while I, as per John, was not asked to keep it confidential, normal practice when negotiating with such groups would suggest that it is a requirement that you do so, and thus I'm not surprised that Tony (and, presumably, the potential partner) insisted on confidentiality. Losing that could quite easily see the partner walk away. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic principle is that off-wiki disputes should not be brought on-wiki. Tony has the option to withdraw the allegations he has made and undertake to avoid bringing off-wiki disputes onto user talk pages on en-wiki in the future, or to explain everything (though even then there's no guarantee that it will clarify why matters from another chapter were brought here in the first place, and whether it was warranted or whether those allegations are justified). The issue about his refusal to comply with the FSC director's request to avoid participating in FSC for a period of time is also a matter that may need review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict)x3 Whatever the confidential information is, I think we can comfortably take Sven's description of his own plans (i.e., arranging with a local university to use their recording studio) as credible. I frankly do not see how anyone can seriously argue that this can somehow violate a IP right, whatever the IP may be, or indeed is novel in any way. Proceeding from that premise, it follows that it is disruptive and detrimental to the project to repeatedly and groundlessly suggest that it is a violation of some unspecified IP, and a block would be justified since this behavior has already been demonstrated to have serious deleterious effects on the project. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Tony1

See User talk:Tony1#March 2011

I have made no "legal threat" to anyone. It is a matter of an apparent breach of a moral obligation by Sven Manguard to me. I worked hard with Wikimedia Australia over a three-month period to develop an idea in great detail, which is complex and has many original elements. I conveyed some of the details to Manguard after he assured me he had no intention of developing anything remotely similar. I was then told by a third party that "Sven grabbed me on IRC to tell me he is planning a similar project" and that Sven had said "well, I'm going ahead with it". Manguard has since said on my talk page, "you missed your chance, your partnership fell through, and if there is even the slightest chance of it coming to fruition, it's not going to be for several more months. I'm not going to drop my efforts, and I'm not going to wait indefinitely for something that at this point I'm pretty sure is never going to happen ...". Actually, the partnering institution had already agreed in principle, and there has simply been a delay in implementation. I have been led to believe that others in the WMF have been apprised of the idea; but I'm in the dark as to what level of detail he has divulged, and whether clearly identifiable details of my scheme have been or will be duplicated without attribution. If distinctive and original details are being conveyed contrary to his undertaking to me, it is a moral breach; and if they are implemented without attribution to me, that is also a moral breach; if this occurs, I believe I have a moral right to inform people of it. This is the gist of what I said to Manguard, but now I'm been accused of making "legal threats"; this is based on a complete misunderstanding. In fact, I don't have a legal foot to stand on in that respect, and he knows it. Why is this being construed as anything "legal"? For all we know, Manguard's ideas might be quite different; but he needs to communicate them as a courtesy as much as a practicality.

I was the person who suggested publicly that Manguard and Adam be "directors" at FSC, only a few weeks ago. I believe Manguard has done good work there, so I don't understand why this spin-out is happening. It has quickly morphed into accusations of "gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks". I see no evidence of gross incivility by me (aside from an unkind thing I said on his talk page yesterday—"not mature enough"—which I'm willing to withdraw), nor of personal attacks. Instead, I have endured major and repeated personal attacks on his and my talk pages. No one has mentioned those.

This seems to have been mixed up with complaints about my reviewing at FSC: they are surely two different issues. If people are troubled by professional reviews of soundfiles, I think there's a big problem for features sounds. I have presented factual evidence and what I believe are balanced opinions, and have supported a few WP-produced files, too. I encourage WPians to present their own performances for FS promotion, just as our photographers do at FSC, but please let's review them professionally without fear or favour. Tony (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In a desperate bid to resolve this mess, can we remove or archive the relevant threads on Tony1 and Sven's talk pages and this ANI thread, and have a binding agreement that they don't discuss this further on Wikipedia. Then Tony1 can be unblocked and we can all get on with our relevant projects to build Wikipedia, whether they be on Wikipedia or in real world partnerships with other institutions. Please. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the de-escalating the situation is very desirable. However, given the strange comments on this thread, I think it would be in Tony1's interest for a clarification to be given at some point.

My suggestion is to postpone this thread to give you all time to work on it offwiki, followed by a later public statement of what you worked out. That statement need not go into the "confidential" "intellectual property", in my opinion, but it should include some assurances that the problems which Adam Cuerdan has pointed out at FSC will resolve. I think that is what Elen and others are looking for. If that's OK with you, I can go ahead and try to close the thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A postponement may be just what is needed in order that any misunderstandings can be straighted out in private. It will be much easier to do this if I know that the relevant discuss threads have been removed for the time being. I know everyone involved is very motivated to ensure that Featured Sounds continues to be successful. It will be my greatest pleasure to report back at the end of the week that everything has been satisfactorily resolved. If this cant be resolved privately, there may be a need for Wikipedia dispute resolution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to say that to me this doesn't look so much like a legal matter, and more like a matter from a different field that is also customarily not subject to on-wiki discussion. Maybe Tony1 is just having trouble making his case coherently at the moment, in which case things may become clearer in a few days.

As a general comment, it would be nice if the ethos of WP:OWN, wiki principles and the free content movement were generally, well, not necessarily lived, but at least respected by those editors who are spending most of their time with content-related meta-issues. Hans Adler 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Wikinews links regarding Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami

Admins: Since I've now retired from Wikipedia, would someone mind closing this? Seems no point keeping it open since the discussion has moved, and I'm no longer active. Thanks. BarkingFish 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It has been brought to our attention that an as yet unnamed editor on WP has been removing links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, to our articles concerning the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. I'll show you what was posted to us in the early hours of this morning, and by whom.

"As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)"

Since Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, I find this behaviour to be totally unacceptable, and would request that whoever is responsible for this (I have requested the name of the "established editor" at Wikinews), is dealt with by whatever means are necessary unpleasant, and would ask the administrators here to review the situation, and see what can be done (if anything). The fact that you link to us from the Main page is wonderful, but I can't honestly see why someone would do this without even making note of it, and then make such an appalling statement as "Wikinews articles are not worth linking to". We do a lot of work to make sure what we publish is relevant, accurate, and appropriate to the situation we're covering.

Your help in looking into this issue would be welcomed.

BarkingFish 13:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (admin @ en.wikinews, My talk page at ENWN)

I see nothing actionable per se in removing wikinews links from wikipedia, sister project or not. I'd suggest it's only actionable if it becomes a revert war to remove said links. Just my non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If we are dealing with an IP, we (here at en.Wiki) could do a CU and find out who they are. Otherwise, they should be sternly warned that something like this isn't something they need to be doing without consensus. I would wait until the name of the user is found and then deal with it on our end since this was done on en.Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear who the user is if one looks at the talk page for the earthquake. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Things are a bit hectic at Fukushima I nuclear accidents. But the issue or removal was raised at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews a day ago without receiving any justification. My suggestion would be to readd and explain that again at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews suggesting discussion rather than edit-summary-less reverting (btw: I haven't checked if that was generally or always the case, navigating the page history is a pain). The same might applies mutatis mutandis to the International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. We are still far away from and endless discussion or revert-war on the subject that would require action here... L.tak (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. Whether you agree with it or not, any major current event will have an article started within a few minutes on Wikipedia and will be rapidly updated in almost real time. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here. Taking the Japan earthquake article as an example - our first coverage was approx 1/2 hour after the event [154] and unless I'm missing an earlier article, the first coverage on Wikinews was FOUR hours later [155] - since we're outpacing wikinews by a ridiculous margin, linking to them is pointless. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 2 Things. Compare your "first coverage" with ours, and look at the difference. You must understand that because we're published over Google News, our stories undergo a full peer review process confirming the absence of copyvio, plagiarism and general errors in work prior to their publication. Your articles undergo no review whatsoever before someone slaps them up, they only get taken down after something's already been done wrongly. Our story was actually started at 9:26AM UTC, yours at 6:18AM. Maybe we are being outpaced by Wikipedia, so what? The fact is we're publishing news - you're publishing an encyclopedia. Either way, we consider that our articles are worth linking to - that's part of the reason we publish them. If we're not useful in articles, why do you link us from your main page? BarkingFish 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • While our initial article was very minimal, it rapidly expanded into well referenced and useful information. By the time your article went live, our article [156] was at least equal and arguably superior to yours and evolving information had been available for the previous four hours for anyone desparate for an overview of what was happening while Wikinews had nothing on offer. While our articles are not reviewed before publication, high profile events attract prolific effort and errors are quickly found and corrected, often within seconds. If a news service is being beaten timewise by us doesn't that make it redundant? By the time your articles go up, we've got the information already here - it's pointless linking to your articles. I'm going to propose that your main page link be removed as it's simply no longer useful to redirect people away from here to you. For better or worse WP:NOTNEWS is no longer in effect and a separate wikiproject for news articles is no longer viable. Exxolon (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that the first article on the BBC's website concerning the Earthquake (albeit as an across the screen-rolling news-type of thing was more than 25 minutes after you put it up here, does that mean the BBC News Online service is redundant to Wikipedia too? I doubt it. BarkingFish 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is just an edit removing some links. Do we "sternly warn" people for removing wikilinks? Ohconfucius stated their reasoning for removing the links on their talk page, it doesn't sound unreasonable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. It's not unreasonable a place for BarkingFish to bring this up, in an effort to get eyes here to look at it, but we can probably point people on this thread to the thread at the main article's talk page. Keeps things central, apart from anything else. I've placed my view on the dispute there. It's certainly something consensus is required for, and it looks to be vaguely against Ohconfucious just now. In xyr defence, WP:BRD is quite applicable, although edit summaries would have been nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has BarkingFish tried discussing it with the person removing the links, or even on the talkpages of the affected articles? That's always the first step of dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This whole situation is utterly unacceptable. We always link Wikipedia from Wikinews, because it is a sister project, and as a family, the projects should support themselves. This is not the case, though. I reverted like twice an editor (user:Gold Hat) some days ago after removing Wikinews links from the eq/ts page, they gave no reason at all. This needs to be solved; Wikipedia is becoming a diva these days. "There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here." – WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE NEWS, okay? Diego Grez (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Funny that. Sniping at Wikipedia and its contributors has become de rigueur on Wikinews, yet as soon as links start disappearing you're all over here playing up the "sister project" angle. the wub "?!" 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I object to that. I'm a Wikipedian every bit as much as a Wikinewsie. I also question what relevance that issue over there has to a content dispute over here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I second what BRS says, I'm also a Wikipedian anyway, but this is kind of stupid, and disruptive. Links to Wikinews do any damage whatsoever to Wikipedia? No. So...? --Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
        • We're a diva because we're better. WP:NOTNEWS is universally ignored, like it or not. Wikinews links should not get higher priority just because - only if they are useful. Exxolon (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
          • So you're openly admitting that Wikipedians ignore an actual site policy, in favour of publishing stuff which isn't supposed to be here. I'm gonna prove theWub's point now... "Like that's anything new?" :) BarkingFish 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not required to carry links to Wikinews, nor must they link to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc.). Indeed, the quality, reliability, and relevance of other WMF projects varies quite a bit from project to project and even from page to page within a given project. The implicit or explicit assumption made by some individuals here that Wikipedia is obliged to link to other projects wherever and whenever possible is not justified by policy or practice.

While I share concerns about the tendency for Wikipedia to be treated as a wire service and the effects of instantaneous news updates on our goals as an encyclopedia project, that problem is unlikely to be solved by mandatory Wikinews links. Links to sister projects should continue to be evaluated in the same way that we evaluate any other external link. Demands that we 'deal with this by whatever means are necessary' come across as a tad overwrought, given that your contributions seem to show no attempts whatsoever to resolve this issue, BarkingFish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat unfair to BarkingFish. This post here is exactly an effort to deal with the situation. No, it isn't in the correct place, but xe's trying to sort things out as best as possible - which is to try and find people over here to look at things. Remember, at the time of the original post there was no indication to the poster as to what user or even which article(s) to look at.
Sister project links are not dealt with in (quite) the same fashion as all internal links; my interpretation of the relevant guideline is in a more suitable place - an article talk page. This ANI thread has served its usefulness and the content dispute should now be worked out over there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't just consider that to be "somewhat" unfair, I consider it to be very unfair. My contribution here, TenOfAllTrades, was an attempt to raise the concern with people who actually have the ability to review issues like this, since I don't have that facility to hand myself (I'm not an admin here), and I find your comments about my "demands" (which I wasn't, it was a request, which you're free to ignore), to be frankly insulting. This is my contribution to attempting to resolve the issue - as an administrator of Wikinews, I have no power whatsoever to use my position there to negotiate with individual users here over something which affects the project I work on. As for theWub saying that our project has become de rigeur for sniping at WP and its contributors, proof of such an allegation would be welcomed. If it's raised, it will be dealt with. BarkingFish 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That's an awfully charitable reading of BarkingFish's request. He wasn't looking for people over here to "look at things", he was asking us to shoot first and ask questions later — it's difficult to read his 'I'm not an editor, I'm an admin' declaration followed by a demand that we "[deal] with [the responsible editor] by whatever means are necessary" in any other way.

Based on his comments immediately above, it's obvious that if he did have an admin bit on enwiki, he would be misusing it right now to threaten the editor who removed the links. While I have not participated at Wikinews, I have had very...mixed...experiences in dealing with administrators on some of our other 'sister' projects (including Wikiversity and Commons). If BarkingFish believes that one must have the "power" of an admin's position (ha!) in order to discuss article content on Wikipedia, then Wikinews administrators obviously have a very different set of prerogatives and responsibilities from those enjoyed (ha! again) by admins on enwiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm about to say is "awfully charitable" too, because it could be a lot worse. What I meant by the comment above is obvious to me, but it may not be to others. There is a clear difference between an administrator discussing something with a user, and a regular user discussing something with another user. I don't believe I should have the "power" of an admin's position to discuss content, simply that my position there means precisely bugger all here. I will however reword my initial comments, since it's patently obvious to me that you in particular are offended by them. BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Barkingfish. You've edited on Wikpedia, you know that you discuss edits with other editors on article talk pages or on user talk pages. What you don't do is charge in here, state that you find "this behaviour to be totally unacceptable" and demand that Wikipedia administrators deal with someone "by whatever means are necessary." Especially over some links that may not be needed in an encyclopedic article. Don't you think that your behaviour might be a bit aggressive, over the top, and a poor reflection on the project that you represent? 86.159.92.13 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@IP Above - Frankly, yes I do think they were aggressive, no I don't think it's a poor reflection on the project I represent, it's an accurate reflection of how a project feels when we're told that basically we're redundant to an encyclopedia which isn't a bloody news source. We record the news, you record the events which made the news. There is a big difference, and the quicker Wikipedia realises that it's not a news service, it's an encyclopedia the better.BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Everyone: The 'means necessary' could be as simple as a quiet word, or whatever. An unfortunate choice of words, but okay, it's happened - and now been struck as not a great way of putting it. However, there's a real need for those in this road-to-nowhere argument to sit back and cool it - especially you, BarkingFish. The last thing I want is for this discussion to flare into a disruptive dramafest - especially when the content dispute is being discussed in a mature, constructive way elsewhere now that the ball's rolling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also: A proposal on T:MP directly related to this thread. —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems there is a noticeable degree of antipathy between theoretical "sister" projects. Like at Commons, where you can bring up the fact that a malcontent has been indef'd here and they continue to edit freely at Commons, and the response is, "Yeh, so?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comment. The Wikinews community has only just given itself a good hard shake and realised that Wikipedia is not the Antichrist - last thing I want to see is a reversion to old attitudes. I don't feel this thread is helping either project's view of the other - as someone who contributes to both (albeit currently low-activity here), I really want to take the two and bang their heads together when arguments like this get heated. Can I get a bot to trout every single active contributor to both projects? I'm kidding.... I think. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)