Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force

Nearly a year ago I initiated this RFC , and ended up giving up in disgust and un-watchlisting the page. Random Wiki-happenstance led to me viewing the current talk page today, and guess what? Nothing has been resolved in over a year of argument. I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like the same conversation spiraling on and on endlessly, mostly with the same users who were doing the same thing last July. The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users! Personally, I'm not going to wade back into this mess, but I thought a post here might prompt... something, anything, some attempt at sanity through article probation or other WP:SANCTIONS or, something else that can end this madness. Honestly, this is one of the most screwed up things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, a circular argument that never ends, and users who apparently never tire of arguing on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you visited WP:WQA today :-) The problem when people who are involved in the sciences is this:

• in science, you're more important the more you write
• many scientists have different points of view on any given topic
• all scientists are right

These corollaries cause all the problems. (Note: the second is the only one that is actually true). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've popped over there and said that my gut feeling is that this saga won't stop without a topic ban. It is probably time to do something about it, it's been going on far too long and the discussions on that talk page would put anyone off from trying to edit the article, and we shouldn't allow that situation to persist. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This showed up at ANI in November last year (here) and was eventually closed after David Tombe and Brewers_ohare resolved to take their discussion off-wiki. Those two users (plus a couple of others) are clearly still up to the same endless arguing; I'm thinking topic bans may become necessary if this doesn't abate. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The pattern I am seeing at Centrifugal force and related pages is one of long term POV pushing by David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, David Tombe is attempting to bring Wikipedia into line with his own peculiar views about physics. This is being resisted by several users. Recently, David Tombe has been [forum shopping in an unsuccessful attempt to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter, who is one of those resisting David Tombe. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] This diff] should give some idea of David Tombe's agenda on Wikipedia. More information about David Tombe's highly unusual beliefs about physics can be found here . Cardamon (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, it seems others are seeing what I see, let's take this to the next step:

Topic Ban on User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe

• Should these two editors be banned from editing this article and it's talk page, and related articles due to their extremely prolonged arguments on the talk page?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for David Tombe only. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having watched this play out for a while but being otherwise uninvolved, I believe a topic ban for David Tombe only would be the best approach. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support a physics topic ban for David Tombe only. I can manage my dealings with Brews, but David's disregard of WP:AGF & WP:CIV and WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, & WP:OR is just too much. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Tombe only.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Suppoert topic ban for Tombe only right now-- this is the least we can do to improve editing in this area. I've watched this for a year or so, and Tombe's behaviour makes an impossibly uncomfortable and disruptive environment for other editors. I don't see Tombe as an asset to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't tolerate his behaviour on other articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Tombe only. My attention was brought to this matter via a rant Tombe placed on Jimbo's talk page. Having run through the history of this all I'm seeing from Tombe is a stubborn attitude, which borders on harassment. A content dispute is a content dispute but for a year David Tombe seems to have done nothing but circle around this, he even made comment in this section when it would have been more appropriate in the section below. At this point it may be best if Tombe stepped back. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, or reinstate the complete ban for David Tombe. He has already been banned; it was overturned by a administrator. You'll note that David Tombe still believes that it's all a conspiracy against him.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:Brews ohare doesn't work well with others. That's a huge negative in the wikipedia which is all about collaborative working. I am agnostic on whether he should be banned, but he does cause significant friction with most other editors with his editing style.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support physics topic ban for David Tombe, see my comment below. --Steve (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So the numbers mount up for censorship as the pressure mounts up on FyzixFighter to reveal his reasons for trying to deny that the convective term in equation 3-12 of Goldstein is the centrifugal force. Six so far, including FyzixFighter himself! And how many of the other five have got a background in physics? David Tombe (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK you seven, you've hung your colours to the mast, so now it's time to do your homework. Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about. So I would suggest that you all run along and and come back when you have carefully gone through the last edit of mine that FyzixFighter deleted, and present your evidence here in a clear and concise manner. We will be looking for evidence of unsourced material and/or original research. David Tombe (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any favours you know. Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia for experts, and consensus rarely favours the "I'm an expert so leave me alone" approach. If FyzigFighter is deleting sourced material, show us some diffs and we can all look at them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tombe, you do not hold a Ph.D. in physics, so by the standards of many people you have no physics background. I read through the Talk page of Centrifugal Force and I googled your name and then followed the links to crankish websites where you expound your views in the face of opposition from real physicists. I am sorry but I feel that a topic ban is the best solution for all concerned. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about", as it turns out you don't know me, so I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the subject, which is your behaviour. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no reason to assert that the article proper is excessively edited, and I tend to think that long discourses on article talk pages are not intrinsically evil. A solution in search of a problem. Collect (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I completely disagree with both the points you make here, as the facts do not support them. The article is being edited much too often for such a trivial topic, and the talk pages for this topic isn't just 'long' is positively obscene. At one point I did the archive and the talk page archives were about a megabyte; and most of that was people arguing with David Tombe; it died right down when he was banned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you Wolfkeeper. I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd come along and join the party. But you need to get your facts straight. Those facts are very easy to check. I was banned from the end of July 2008 until mid-October 2008. The edit war raged continuously during that period. It is very easy to check. In fact, I was very upset at the time that because I wanted to join in, in order to back up editor Fugal. It was my attempts to communicate with Fugal on the side that got me banned permanently. What kind of justice was that? David Tombe (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you used sockpuppets when banned. You were trying to push your POV even when banned. Which part of banned don't you understand?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence for that? Even at this stage he could still be called on it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, most of the "sockpuppetry" was done on User talk:Fugal, where Tim Carrington West and the 217.- and 81.- anon IP's were David, and on other user talk pages. David did use the anon IPs 217.44.75.36 and 217.42.108.55 to participate in a debate on a centrifugal force article talk page while under a block. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Check out the indefinite block he received because of it: [2]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You've just ducked the important point that the edit war raged continuously even when I was banned. You claimed otherwsie. You misrepresented the facts. David Tombe (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you used a sockpuppet ensure that, while you were blocked.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the discussion is just normal WP back and forth. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the argument has gone on much longer than necessary because the controversial material in question was initially opposed as a knee jerk reaction on the erroneous belief that is was unsourced original research. Although that idea has now been dispelled, the momentum of those who opposed the material in the first place has kept the argument going. A wider investigation needs to be conducted before individual editors are singled out for sanction. This needs to be done by editors that are knowledgeable about the content matter of the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for full disclosure I know David off-wiki from another online community. From what I know of David and this situation, a topical ban isn't appropriate. I am on a mobile right now, and will expand my reasons shortly (3 hours aprox.) -- Ned Scott 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, scratch that, got my David's mixed up. Rest of it still stands. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have explained below why editing physics/math articles requires one to discuss the actual physics. A very narrow discussion limted to direct quotes from sources can lead to very bad articles. I have given a few examples of such bad articles. From time to time you can then have problematic editors, I also addressed that a bit in that section below. Banning people just becase they talk too much on the talk page is a very bad idea.

What you can do is organize the debates on the talk page better, have some votes on how to proceed with the article. Then if one dissenting editor keeps on reverting the article against the consensus, you can raise that here. That would be a better way to deal with any problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Should the article and talk page Centrifugal force be placed on probation, with editors subject to WP:SANCTIONS?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As somebody who is at the very least peripherally involved in this debate, it wouldn't bother me if myself, David Tombe, FyzixFighter and Brews Ohare were all topic banned. There's enough people around that understand this topic to stop it going to hell in a handbasket, whereas with David Tombe on-wiki it requires constant watching.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A solution in search of a problem - I see no reason to object to the number of edits on the article page, so it boils down to being upset at excessive use of a talk page - which I think is insufficient to invoke any specific actions. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Banning people from entering into discussion is always going to be a bad idea, and will never solve any underlying issue/problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Ned Scott 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, see my vote in the previous section. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let someone else edit it a while

It seems to me that there must be other people out there with the knowledge/expertise to write on this subject. Why don't the main contributors to the article agree to refrain from editing the article and talk page for, say, two weeks in order to let others have a chance at it? Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion is most certainly circular; the arguments seem to involve different frames of reference and a debate over which frame is correct/better (neither, according to Einstein!) An outside editor (willing to spend a significant chunk of time churning through sources and assembling a fair representation of both sides) would do will for the page. I also have to vote against the aforementioned bans. I fail to see where any one editor has been more uncivil than any others. Ban them all or ban none, but not some. Perhaps warnings all around? Clayt85 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for this suggestion provided all participants e.g. including Martin Hogbin, Dicklyon, Wolfkeeper, FyzixFighter, etc. agree as well. Inasmuch as the instigator of this brawl, Beeblebrox, has never actually indicated any interest in contributing to the page, nor have Darrenhusted & BWilkins, I don't expect much will happen during the hiatus. However, it would be great if revisions were (i) explained on the Talk page, (ii) sourced and (iii) balanced. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this, but I wouldn't include Martin in the list of participants that should take a hiatus from editing the article and talk page. He's only recently started to participate on the talk page, and I would like to see what he could do while we take a break. I'd also highly encourage that those like Iblis and CMD who think that just talking about the physics and going through the derivation will convince David of the errors of his ways and stop his fringe POV pushing to go ahead and try. It's easy enough to say, but doing it is another matter entirely. Others before you have tried to no avail, but maybe you'll succeed where they have failed. However, Brews, please don't discount the opinion of others like Darrenhusted and BWilkins just because they haven't participated on the article page. As I understand it, their opinions are based on David's action (failure to AGF and incivility) in general across multiple talk pages. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I thought the point was that uninvolved editors gave their opinion. More to the point do you think that either the actions of you (ohare) or Tombe would encourage anyone to even try to edit any page that either of you have been near given the amount of drama you attract. What would happen if I made an edit at centrifugal force? Could I expect 4 ANI threads and two complaints to Jimbo as FF has been subjected to? At this point I would only try to contribute if I knew you were both banned from those pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to close/Summary

• This is turning into the same thing as the talk page we're commenting on, a very verbose debate in which nothing is settled. It would be good if a couple of admins came forward and stated if they felt it warranted admin action or not. Since this has gone into WP:TLDR territory, I will try to summarize the core points here:

• David Tombe and Brews ohare have had an extremely protracted debate for over a year on the centrifugal force talk page
• This debate does not seem limited to discussion of the article but rather is a debate about the science itself and therefore an inappropriate use of an article talk page
• Previous attempts to resolve this, including reports at WP:WQA, several WP:RFCs, and a previous report here have failed to resolve the issue
• David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment on their contributions, and are unwilling to acknowledge that this is anything other than a normal talk page conversation
• There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe last year for these exact same reasons, but an admin chose to unblock him and apparently did not follow up and make sure this behavior did not recur.
• The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not solve the underlying problem of an off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages

For these reasons I believe some sort of administrative action is warranted, either in the form of a topic ban, blocking, or article probation Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained in detail in the extended discussion section, why the actions suggested by Beeblebrox would be a bad thing. One has to take into account that on this noticeboard page we only hear about disputes between editors. The fact that the way Brews edits articles has been very successfully used by me and others in correcting long standing and horrible errors without causing an disputes is a hard undeniable fact.

Now, it can be the case that an editor is talking too much on the talk page. But then it is up to the other editors to deal with that ocnstructively. Instead of moaning like Beeblebrox is doing here, one has to reach a conclusion on the talk page. If one editor is behaving in an obstructive way, then that canot prevent a consension being reached by all the pother editors. So, ultimately one can always proceed without that problem editor and if that problem editor still disrupts the article, you can come back here and raise more clear cut violations like 3RR etc.

If we take a shortcut by limiting Brews or David from discussing the physics/math on the talk page, then I see potential problems with other articles. We have had cases where extensive discussions based on physics were really necessary to settle disputes. In some cases there was one editor who was using sources in a misleading way and he was wikilawering. Now, such an editor could in the future come here and accuse the experts of talking too much physics and math. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary is inaccurate

• David Tombe and Brews ohare "debate":

Long ago considerable debate occurred over the nature of centrifugal force. That involved many editors, and was not strictly a Brews-Tombe back-and-forth. It was a well intentioned effort to reconcile Tombe's notions with those in the article by looking at several examples, some of which ultimately were added to the article.. That era has passed. Any recent Brews_ohare - Tombe exchanges have been short, constructive and related to content.

• This debate's subject.

I'd say present debate is focused upon the content of the article, and discussion has that objective in mind.

• David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment.

A complete misunderstanding bordering upon deliberate distortion.

• There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe;

A true statement, the ban served its purpose, which was to control name-calling and paranoia (not all on Tombe's side, I'd add). No recurrence of this behavior on Tombe's part.

• The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not prevent off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages;

What is this about - preventing talk on editor talk pages? Preventing use of the article talk page indefinitely?

Considering that a large proportion of the figures and text in Centrifugal force Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and Reactive centrifugal force originated with Brews-ohare, and that Beeblebrox has never made an attempt to add content or to engage in discussion on these pages, his crusade here is peculiar. He is interested in influencing decision by rhetoric, not by principle. He has no direct experience with any of the editors he attacks anywhere that I know about, never mind on Centrifugal force. What are the motivations and the credentials of Beeblebrox anyway? Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You wonder why he hasn't tried to edit the pages given what has happened in this ANI thread alone. To any admin out there please put a lid on this. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and Darrenhusted have made no attempt whatsoever. Don't tell me you are too bashful to even show up on the Talk page. It has not intimidated a lot of other editors: Rracecarr, Wolfkeeper, The Anome, PeR, FyzixFighter, Martin Hogbin, Henning Makholm, Dicklyon, Dougweller, Harald88, Fugal etc. etc.Brews ohare (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brews, whether the editors commenting here have tried to get involved in the debate on the article talk page or not is irrelevant. This is a report at ANI not an RFC. A report here asks uninvolved editors to look at the behavior of the editor(s) in question and give opinions based on the agreed upon standards of the Wiki community. It is not meant to get them involved in the actual debate on the talk page (that would be what an RFC or mediation is for), although it may lead to that. Stop trying to marginalize the comments of others by using standards that don't apply. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever guys. Must you resort to this sort of base tactics every time, questioning the intelligence and motivations of persons you don't agree with. Here's what you just don't seem to want to understand: it is absolutely not required that an editor be an expert on a subject before contributing to an article or a talk page conversation, so my credentials, and yours, are not really relevant. You both keep harping on the point that I have not participated in your debate, as if that makes any comment from me invalid. I would say it is exactly the opposite. Clearly, I don't have an opinion in your actual dispute and could care less which of you is right or wrong, meaning that it is easier for me to see this from an impartial outsider's perspective. Don't try to turn this around and make it about me, because it isn't, I'm hardly the only one who sees a problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from participating editing the article or its talk page. So, what is exactly the problem? Just that there are a lot of discussions on the talk page as you wrote in the OP? While I agree that David may talk a bit too much, that alone cannot be a good ground for any action to be taken.

Many disputes on article contents have been settled by lengthy discussions witout escalating to major conflicts, so on this page you'll find no trace of such disputes. That happens far often than unnecessary discusions that go on for too long. But a lay person cannot be expected to see the difference. So, if David and Brews were sanctioned for talking too much then I could also be sanctioned for talking too much on thermodynamics talk page articles. You can easily imagine some editor with some POV that is based on a misunderstanding of a source to come along and the only way that can be refuted is by a lengthy argument, because you can't always refute a quote out of context by a quote that counters that directly. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, with regards to David Tombe the problem goes far beyond just talking too much on the talk page. What is your opinion of the behavior described in the WQA report? Is such persistent behavior acceptable or not, and if not what is the next recourse in getting David to change such behavior? --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As is typical with Wikipedia, you fellows are trying to kill the wrong people. This entire problem is due to FyzixFighter who intervened after much of the long discussion between Brews and Tombe was worked out. FyzxFighter then swooped in and deleted Tombe's edits, which were at the final stage, and wiped out all of the progress. Hence I am a bit surprised that you are not discussing a ban on FyzixFighter, as he is obviously the source of the current problem. Now we have Mr Beeblebrox stepping in to make things worse. He is trying to establsh rules for editing physics articles when he doesn't know any physics. I will make this problem clear. The physics community has been arguing about the physics of centrifugal force for at least 200 years. Does he expect that wikipedia will produce a satisfactory article on this topic if wikipedia tries to enforce a conclusion that the physics community doesn't agree upon? I think not. The problem here is Wikipedia procedures and the way it handles disputes. The correct way is to allow both view points into the article while telling the reader there is a disute and letting him decide. Wikipedia thinks they can avoid mentioning there is a dispute and then determine which side is the correct side of the argument. Such a procedue is bound to ruffle feathers and is more than likely going to lead to wrong information in Wikipedia. Apparently, Mr Beeblebrox believe that the best solution is to choose up sides, like in a children's playground, and ostracise the bad boys from the playground. That is not a solution and will only help to keep Wikipedia's reputation for erronous information intact, and confirm why that reputation was properly earned in the first place.72.84.66.220 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders

Stephen (talk · contribs) is removing hundreds or thousands of image placeholders. Another editor and I have expressed our concern about this, asking for a reference to a discussion on the subject. Can we revoke his AWB rights till he answers? Do you perhaps have other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No, admins are approved by default. Long answer: I left this message on his talk page - if this task has consensus, you should file a BRFA so the edits can be done with a bot flag, if this task doesn't have consensus...well, then you shouldn't be doing it! =) He's not presently editing, so no immediate action is required, but I think a BRFA would be Stephen's best bet. –xeno^talk 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It actually appears there may be some consensus for this.

• File talk:Replace this image_female.svg#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2

While there isn't a clear consensus to remove the images, it appears there is one that they shouldn't actually be used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's loose consensus not to continue adding it, but doesn't that final link somewhat prove that removing the image en masse doesn't enjoy consensus? –xeno^talk 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've been removing the image placeholders when I come accross them as well. Mainly I've based the removal on this conversation, which states at the top:

• "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation".

Although I do think they look slightly garish myself, I have no strong aversion to them and was removing them based on what appeared to be concensus that they should not be used. Perhaps there is a more recent discussion that I missed? ponyo (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That bot request above was more recent, and it seems that the main objection was that there were too many ways for the bot to break things. I would urge that these removals not be reverted until a consensus to put them back in is obtained, since the consensus for having them there seems weak-to-nonexistent.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If consensus truly exists for these not to appear on articles, could we not just replace the image with a single transparent pixel? –xeno^talk 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate those bloody single-pixel images. Let's not, and say we didn't....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm a touch uncomfortable seeing AWB used for anything that even smells a smidge controversial. On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that these images shouldn't be used (I say that having supported their use, previously, mind you). It was a good experiment, but hasn't worked out as well as we hoped it might. If there's consensus not to use them, why on earth wouldn't we remove them? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because we like arguing about whether or not to remove them? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, it seems to be a catch-22 situation. No consensus to add them, no consensus to remove them. I support the removal, though if someone wants to edit war to keep the placeholder on I'm not gonna bother reverting the guy, it's a silly thing to edit war over. Wizardman 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, part of the non-consensus here is that they do work. Some see them as ugly, a POV and style issue IMHO, but they remain in the area of things we wish we had a better alternative for so leave them until we do. I like them and wouldn't use them if they didn't work. Until a better alternative - likely an image not seen as "ugly" - is produced there seems not overwhelming consensus to remove them. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, have you read the anecdotal evidence at User talk:Stephen? "I work WP:OTRS, and we get several image submissions per day, almost all of which are for articles with the placeholder image. It really does work for getting us free images. Sandstein 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) " –xeno^talk 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No consensus to add means: don't add any more. no consensus to remove means: don't remove them either. C'est simple. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I see no directive or concensus to forbid adding them, that would seem to be the same reason there is no consensus for removing them. There is just general dislike of their appearance from everything I've read. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? Is it that they're an embarassing reminder of wikipedia's schizoid attitude towards fair use? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I used to be bitter a bit as well, the goal is to produce free content for the world so really, ultimately, we want free images with no fair use requirements. Those can be seen worldwide whereas everything else gets masked in various ways. As our uploading images protocols is overhauled and more images are uploaded to commons the tide will change. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Having the sihouettes there might at least encourage someone to go get their Brownie and do a little celebrity-stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that centralised discussion got rather disjointed and highjacked but there was a very promising solution evolving out of the discussion before the politics tired us out and the solution lost momentum. It was the The text placeholder solution illustrated here. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have supported that as a solution, it uses a small line of text, and in that example is rather lost in the shuffle. I think the placeholders work because they are obvious and seen by all who look at the article. I also believe they may help inspire folks to contribute who may not think of that as an option. -- Banjeboi 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The silhouette seems like a better answer - it tells the viewer that we would like a photo but we don't have one. It's like IMDB uses. Unless we're consciously trying to avoid looking like IMDB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the above shows that there still is some discussion needed on this issue. So maybe we can consider the following as what to do next:

1. All editors are reminded not to remove those placeholders for now until community has decided that this is indeed consensus
2. A new RFC is opened to discuss the pros and cons of those images which is advertised to the wider community using a watchlist notice. The RFC should include the question whether removal of those images should be sought.
3. If (and only if) the RFC shows that there is indeed consensus for those removals, then a bot account will be requested to remove those images.

This way, we can avoid cries of "stop him, there is no consensus!" and maybe settle the question once and for all. Even if said proposed RFC does result in "no consensus", we will have a result that allows us to deal with such situations in the future. Talking about the issue itself here will not yield any productive results and Stephen seems to have stopped to allow discussion to take place, so there is no further need for ANI discussion. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a WP:OTRS volunteer who occasionally works the photo submission queue. I can attest that these placeholders are very successful at getting us free photographs. We get on the order of several dozens of photograph submissions per week for articles that have such placeholders. That's why I consider it disruptive to remove all these images without consensus. I propose that a bot revert these removals and I agree that we should have a RfC on the question whether we want such placeholders and whether they should be automatically added to or removed from articles.  Sandstein  08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A bot wouldn't be necessary, one could use mass rollback; with the caveat that it would also roll back the cosmetic changes made. –xeno^talk 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(I feel a bit bad for not knowing how to use mass rollback despite having been an admin for 3+ years). Per WP:BRD, I suggest to mass-revert all these changes and to ask Stephen to find more support for his actions first. Kusma (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. Probably best to enter a rollback edit summary before doing it: User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js. –xeno^talk 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass rollback to restore placeholder?

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, I can, however, use mass-rollback to restore these placeholders, with the above-noted caveat that cosmetic changes made in conjunction with the removal will be rolled back as well. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support it based on the fact that it would send a strong signal to every user not to make potentially controversial edits automated on a larger scale. If we just sit back and say "oh well, now it has already happened", we invite people to do similar things because they will not have to worry to be reverted... On the other hand, that would be quite many edits to rollback and as such, potentially, an unneeded drain on our servers that might be re-reversed if a consensus is found to allow such removals. I think the best course of action will be to quickly establish any kind of preliminary consensus by asking for input at multiple venues at the same time. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support mass rollback as well.  Sandstein  07:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DDo it, I personally detest mass edits like these without support. Viridae^Talk 07:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Sandstein, support rollback. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support rollback, I saw some removals on articles on my watchlist. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's a consensus not to add them, rolling back would be adding against that consensus. What's the harm in leaving them be? There seems to have been no edit wars started and only rehash drama that has already been debated by those who care about the issue (rather than the drama, here). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is imho that no new ones should be added but that old ones should not be removed either. So this rollback-proposal would only restore the previous (consensus) status-quo. Otherwise people could break this consensus and get away with it because others cannot revert them without breaking consensus themselves. This cannot be our goal, can it? Regards SoWhy 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus whatsoever against adding "new" ones. I do see rough consensus that for people who died before photography came into wider use they could be removed but certainly not for living people. I also see a general consensus that they aren't ideal but until a better placeholder image is created that these are the best we have, i notice they have been redesigned and discussed extensively in the past to improve their appearance. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence I think we should have a new RFC on the issue. I just don't think I am able to create one that people understand, else I'd have done so. ;-) Regards SoWhy 09:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots back from a week-long block and back to uncivil behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked one month ACB by Tanthalas39. — neuro^(talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

after returning from a week long block [[9]] for WP:NPA, i noticed that User:Nukes4Tots has been reverting some run-of-the-mill content disputes with the edit summary "RVV" (revert vandalism). I warned him about misusing the edit summary 'rvv' in cases where it is not actually vandalism, as that could be construed as uncivil, and he deleted my warning as 'destalkerized. go away.' I wasn't sure if he understood the message I was trying to convey to him, since I used a generic template to send the first message, so I left this personalized message with another example of when not to use 'rvv' (the misused rvv this time was here.) he then reverted my message with the edit summary rvv. I don't believe that he has interests in working well with others.

furthermore, he is leaving what could be construed as racist edit summaries. someone tried to add the mexican flag to an article and his edit summary was rv: el bandito. someone tried to add the filipino flag to an article and he reverts it as rv: filipino bandit, rv: cambodian bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, rv: filipino bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, turkish bandit.

Theserialcomma (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously hasn't learnt. I'd say block for a month, with the emphasis that it is his last proper chance. If he's not willing to contribute properly after this then I'm perfectly happy with an indefinite block or community ban. This might seem a bit hardarsed, but people failing to treat week-long and month-long warnings as enough of a hint aren't likely to change. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I recommend checking the datestamps on the diffs given above before leaping to any conclusions. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • yep. rv: el bandito was done today. the rest were provided for context of the pattern of his behavior, and hence are older. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Let's see. SPI that was inexplicably taken over by ArbCom with no information provided to the community, a staggering number of AN/I threads, significant block log for edit warring and personal attacks and refusal to learn from same... This user is not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Suggest community ban. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Works for me with all that. I note that arbcom haven't touched it. Should we give them a heads up about this thread? Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, their comment should be invited due to the socking issue. That needs to be clarified before a ban (if implemented) happens, as multiple accounts may need to be banned. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Blocked for one month. Tan | 39 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 57#Please send ArbCom a reminder. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Was there ever any response from ArbCom? → ROUX ₪ 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I wasn't informed of any result, so I presume the ArbCom never reached a decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma baiting block review

• I would like to point out that User:Theserialcomma has been blocked for one month for baiting Nukes: User talk:Theserialcomma#Blocked for a month for baiting. Some guy (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another admin reviewed independently a few hours ago and passed on doing anything, but Theserialcomma just posted a malformed (probably won't show up on the unblock requests category properly) unblock request on his talk page User talk:Theserialcomma. If another uninvolved admin can go take a look I'd appreciate it.

Please note that contrary to TSC's claim in the unblock I am asserting no defense for Nukes4Tots actions here and not arguing for him to be unblocked. Theserialcomma caused a very large number of ANI threads over the last few months, though they were usually the victim in terms of direct abuse. This evolved into a situation where they pestered someone they knew did not want to talk to them at all, replaced a warning on their talk page after it was removed once. If this was the first time, AGF would presume this was neither intentional nor malicious. This is far, far from the first time. Even if it was still unintentional and innocent, the quantity of incidents rises to disruptive, and I can no longer AGF on the matter. There have been too many - a user who genuinely understands that getting along with the community is important would have stopped poking the stick in months ago.

The current civility poll section on baiting supports a community consensus that baiting is a problem and has been under-recognized in abuse cases.

I do invite review, but I am hopeful that we can start to set the precedent that if you appear on ANI too often even as the victim, there's probably something you're doing very wrong, and that you should expect to be held responsible for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have procedurally declined the unblock request pending resolution of this review. I am on record saying that "baiting" is not a useful description of blockable misconduct. Still, Georgewilliamherbert, could you please provide the diffs of the edits that you believe constitute the misconduct that triggered your block, and could you explain why you chose a block length of one month for an editor who had not previously been blocked?  Sandstein  07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A month does seem a tad excessive given the previously-unpopulated block log and lack of warnings. → ROUX ₪ 07:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I will follow up with diffs, but the proximate cause was the pair of warnings about misuse of "rvv" as a revert summary for nonvandalism. As I indicated to Theserialcomma on his talk page, he has been engaged in enough conflict with Nukes4Tots that he should not have been leaving warnings there - Nukes had repeatedly told him to leave him alone and not post on his talk page. TSC had a point about "rvv" - but should have sought an uninvolved user or admin to talk to Nukes about it. TSC knew or reasonably should have been expected to have known that any criticism he leveled on Nukes would be taken badly by now and would likely result in rude behavior. Even if we assume that the first warning was in innocent ignorance of that, putting it back after Nukes deleted it is either malign baiting or operating in sufficient ignorance of the effects of ones actions upon others that it rises to the level of negligence and disruption. The next response was to come to ANI.

One can assume good faith about malign intent in this - I don't anymore, but I can see how others might - but any reasonable person who had been in such conflict with another editor would know that acting in that manner would be provocative. The 1-2-ANI sequence was telling.

I do not factually know what TSC intended by this - but what he did was clearly poking a stick repeatedly at an editor he had been in conflict with multiple times over multiple months. If he was malignly baiting, then he should go. If he really didn't realize that this was provocative, that he was poking a stick in, then there is a serious lack of judgement regarding interpersonal communications, serious enough that it rises to the level of disruption.

The number of times he's come to ANI indicates the scope of the issue. I'll need to dig up the diffs. Those provided the background - this would not be a necessary or appropriate response to a first incident which could be characterized as baiting.

Regarding block length - I submit that if one is baiting, one should be held as responsible as the effects were upon the baitee. Nukes was blocked for a month.

If there's widescale disagreement with proportional responsibility (half or more of admins responding here disagree) then I agree in advance with any admin reducing that to two weeks or one week. I would like to see some healthy discussion on it first, though.

I don't intend to argue that Nukes4Tots has any lack of responsibility here - a number of admins have stated that they feel that WPMILHIST / WPGUNS editors have been acting insular and hostile, with Nukes being one of the two main culprits blamed. There is no support in the poll on civility for allowing baited people to get away with having responded aggressively in an uncivil manner. But there is clear support that baiting is not ok, and that it's been under-responded-to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think we got TSC's attention but a month is way too long, even a week is excessive for a first block. More punitive then preventative. I'd suggest commuting this to time served or 24 hours. If there is a repetition then something longer can be imposed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't consider Theserialcomma to be as innocent as he claims to be. His decision to continuously converse with Nukes4Tots, despite the fact that Nukes4Tots no longer wishes to communicate with this user (to elaborate, Theserialcomma was the one who initiated the SPI reports on Nukes4Tots and created the AN/I notices on Nukes' behavior), gives off an impression of baiting. Although this is a serious issue, this is only the first block for this user, so a month might seem punitive. I support the block being reduced to a few days or a week at most. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that TSC has a reputation of getting into disagreements with others, then making himself to appear like the innocent one in the situation, when he's not always completely innocent (such as the case here). Just from my observations of him. He previously initiated an SPI on another long term, good faith editor, User:Tothwolf. When that was closed (Tothwolf was not socking), TSC took Tothwolf to COI/N over a separate issue. This has happened to many people that TSC has run into on Wikipedia. Its a wonder people stick around with such harassment. Killiondude (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Having been in dispute with TSC because of his behavior towards Tothwolf (which is practically hounding), I agree with Killiondude. As it is some admins stand ready to block TSC if he starts hounding Tothwolf again, but any attempt to talk to TSC about the discussion is railroaded by accusations of IRC cabalism from him. I would suggest that any unblock be given a conditional that he honor Nukes4Tots' request to not contact him. I do agree, however, that a month's block for the first block is to excessive, but am against under a week because of his harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are wrangling over the length of the block not the concept that a block is required. A month does seem rather long for this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) We now have fourfive admins / experienced users indicating that they think the block is too long. Would a reduction to a week be agreeable to the consensus? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Time served, in my opinion. It's the first one. Any further baiting or trangressions can result in a much longer block; we've gotten our point across. Tan | 39 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like about half the comments are days-to-week-ish and half for time-served-ish at this point. I would like further input on those and will follow consensus in a review later tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Time served is appropriate but a month for a first block, that is excessive. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Based on the above discussion, there's clear consensus to reduce to no more than a week, and credible argument for time served. I am going to reduce it myself at this point to 5 days at this time, and I am open to further reduction or simply an unblock if consensus solidifies further around time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, George, as the blocking admin, you should do what you feel is right. Don't worry about making the greatest number of editors happy; do what's right for the project. Are you preventing further disruption? What is your feeling on this baiting reoccurring after the block is lifted or expired? Whether it's a day or a month is really dependent on your judgment here. Consider our opinions, make a decision, state it, and stand by it. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I can't help feeling that you are selling out your own judgment. Tan | 39 05:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My judgement is and always has been that my judgement can at times be mistaken. One of the benefits of a functional diverse community is that if you listen, errors and misjudgements can be corrected, making everyone's interactions better. Academic communities, engineering work peer review and cross checks and signoffs, aviation and spaceflight crew resources management all suggest that being willing to accept constructive criticism and improve ones own work is far less likely to develop critical errors. I try to balance between decisiveness (necessary to perform any sort of enforcement effectively) and openness to feedback (necessary to avoid further propogation of decisive failures).

What I have seen is that there's agreement with the substance of the block but disagreement about the length. We have essentially no precedent here, we haven't done much baiting situation enforcement to date - I had an idea for how to approach it and did so, and people are concerned that it's overly harsh. That's good feedback. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On the gripping hand - TSC has just on his talk page claimed that if he's not unblocked earlier, he will wait for the block to expire, create a new account to avoid the stigma of this one, and "continue acting exactly as I have been". [10].

I do not think he believes that anyone else supports my conclusion that he was baiting. This is despite several other users and admins having shown up there and politely said so, and the thread above.

Could other uninvolved admins perhaps let him know on User talk:Theserialcomma that what he's proposing is not acceptable behavior? Continuing to behave as he did is the problem... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/COI/physical threats

i don't know where to start. User:Avianraptor claims to be a student of Frank Dux, ninja extraordinaire. He is probably teh article subject in question, but the more important thing right now is that he's making threats of physical violence. He also appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.121.103.42, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oni.maru53, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Publius352, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pamela_lee33, based on the similar vernacular, and the fact that they are all SPA's that only edit Frank Dux. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV for those things, and they should cool his jets in short order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef'ed. I saw this on AIV but came here to see the genus of the complaint. Let me know if the other accounts start making the same kind of noises. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not again. We don't care if Bruce Springsteen is his shidoshi. MuZemike 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I met Mr. (er... Colonel) Dux IRL on one occasion, years ago. He's a bit of a self-promoter, and I don't condone threats of legal action or violence, but I can't blame him for being irate with the state of his bio. Though there are some solid references, much of it is sourced to self-published material or primary-source court rulings. It could do with a bit of editing from those versed in BLP problems. Skinwalker (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)refactored Skinwalker (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think he might also become irate at being called "a douche and a self-promoter"? In what way is that less of a BLP violation than much of the nonsense in the article itself? Risker (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have refactored. I meant to convey to non-specialists the general regard of the martial arts community for this person, which came across as a poor rhetorical flourish. Skinwalker (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, let me weigh in here, as I have become the focus of User:Avianraptor's ire and the focus of what I strongly suspect are two of his sock puppets. First thing today, User:Avianraptor posted this to me: "Yeah and the other hand will be going up side your head if you don't start talking to me with a little respect you worthless little prick."[11]. Serialcomma came along and removed a large chunk of the exchange. Soon after, a new account User:Justice4allseeker registered (45 minutes after Avianraptor was indef blocked) and jumped in, claiming I removed this and was somehow involved in a big conspiracy to supress something I had no involvement in editing in the first place. After I denied remving anything (which is clear in the diffs) and asked for an apology, yet another SPA User:76.22.87.15 comes along and claims I am really a sockpuppet of serialcomma (or vice versa). Comma's account is over a year old and there is no similarity in the articles or really even the types of articles we edit. I invite anyone to compare them and see if there is even a passing similarity. I am considering going through the tedious process of a SPI and I invited Avianraptor/Justice4allseeker/76.22.87.15 to do the same because I know I have nothing to worry about. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • And now he is back as User:Avianraptor2 telling us "By the way, expect Avianraptor 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.....I'll keep coming back until you people listen." He also offers the venerable "I am not Avianraptor. He did use my computer to bring this matter to my attention..." as a defense to him not being User:Justice4allseeker. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a checkuser to determine if a rangeblock is possible.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:72.228.4.52

Could somebody take a look at 72.228.4.52 (talk · contribs)'s Talk page? It's full of bot warnings about improper external links, but they keep using them anyway. They are also repeatedly removing the nowiki tags from User:Lalacourtney/The hicks which are being used to keep the categories out of User space, despite multiple warnings. I was about to warn them for a third time about removing the nowikis, but with the daunting Talk page, I don't see any point. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This anon's relatively new; his first contribution was just a couple of months ago. Also, there's been no other contributions from the anon since 23:30, 15 July 2009. I also don't see any final warning on the talk page. I think you should try using a final warning - one which specifies what is likely to happen if there is no change in his linking (aka an editing restriction, most likely in the form of a block). If there's still no change, even after the final warning, then please come back here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I figured the extensive blocks of text with multiple warnings were sufficient. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they just repeated their disruptive edit two hours ago. I've issued a final warning, just to make sure all of the bureaucratic dots and tittles are covered. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same editor? The behaviour certainly suggests it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably, though it's impossible to say, they have, however, now completely removed the categories from the User space article, so all seems right now. With that. Lalalacourtney, however, has now re-added The Hicks to the The Suburbs (web series) article, claiming, as did several people in the deletion discussion, on the now-deleted articles' Talk pages, and as did the anon, that somehow The Hicks is just as important as The Suburbs. I've issued Lalalacourtney a level 4 vandalism warning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to engage arguments

There is a discussion on Talk:Martin Luther King about the inclusion of a quote that may be illuminating of his character. Some editors refuse to accept that character may be a relevant aspect of the man. User:Jonund has presented arguments why he thinks it is relevant. They have been met with a dogged refusal to engage the arguments or answer concrete questions. This is a violation of WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing, which describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:

• repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
• repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Two RfC:s have been submitted. One led to intervention by an editor (and administrator) that engages in the same kind of behavior that has been described as disruptive editing. The other led to intervention by an editor who takes the opposite position. The discussion on the talk page is long; much of the relevant material is found under the section RfC King's sexual conduct.

The behavior of some editors prevents progress in the article. In my opinion, it's a serious treath to wp:s integrity and credibility if a number of dedicated editors are able to stop the addition of material that they apparently oppose on dogmatic grounds. I ask for proper measure to be taken to guarantee that the editing process is not obstructed. I suppose a warning is the best way to start. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I'll hereby warn you not to misrepresent the arguments used by people with a different opinion. They have reviewed the sources, and concluded that the four sources given are actually one source plus three repeaters, and the first source is most probably based on hearsay from the FBI, not on proper research. I have also noted that people oppose the inclusion not only because of reasons of verifiability, but for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. No one opposes the section on his extramarital affairs, but the inclusion of one piece of dirty talk, based on such poor sourcing, is not warranted at all. This has nothing to do with "refusing to accept that character is a relevant aspect" and even less with disruptive editing. This is standard policy application. After two RfC's, it may be best to quietly drop this instead of continuing like this. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many editors accused in this notice, I will add that Fram's summary pretty much covers it. The only editor who is really insistent on including the material under dispute feels that one exclamation that Hoover's COINTELPRO-era FBI claimed King made in a moment of passion, is so incredibly revelatory of King's nastiness that it must, simply must be included in the article, because otherwise people won't realize what a horrible, skanky blasphemer King was. (Full disclosures: I have belonged to at least one organization destroyed by FBI manipulations during this era; and still belong to AFSCME, the union on behalf of whose garbageworkers King was speaking when he was assassinated.) The insistent editor backs this up with references to how important this issue is to all the best theologians of his (the editor's) religious tradition as he interprets it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also one of the many editors accused, I think perhaps the admin who is alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. A review of the talk page will reveal two things: (1) that there is pretty much a single editor insisting that additional material regarding King's sexual conduct be included so that the article will conform to that single editor's POV regarding how the individuals who are regarded by some as a form of "religious icon" seemingly must, by definition, have their known shortcomings explored in detail, and (2) another editor who, as far as I can tell, thinks that a quote from King must be included because of "insights" it offers into King's personality, despite the fact that I am aware of no encyclopedias that include such information for such purposes, and that doing so very likely even runs against the spirit of encyclopedias, which is to present unbiased factual information. I would very much welcome a clear reference to either a policy or a guideline which indicates that either is considered acceptable, something I believe I have to date never seen. Otherwise, I have to very much question the motivations of an editor who starts a discussion such as this one regarding, basically, how editors who are ltimately trying to ensure the article remain NPOV are somehow behaving so badly that it has to be brought to a noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I was the admin alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. The OP does have a point; I'm not bothering engaging in the sourcing and verifiability issues, because I don't think the quote belongs in the article for reasons unrelated to the sourcing. I also don't think there's any admin intervention required here; nobody has taken any administrative actions in regard to this discussion, nor suggested any is necessary (except when a bit of edit warring was going on a few weeks ago, but that's ceased.) Slightly heated discussion is ensuing on the talk page, which is exactly where such discussion belongs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As yet another one of the editors alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior, I don't care whether the sources are reliable, although I have my doubts. My view is that what King may or may not have exclaimed during orgasm doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We should be firmer about sanctioning editors who abuse the dispute resolution process (whether ANI or other venues). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is simple. There was an RfC, I came and commented, the majority of commentators did not agree with the POV of the editor who posted the RfC, the discussion continued, despite the consensus being against one editor. The RfC was closed, and I stated that as the RfC was closed and because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position, and that as far as I was concerned the matter was closed, and took the page off my watchlist. So, I am surprised to see this is ongoing still. My understanding is that if one makes an RfC, and consensus is against the proposal on grounds in line with WP policies and guidelines, that is the conclusion - not that a single editor persists in agitating discussion until (through a process of attrition) he gets his own way. The arguments have all been laid out quite clearly, so I see no reason why we need to keep going over this, unless some new information has come to light. There ought to be a process where editors who place an RfC, but do not like the responses of commentators, then malign those who do not respond in ways that would favour them, are disciplined. What is the point of placing an RfC if you aren't prepared to accept the response you get? Those who responded in a way that contradicted the wishes of this editor were accused of various things - when clearly the bias was on the part of the editor who appears to have an axe to grind. Mish (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if an RfC is questioned, then the apparent next step is to seek mediation. I have already indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. Why this step was instead taken is something I have very serious difficulty understanding. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the RFC and argued in favour of inclusion. I've loosely followed the discussion since. After the RFC Jonund continued to put his case and, in my eyes, did so with very cogent argument. He raised several points which, as far as I saw, were not answered with anything other than claims that he was trying to insert a POV. I didn't see it that way at all and I have no idea what his POV is. I've no opinion on whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this, or whether the disruptive editing policy is applicable. Consensus is not about head counts. In my opinion Jonund has presented the superior and most convincing argument. John's suggestion of mediation sounds reasonable to me--MoreThings (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for having not looked over the previous discussion before posting here, and having forgotten that there were additional supporters of the idea. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think there have also been at least a couple of IPs arguing in favour. The first paragraph from this post by one of them sums up the way it looked to me, too, from a distance. --MoreThings (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall there were a couple of supporters, and they fell quiet, but the consensus seemed to be not to insert. The issue of POV was raised by Jonund initially, as I recall, when people wouldn't accept his reasoning, which was basically along the lines that the information was relevant because of certain religious beliefs; it is a problem, and when accusing disinterested editors who respond to an RfC of having a POV, one shouldn't be surprised if it is pointed out that the reasoning for inclusion appears to reflect a certain POV itself. As I recall, the argument was that most Christians believed something, and this was evidence that King transgressed this standard of what a Christian leader should be, and that made the information relevant. I didn't think that Wikipedia was about endorsing specific religious views, and basing the eligibility of entries on that basis. The issue about the source was that it was an allegation about what a primary source said, that in itself being a problematic primary source as it was part of a counter-intellegence operation aimed at discrediting King, and that the material was challenged at the time and still is. As I recall, it was thought that if it were to be included, it should be so on the basis that it was an allegation that had been refuted, and not as something that could be verified beyond 'so-and-so said this', as we do not have access to the original source, and the allegation was based on a transcript. There was also the issue that the RfC was based on the wrong link - i.e., the link given in the RfC did not relate to a relevant source at all. This became clear at the close of the RfC, and was the point at which I felt I had little more energy to engage with the discussion further. With hindisght, however, I think that simply including a source on the basis that 'all Christians' believe 'such and such', and this source will make them realise 'so and so' was 'something-or-other' is bogus - especially when there is already extensive discussion about the guys philandering. The only sense I got that this source was worth including was because from this it would be clear to 'most Christians' that he was a blasphemer, and therefore not 'a man of God'. Sorry, I don't see this as a valid reason for including dubious material. To me that is not a POV, it is a no-brainer where Wikipedia is concerned. Of course, my memory is not infallible, and I don't have time or energy to go through the (long) discussion right now. Mish (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to basically agree with the above. The quote in question was challenged at the time, and thus would require indicating it was an "alleged" statement or something similar. If there were a specific reliable source which said something to the effect of, "based on this comment, it is clear that King committed one mortal sin while in the act of committing another mortal sin, and thus cannot be seen as being even a weak Christian", I could maybe, maybe, see that being included. But to argue that information must be included to substantiate an argument which no one produced evidence of a reliable source as ever making is at best crossing into POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with several of the points above but I guess this is probably not the place to rehearse the arguments. I think the thrust of Årvasbåo's incident report is that Jonund has been presenting reasoned argument which has met with no real counter-argument, but has been dismissed in the way described by the IP I linked to above. The way Årvasbåo and the IP describe the debate is also the way it loooked to me. I don't know what mediation involves but that certainly sounds to me as though it would be more appropriate than looking for any kind of administrative intervention, if that's what is being requested here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If Årvasbåo is saying what I think he is saying, then, with respect, none of you what you have written above has anything to do with this incident report. It's not about the whether the quotation should be included. It's about whether editors have been refusing to enage Jonund in discussion about its inclusion. Anyhoo, I ought not to put words in Årvasbåo's mouth. --MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on re-reading your post, I see that I misinterpreted it, somewhat. I would reply that, from what I saw, Johund was indeed making his case on encyclopedic grounds. His case was that the other editors would not engage with him in a debate about whether inclusion would be encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm off to bed. --MoreThings (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that the quotation was at the time it came out argued as of at best dubious sound quality and coherence at the time it was first "released", making adding a quotation which was even at the time considered by some (yes, possibly biased) listeners as incoherent would be very likely violating neutrality rules, by taking one side's opinion over a possibly garbled quotation over another side's without any clear evidence to support taking that position. To include a possible misreading of an apparently dubious quotation as evidence of anything is particularly problematic. This is over and above the other existing concerns regarding the alleged content which have already been expressed here. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone previously uninvolved, it looks to me like consensus is firmly against including the quote at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the title of this thread, and looking at the things listed under 'are you in the right place?', where the topic of this thread is not listed, I have to ask: is ceasing to engage an editor's argument once an RfC has closed, even though he persists in maintaining he is right when the consensus appears to have gone the other way, something that needs administrative attention? I don't see how this fits here. Any action that needs to be taken should be directed at the person who posted the thread, like pointing out that Jonund did an RfC, that his arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it. Mish (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the discussion thread once more, I would counter the accusation of disruptive editing; for a start it was not the discussants who sought to make such an edit, and a long discussion was engaged with - disagreement is not failing to build consensus; rather this looks more like a case of WP:Tendentious editing on the part of one editor, in trying to force this material in, and disregarding the input of other editors and those who responded to the RfC. I cannot see that the discussion has substantially changed since my departure - and this was part of the reason I left. The page I just referred to makes clear that when an editor persistently makes the same point over and over again, it is wise to reflect on whether this is a POV issue. The same points were made, and contrary to the wording of this ANI they were responded to - exhaustively - but ignored, with the same points being restated again. I do not see how mediation will help in this, because there was an RfC and the editor would not accept what people said. All that is needed is for the editor(s) promoting the insertion to accept that, rather than escalating the matter in the hope that they can override the consensus not to insert it in some way. Now, if I do not respond here, or on the discussion page, again, it is not because I am refusing to engage the arguments - I have done that - and I consider there is no more to say. That is because I do not have strong views on this, unlike the editor(s) who seem to want it inserted (obviously, or we wouldn't all be here now, would we?). Mish (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mish, you say "[Jonund's] arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it." You go on to paint it as POV-pushing by a single editor. You imply both here and on the talk page, that you are not interested in further discussion. You finish up by saying that everyone who wants it inserted is probably also a POV-pusher. All of that is exactly the kind of behaviour that is alleged in this incident report. One editor whom nobody agrees with? There is Årvasbåo, who opened this report, Jonund himself, me, the ip I linked to above, and the second IP I mentioned. That's 5 people mentioned in this thread alone. POV-pushing? It's easy just to invoke these acronyms, but where is the argument to substantiate your claim? What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? I don't have a clue which POVs the others might hold about anything. The only POV we share is that the article would be better for the inclusion of the quote. What do you think my point of view is? What do you think the IP's is? I've named five people above who would dispute your claim that consensus exists for exclusion. What's wrong with mediation? --MoreThings (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. (Your statement is also self-contradictory). What I said was that the editor who brought up POV-pushing in the original discussion was Jonund, when those who responded to the RfC did not agree with him, and his arguments suggest something about his own POV - that we have to put this in because of something Christian's believe about blasphemy and he says scholars are agreed upon - nothing that actually relates to the sources. I said nothing about other editor's POV. What I said was about overriding there being no consensus to insert the material, I did not say why people might want to do that - I said nothing about POV in that respect. It is not I who accused editors of responding to an RfC on an article they had no history with of bad faith - that is implicit in the wording of this ANI. Sure, if mediation will help you to accept that people did not agree with the insertion, mediation could be valuable. But I am not sure I wish to engage in a process where, having engaged in an RfC in good faith, I once more have my motives questioned, and having gone through these arguments once, then taking the article off my watchlist when the RfC had closed, then being dragged here to account for why I had stopped discussing the insertion once the RfC was closed, and finding myself accused of disruptive editing of an article I had made no edits of before the RfC, or in connection with the RfC, and then have to go through all the arguments again. I would prefer to be doing something else, to be honest. Something a bit less trivial than whether a man who died 40 years ago might have said something while he was having sex with somebody he wasn't married to, and whether that is still significant today. Mish (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, Mish. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat—just adding my 2p on here as I did on the RFC. Let it go whither it will. --MoreThings (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, nor do I. To me, this discussion ended when the RfC ended, and I am surprised that it is still going on. Mish (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To give the lie to my previous post, and to be sucked into a gratuitous tit-for-tat: I don't think the discussion is ended; I think it should be continue. Okay, no more, I promise :) --MoreThings (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edit and subsequent comments by User:Kasaalan

A content dispute has been going on recently about some pro-Israel organizations in the United States. One of the editors in the dispute contacted me asking for my involvement, and while I replied to the question, will of course not get involved or take a side in the content dispute. However, because most will probably consider me an involved administrator anyway, I'm taking this here. Basically one of the editors in the dispute, User:Kasaalan, has made this edit, which separates Jewish criticism of the organization from non-Jewish criticism of it. Here is a permanent link.

I have contacted Kasaalan over this obviously problematic edit (again, I don't care about the underlying content issue and strongly urge admins in this ANI to ignore it, and leave it for content RfC or something), and what's really concerning is that he defended making a separate section for Jewish criticism, in a way that clearly misses the point and confusing pro-Israel groups with Jews in general. I will not go into a long soapbox to remind anyone reading this what parts of Jewish history this separation reminds of. Administrators: Please take a look and decide for yourselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to confuse all Jew with pro-Israel lobby or anything, however I can't use a title as pro-Israel for Jewish Virtual Library unless there is RS saying so. I tried to use a more broad title, since "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties" got deleted, I didn't understand you before however do you now claim "Criticism by Jewish parties" is being offensive. If so you may just offer a general and less offending title, however a categorisation is needed since all parties has conflict of interest to the case, and accusing the involved party as Nazi, anti-semitic or such.

Do you specifically offended by "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties", "Criticism by Jewish parties" or by both.

The original title I added was "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties" now it is "Criticism by Jewish parties" to include as more general and less POV, however the title may change per discussion and if any more neutral title is offered I certainly use it, however except 1 source [National Post (note: National_Post#Criticism which is criticised for being anti-muslim etc. yet by a Conflict of Interest party Canadian Islamic Congress so not sure if criticism is accurate)] all criticism in the article is by Jewish or pro-Israel lobby or media watchdog organizations, Some organisations are clearly WP:POV such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia, some self-statedly "defenders of Israel". So there is possible WP:NPOV and WP:COI conflict exist on criticism section. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I support using Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties if no better title is offered

Criticism by pro-Israel parties might not be accurate

Criticism by Jewish parties general (not sure it is any way offended, however if it is offended to you instead removal can you offer a better and more NPOV title)

The issue is the criticism section in the article is only limited to WP:COI parties so a note or title is needed somehow. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you get offended by "criticism by jewish parties" title, if so offer a general, better and more NPOV title, however since all the parties and Jewish and their criticism is being anti-Israel or antisemitic, they have a conflict of interest to the case per ethnically and religiously one way or another. We are offering a vast criticism section which consumes more than half of the article, and the organisations origin should be noted one way or another. I tried to generelize the title, if anyone offers a better one we can use it. You should use discussion page, ask a RFC or 3rd party view before ANI anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Created a discussion page title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#ANI_over_Criticism_by_Jewish_.5Band_pro-Israel.5D_parties_subtitle over subtitle suggestion and discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's the well-poisoning or the yellow-badging that's more disturbing here, but this needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP. IronDuke 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This editing is highly problematic. You need to stop labeling Jews. It reminds me of this and other problematic articles you've been involved in. Enigma^msg 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists is a good list article that needs expansion, I am proud of my additions, not sure why would anyone opposes List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists article or tries to delete it in the first place anyway My edits definitely improved the article [12] while you try to delete entries [13]

Since we had personal conflict over your and my edits, I read your adminship review while stood highly against your adminship for any Middle-Eastern or Israel related IP article we should first note that.

According to your Adminship Review, Pauly Shore is one of your "best contribution" per your self statement

So your reply reminds me of your proudly Huge content removal from Pauly Shore which I checked earlier

You proudly removed [14] his critical Raspberry Awards from Pauly Shore claiming defamation as "removing a ton of garbage and defamation"

You Removed "He was raised in a Jewish family and has two brothers, Scott and Peter." claiming "bad source, does not even reflect what is stated here" while he has a jewish family for sure You may read article

You removed criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pauly_Shore&diff=next&oldid=270336536

You removing Jew categories http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pauly_Shore&diff=next&oldid=270389413

Since you are proud of your best contribution as anti defamatory, we can't agree in any way.

Stating anyone's origin is not defamatory, nothing to be proud of or ashamed in any way. Telling someone is Jew or Arab or Black is not labeling them. Kasaalan (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please endeavour to use English. I saw a link to Pauly Shore. What I did there was remove a lot of uncited and often negative material. If you don't like that, perhaps bring it up on the relevant talk page. Not sure what Pauly Shore has to do with the underlying problem here. Please stop labeling. Enigma^msg 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed ""He was raised in a Jewish family" which is sourced, you deleted Jewish-American and other Jew related categories [15] from his (a jewish comedian) article, removed critical awards-criticism [16] and claimed it is anti-defamatory. Links are above. You try to bring up my additions jewish peace activist article, not sure why. And I bring up Pauly Shore article, since it proves you claim mentioning someone's origin as labeling and anti-defamatory which is an utter nonsense and clearly false. You accused me as "labeling Jews", while you try to remove huge content per your own standards. Kasaalan (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:34, 20 April 2009 by Wikifan12345 readded "Shore was raised Jewish" asking "generally understood. category/inclusion was removed 1 year ago. don't know why." You try to remove "Jewish origin" from articles, according the your own personal standards while labeling others as defamatory. If we will stick to the subject try not to bring other issues here and stay in whithin discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please use English. I still don't know how Pauly Shore has anything to do with this AN/I thread. Enigma^msg 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the title to "Criticism by Jewish community" as a general title with {{dubious}} tag until a consensus reached.

I don't even know what you mean by that terms. If you have any suggestion for the title, join discussion page so we can find a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan continues to begin everything that is remotely Jewish/Israel with Pro-Israel, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Jewistan, Pro-Jewniverse, pro-Jew World Order...etc..etc..etc. Then he even created a criticism section that said, "Criticisms by Pro-Jewish and pro-Israel organizations." I provided more thorough responses in talk which obviously didn't phase the user. I don't really care about punishment I just want some moderation or an uninvolved party to tell me what to do before this becomes a hate crime. Hahaha. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly you didn't know what canvas is as an inexperienced editor, so possibly there is not much reason for you to be worried about getting punished. You called me some names, yet I don't care about that either personally. Main purpose is finding a solution for the case. Yet more editor comments are required for finding a proper solution.

I tagged the "Criticism by Jewish community" as a general title with {{dubious}} tag until a consensus reached.

The case is all the critical parties in the article belongs to Jewish community and has conflict of interest to the case, some of the are completely unreliable source, morever they harshly accuses the party as anti-Semitic anti-Israel acting like Nazi etc. So one way or another I am in favor of keeping criticism, yet with proper notes about political stances of the sources. As I do in other articles.

What is remotely Jewish Israel I referred as pro Israel. Anti Defamation League is pro Israel per foundation statements. Honest Reporting and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America are pro-Israel media watchdogs. If you have any objections try requesting a RFC, 3rd review or Arbitrary Process, I created titles under project Israel, Palestine and Israel-Palestine contribution pages. If more people comments we may find a solution. Without more editors involved hard to find a proper solution. Kasaalan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be removing those "criticisms by Jews" subheaders. They're just not appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the issues raised here, but it may be germane to note that Kasaalan has been enaged in tendentious editing at Talk:David_Duke#Removal_of_unsubstantiated_character_defamation..   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Why you come here and accusing me for tendentious editing over applying BLP accurately and not presenting claims as facts. My edit for David Duke is completely accurate.
    • You only applied WP:WTA per claim word and replaced with say, over my edits which I supported. "Say is also fine. Wikipedia:WTA#Claim. Kasaalan (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)"
  • I have no involvement with David Duke or any racist parties in any way, let alone supporting him, his ideas or share any common one. If I have any bias over racism, it is that I am anti-racist by any means.
  • I only involved due to a previous research about Gaza War link research, I first considered his comments might be "important to mention" as he is a previous USA Louisiana State Representative, yet after I self noted he is racist and read wiki article therefore I realized his ideas are strictly should be avoided, after that I edited his article time to time
  • Just today I just formed criticism section myself. revision as of 21:46, 16 July 2009
  • and I created plastic surgery criticism [17] per critical external link I found and added Revision as of 21:23, 14 July 2009 to the article.
  • Talk:David_Duke#Vaginal_exercises.2C_fellatio_and_anal_sex I suggested implementing (claimed by ...) and I personally added serious accusations about David Duke in discussion page weeks before, while other editors (including you) preferring to ignore it and chose to focus on discussing magazinal claims like finder keepers' and its sexual advices'.
    • I personally added and strictly pointed in bold actual accusations about him "This compelling work tells the story of Anne Skorecki Levy, a Holocaust survivor who transformed the horrors of her childhood into a passionate mission to defeat the political menace of reputed neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke" part per Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust and David Duke's Louisiana for a real criticism over David Duke instead discussing broadly over plagiarized anal sex advises of David Duke you could add such info yourself which you clearly didn't waste any time on.

• • I said "Keep the allegations, neutralize the tone, try not engaging in an edit war" weeks before to both porties, while both parties (fans and haters) did nothing to improve criticism per sexual advice book (none added details or neutralized the tone until I do even suggested to the both parties) let alone real criticism per his KKK days I provided
  • If you will act as a prejudiced party over your frustration over my clear improvement to article and its criticism section, try not to act at all. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are manically obsessed with Jews. You habitually labeled everything that was remotely Jewish as "PRO-JEWISH" (what the hell does that mean?) and "PRO-ISRAEL." For the Jewish professor, you put a long title like such as X, who is a professor on holocaust studies and Jewish stuff, criticizes etc..etc...This ANI isn't about an admin or Pauly Shore, it's about your obsessive and hateful editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You began personally attacking over my psychological condition, which is not within your area of expertise (not sure if you have any)

Who did I refer as pro-jewish (I may be wrong but I am not sure if ever I used the term), I used the term pro-Israel referring to pro-Israel lobby in US.

According to Dr. Rafael Medoff, founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and member of American Jewish Historical Society is an accurate addition, which sticks to the facts. Political stances of the critical and conflicting parties should be added for a heavy criticism section which contists by self involved and COI parties.

Also note the criticism section consumes a large space, while containing strictly unreliable sources such as CAMERA.

If previously conflicted admin accuses me, I should note to his own standards on the issue.

What you call repeatedly manically obsessive "obsessively" is actually, area of expertise and interest. I generallly do edits over Middle Eastern issues in Palestine-Israel and other related parties, simply because it is within my interest and knowledge. I recently began editing over some sources which links each other and needs serious improvements. Without third party involvement, even highly dubious POV sources as Middle East Quarterly journal is mispresented as peer reviewed in Wikipedia. Criticism and doubt is essential.

Hater nice insult Hours of hard work for implementing sortable table for 50 entries into Israeli folk singer Chava Alberstein article along with details.[18] (note I only listened 1 song by her)

For Jewish Virtual Library article My recent edits as 16 July 2009 before I edited after I edited I improve the articles unlike other talkers, complainers and POV parties. I never subtract any info, unlike others, I only add information for balance if I feel any need.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States My vote is in favor of keeping info if the sources are reliable as an inclusionist. Since I am not a POV party, my vote doesn't change according to biased thoughts or context of the article.

Because of your own POV conflicts of interest in the articles, try not to accuse me to cover your own actions. Kasaalan (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say you don't say pro-Jewish? You throw around all kinds of words to insult users all the time. In the past, you've called me a troll, a pro-Jewish pro-Israel POV pusher, a heavily biased <something>, etc. This despite the fact that I rarely edit things related to Judaism or Israel, as can be confirmed by reviewing my contributions. I was never before accused of any such thing. Then you came along. You also dumped reams of meaningless text on my RfA for no apparent reason. Enigma^msg 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Which wiki article I used pro-jewish term I asked. I commented over your edits as such with evidence and upon your actions. You rarely edit judaism topics, however when you do you try to substract information like removing "Jew" from a Jew person as "anti-defamatory" action. I had discussed your edits vastly in Adminship review with evidence. If you like we may create another topic about your edits. Don't make me repeat myself here. Kasaalan (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User Kasaalan is a clear-cut pov warrior with few productive edits. Even now he is managing to take up energy that would be better used elsewhere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who you are, don't know your edits, we haven't talked before.

Nice accusations. Try finding any substractory edit of mine, which deletes any (accurate) info from any article.

All of my edits are in favor of additional info and details, therefore progressive. All the articles I edited are improved by various aspects.

I have edited over 575 articles, and have over 4200 edits while all of my edits are progressively additional. Who do you try to kid with "a few". Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Enigma^msg 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan - you are editing in a disruptive manner. You need to stop that and stop throwing threats and acusations at other users. This is not an appropriate or acceptable way to participate here at Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally attacked as even "manically obsessive" blatantly, accused for my clear progressive edits by certain editors, then I am being disruptive. Kasaalan (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Topic ban proposal On reading this thread and the attempts by various editors including GWH here and elsewhere to have Kasaalan refrain from his disruptive style of editing I am left with the overwhelming impression that Kasaalan is unwilling or unable to stop at this time. I propose that a topic ban for 3 months be placed on Kasaalan which would require that he not edit with regards any article, talk page, topic or thread that is related to Jews and Judaism. This will allow him time to adjust his style and perhaps gain a wider set of interests - whilst at the same time reducing the disruption he is currently causing. Would other administrators please comment, support or object below. If I see a clear consensus over the next 24 hours I will be happy to instigate or alternatively another administrator might want to take such action in my stead.--VS ^talk 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin but just a quick comment As the principal party involved, I would like to say a few things. First, I really don't want to be a part of any topic-ban or a wikipedia trial. I've found them to be extremely depressing and often times users will seek retribution when their time runs out. Second, I can honestly say Kasaalan has potential to be a productive editor as far as Israel/Palestine is concerned, but obviously there are so major issues that is holding him back. I believe that topic bans rarely help editors overcome their behaviors but instead teach them to be more subtle with POV-pushing/attacks/whatever. I see Kasaalan has no block history so I'm not sure if a topic-ban without priors is kosher. Don't consider my POV too much, I have a much more "recognized" history than Kasaalan. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - the alternate then (in terms of prevention which is the primary reason for any action of this type) is to provide a short block to cease his disruptive editing.--VS ^talk 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS As far as I am aware a topic ban is possible for a previously unblocked editor and in fact allows that editor to retain a block free record.--VS ^talk 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, if only to see what Kasalaan would do if unable to edit I-P articles for a period of time. I saw him from his start at Rachel Corrie, which grew so tendentious that I disengaged from the article entirely. I'd suggest one month, though. Really, a look through these diffs shows that Kasalaan hasn't learned anything from experience, except he knows policies a bit better than he did, for use only when arguing on talk pages. Pity he doesn't apply them to his editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt you are and editor who even objects addition of Human Rights Watch report when it is against Israel and IDF's case. You wasted weeks of editing time arguing HRW is not RS so shouldn't be added into the article. If I am being accused like this, how can I not reply. Rachel Corrie is my leading contributed article Before I first edited in 2008 After my last edit in 2009 improvement is obvious. Kasaalan (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will note that, all the criticism above came per Israel-Jewish related editors. I had serious previous conflict with Enigmaman and his adminship voter VS. I strongly object any judgmental process by 2 admins, who didn't even mention we had previous conflict. Any uninvolved admin like George may do fine job. However accuser parties own actions also should be checked if the case gets that serious, which I can easily provide. For any issue about any article edit of mine, post here and we can discuss. Kasaalan (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Key words there, I think are "Israel-Jewish related editors."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guilty. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is hard to describe without using a term. Some of the users are citizen of Israel, some are racially Jewish some others religiously. However the term depends the context. Depending the context pro-Jewish may mean pro-Jewish (conservatist) or pro-Israel (right wing). I try to find an objective term as Israel-Jewish related editors, which refers conflict of interest to the case. For example I strictly stay away the topics which I feel I may have conflict of interest per (racially or per country based) and strictly not making edits in such topics. (I also don't do such edits without academical or reliable knowledge about that conflicts anyway) Yet some editors (tough they have clearly conflict of interest per racially or religiously) do not stay away from such titles, they do not state their origin or possible bias, yet accuse others as anti-... When being accused as anti then I have to define a pro-.... which is what happens in reality. I asked a question about possible conflict of origins about the issue. If every accusing editor can state their stance, it will be easier to understand what I mean.

Also it is same for Sarah Palin or Scientology, religious or political conflict of interest is not much helpful if not previously stated for titles as such. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Kasaalan - I have no editing conflict with you and have never edited any of the pages that are referred in this thread. That said I am seeking comments for a topic ban or a block relating to you from other editors and particularly other administrators. It will not help if you now begin to disrupt this part of the discussion. I ask that you await the outcome of such comments and only if a clear consensus to block or topic ban arises will I act - or as the case may be ask another administrator to act that way.--VS ^talk 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have personal conflict with enigmaman, while you are active nominator and supporter of emigmaman for adminship. Also you showed plently of effort about my objections against his adminship at ANI, adminship nomination, nomination talk and my personal talk pages we disputed a lot. VS you aren't uninvolved by any means. You request topic ban per opinion pieces of involved parties. Kasaalan (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to admit that you have a personal conflict with Enigmaman that is up to you Kasaalan. I repeat again I have no personal conflict with you and I have never edited any article that you have been involved in. More importantly this thread is related to something else and not your personal conflict with Enigmaman. Again you are being disruptive with your edits.--VS ^talk 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any such conflict. Enigma^msg 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will note VS is 2 times nominator of enigmaman to adminship, while all the time "Really Strong Support" voter every time at every adminship nomination.

Claiming only I have conflict with enigmaman is inaccurate per any means.

I will just note, you still didn't yet reply any of my ANI questions or claims yet. Kasaalan (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What questions or claims? Everything I could decipher, I replied to. And no, I don't have a conflict. It's your conflict through and through. Enigma^msg 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't explain your trim and deletion efforts in Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal in wikipedia. Or you didn't answer if you ever tracked my edits or not. [It is clear by evidence anyway] Can you publicly state do you have any racial, religious, citizenship based or any other way conflict of interest with Palestine-Israel issue or Judaism. Kasaalan (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i, too, know kasaalan from rachel corrie. i actually agree with wikifan (gasp!) that he shouldn't be topic banned, and for some of the same reasons. i think if he were given a mentor to work with, explaining the problems caused by his hyper-bolding and trouble with the subtleties of the english language, he could be an excellent contributor. untwirl(talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, editors, and not just those in conflict with Kasalaan, have taken time to explain the difficulties his edits cause. I'm not sure a mentor would have better luck. First disagreement, and Kasalaan will perceive him as having a conflict with him. He'd have to have the patience of Job.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Replies

• The issue is I add text per research and long readings. Some other editors object articles per personal opinions and even without bothering to the references fully. In no other article there are week long discussions over addition of a critical Human Rights Watch report except Rachel Corrie or I-P related articles. There is certain bias exist against addition of criticism and per removal of certain criticism and it is not caused by me. You referred Rachel Corrie please show any disruptive or inaccurate parts in the article. Show any case people tried to add criticism to balance and I objected (I only object content removal most of the time) I personally found and add various reliable sources missing to improve the article which is near a featured article quality. Kasaalan (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification of the terms
  • Time to time I use pro-Israel and pro-Jewish term which refers to pro-Israel(right wing conservatives) and pro-Jewish(religiously or racially conservatives)
    • The editors I used the term practices editing in favor of their religious or political stance to the Palestine-Israel conflict and Judaism practice (as a conservative) which includes objecting addition of clear Reliable Sources with no good reason or trying to substract info that they don't like from wikipedia.
    • I can easily proof what the Israel and IDF supporting editors has unease about
    • Addition of details over Westernern casualties and killings in the Israel-Palestine areas (which heavily committed by Israel army)
    • And Recently
    • Addition of criticism to the POV sources like Middle East Quarterly which advertised as peer reviewed before I made some effort to add criticism
    • And addition of detail for conflict of interested (some heavily unreliable) critical parties for WRMEA

• • In the same manner I might be called pro-Jewish by means of pro-Israel (per peace camp) pro-Jewish (left or culturally mostly music which is an interest area of mine) or pro-Palestine (cultural as in manners of human rights) or even anti-Israel(per army human rights violations against Jews and Palestine population)
    • So the hate some editors refer do not refer to the Jews itself, however telling some POV source is POV is not POV in the first place

• Before making any more false accusations
  • I have no racial, religious personal COI to the Palestine-Israel conflict personally
    • (if you count as possible bias I have Jewish relatives (not blood related), friends of my family like I do Arab friends of my family - though except music I do not have much knowledge about Judaism religious practice or culture, I have a bit much about Muslim religious practice, culture and history yet that is again not vast)
    • I am not a supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or current Palestine government, like I am no supporter of current Israel government or Israel army (actually I am not supporter of government in my home country anyway like most other countries in the world)
    • However if you ask my opinion about the Palestine-Israel issue I can clearly criticize
      • Both Israel army and most of Palestine armed wing groups commits serious Human Rights violations in the area against civillians
        • While Israel army kills and wounds multiple times more people since it has more army resources, finance support and followers (numbers doesn't lie)

• • Can all the accuser parties first clearly state, if they have any religiously, racially or any other Conflict of Interests for Judaism, Israel or Israel Defense Forces publicly.

• • Also can anyone put examples of my recent edits, which substracts any (accurate) information (I rarely remove any info even it isn't properly sourced I most tag it) to make a POV standpoint.

• • Morever people can easily check 3 related projects where I called for a review by 3 related parties
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States my vote and stance for anti-Israel lobby
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Israel
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Palestine
  • And during the discussion progress in discussion page, the user asked another help from the other user who filed the ANI

Wikifan for example your edits clearly show you only interested and editing in Palestine-Israel-Arab-Muslim related topics yourself. I do not call that as "manical obsessiveness" like you accuse me I call it area of interest (or conflict if you have any relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#How_ADL_is_not_pro_Israel I took major time proofing to you ADL is pro-Israel lobby per strict proof which you chose to ignore by side claims. I even showed more effort on finding consensus over the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States my vote and stance for anti-Israel lobby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#ADL_is_pro-Israel_lobby_or_not Project Palestine

Also since I am no POV party and an inclusionist, I did not delete the criticism, which I can clearly and easily do per WP:RS and WP:POV per harsh criticism and accusations by unreliable parties like

Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia

Pro-Israel media watchdog Honest Reporting

I can't edit concerning what Hamas say, what IDF fans or what any other POV party say about me

I vote and edit per inclusionism and addition of details and criticism to the articles, it is about policy

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States "don't delete the content if the entries are accurate and merge, don't waste editing time" "Claims by POV parties in the article stated as facts" "It should be applied as argued by ... for claims." "Instead vastly discussing and wasting time, if all parties work together we may improve the article to correct the NPOV issues and claims. My solution is per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism keeping the criticism however adressing the critical parties political stance"

I can't change my policies against accusations and complaints per POV and COI parties.

Related article which ANI is issued

Your edits

• [19] *[20] *[21] *[22]
• [23]

My edits

• [24] *[25] *[26]
• [27]
• [28] *[29] *[30] *[31]

Issues with POV sources also raised in discussion page by other parties. You skipped the discussion page and asked YnHockey's talk page help which is resulted in a swift and improper ANI. Kasaalan (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion should be brought to a close. The immediate ANI issue has been resolved by removing the sub header in the criticism section of WRMEA. It is surely a waste of everyone's time to drag up previous disputes. If a WP:RFC/U is warranted for Kasaalan, then do that, and allow appropriate remedies/sanctions to come out of that. A topic ban proposal suddenly popping up here, on such a political topic (with such polarised views), is quite worrying, especially when this ANI section starts with a dispute about a single subheader that had a perfectly legitimate intent (identifying the political views of some organisations critical of WRMEA). A topic ban is a sledgehammer, and it should not be wielded lightly. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think you make a valid point rd232 - however the dispute escalates it seems as a result of Kasaalan performing what many here and others at his talk page describe as disruptive edits. Clearly a topic ban is within the realms of possible discussion at AN/I even in the middle of another dispute, and if that is what is required to stop this type of behaviour then there is nothing wrong with suggesting it - but that said I am not adverse to accepting your submission that this thread is not quite enough to pursue that outcome at this time. I am more than happy to have the discussion closed (assuming others agree) however Kasaalan should understand that he is on notice by many editors in terms of the type of disruptive editing that he performs and is constantly being alerted to. If that means that a new discussion is better aimed for the future (if necessary) either here or at RFC/U then that is an outcome that is quite within my realms of acceptance.--VS ^talk 09:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that he at least renounces recognized behavioral issues or else he'll just continue on. He just continues to rationalize his edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes another fair point Wikifan2345 - I would be interested in seeing Kasaalan's response to your request that he recognises that his editing style is disruptive - without further rationalisation as to it being everyone else's fault. I think you will agree with me that a straight yes or no (that is without another verbose essay style comment) will be best and certainly adequate for us to consider placing some additional assumption of good faith at his doorstep. Kasaalan?--VS ^talk 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He called me "manically obsessive" many times for my edits, called another fellow editor's help previous to ANI. It is nice that he acts calm.

My reply is providing both parties edit's instead opinion pieces.

The links clearly show My edits are definitely improving, progressive and per RS.

It is clear, after I edited the article it is improved.

I took various steps for proving proof in discussion page, calling other related editor's review within Project Israel, Project Palestine, and Project Israel-Palestine Collaboration per I replied above.

Also I am still waiting an answer about accusing parties' possible religious, racial or citizenship based conflict of interests about the Palestine-Israel issues, which none bothered to answer yet. Kasaalan (talk)

I asked User:Ynhockey if the Anti-Defamation League should be written with "Pro-Jew" before every inclusion. He posted the ANI out of his own free will, I just wanted a question to be answered because you did not agree. Oh wait, Ynhockey is pro-Israel. Zomg!!111 Zionist propaganda!! XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, too monotonous. I'm sure Kasalaan would be OK with you varying it with an occasional "anti-Muslim".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint Against User:JD because of vandalism in Annemarie Eilfeld

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

---

Resolved

 – Article has been semi-protected and is being watched for BLP issues, no need to continue the content dispute on ANI

Hi, yesterday I was blocked for some hours, because I reverted a notorious German vandal, who is an admin in de too. I have my own thoughts about his motivation, but the fact is that he has a special meaning about pop idol contestant Annemarie Eilfeld, which he executes as an admin in de. And he tries this now in the same matter in en. For a quick review you need only two eyes and no knowledge of the German language.(as Tanthalas:(Protected Annemarie Eilfeld: persistent unsourced additions/speculation/external links)

• This is my talk site of yesterday, after being blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.194.88.93 (with some links)
• This is the history http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annemarie_Eilfeld&action=history (User:Buchweizen is a delegate of a German fan site, with a strong intention, how wikipedia should present Annemarie Eilfeld (JD has stated that we are one person, but that's too ridiculous to comment that. Perhaps he will present his proofs. I am really curious)
• This is JD' talk site in en: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JD#July_2009
• It might be a good idea that at least one of the readers speaks a little German 79.194.84.244 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just on the face of it, an IP calling an admin on another project a "notorious vandal" doesn't seem to require much investigation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this article, & for the life of me I can't figure out what the dispute is about. At most, there appears to be a dispute over whether one Tom Saenger of RTL played a part in her selection on DSdS -- which could be settled by supplying a source. BTW, I seriously doubt anyone with the Admin bit is a "vandal" -- maybe someone who emphatically disagrees with you. If any editor goes around inserting nonsense into articles or blanking them, that person will lose Administrator rights rather quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the IP editor does not like the fact that JD keeps removing material that they keep adding - it led to a 3RR warning on JD. It is a content dispute, and may need WP:3O. The IP editor also doesn't understand the meaning of "vandal". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This all started here on en.wikipedia when I, while I was on recent changes patrol, noticed JD using edit summaries in German while removing content from the article. A couple days later I noticed the article was going through an edit war between some IPs, JD, and User:Buchweizen, and posted to WP:BLPN, causing Tan to step in and semi-protect the article.

Between 14:45 on the 12th and 12:52 on the 15th, JD has performed 11 reverts. He has also ordered Buchweizen to stop annoying me, and has used WP:COI as a reason to tell Buchweizen to stop editing [32]. As noted, he has been warned for 3RR, and he's also been warned for using German in edit summaries and on talk pages.

Regardless of whether he was "right" or not, I feel that there are some serious problems with JD's conduct heretofore, and that regardless of the IP's misunderstandings, they should be addressed. McJeff (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

oh, so there are "serious problems with my conduct heretofore"... let's say "my conduct towards somebody bothering since weeks on de.wp already, someone who is calling me and other users vandals, someone who is talking about us "fakers" all the time, someone who..." - the same holds true to earlier contribs of user:buchweizen on de.wp: "wannabe insider", "wikipedia means 'anti annemarie board' for JD",...

i've given my point of view many times now, i think. this edit-war has its beginning @de.wp where, for example, the IP already had revert wars with other users; later, user:buchweizen came up from the official bulletin board and being rude many times for which he got warnings; now exactly the same arguments occur on en.wp. it's obvious - at least to me - that i am not the nice guy then who behaves like he has first contact with some new editor here. even if i surpassed 3RR one has to have a look at the edits by the IP which often even had wrong edit summaries to camouflage the real purpose (repaired broken link + sources, +, ++, that's the best link you can get. The Germans name it de:Geständnis (the given information can not not be sourced with this link), reflink and more => see external links that got added over and over again without any discussion; on de.wp these external links got discussed widely already).

i won't get back to this diskussion again as it's making me upset. so drive back the article protection and let's see what's the outcome. fancruft galore! and i'm pretty sure nobody else will have a closer look at this 'cause eilfeld ain't the most known person out there up to now. --JD {æ} 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that JD and Buchweizen are edit warring on the article on the German Wikipedia. I can't read the German, but it looks like they're using automatic tools to revert each other. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

are you joking!? where the heck is there an edit war on de.wp? what brings you to the conclusion that there are any kind of revert bots active? --JD {æ} 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said there were any revert bots, but automatisch gesichtet looks like an automatic tool to me, though I'm not clear what "gesichtet" means. Babelfish says "sighted", which doesn't sound right. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

you said (1) that there is a edit war going on. it is not. you said (2) "it looks like they're using automatic tools to revert each other" which means to me some kind of revert bot. the answer to this "problem" is Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions; on de.wp this feature is rolled out since months and gesichtet really means "sighted". --JD {æ} 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What gives people the idea that there are revert bots active? Well, judging by the history of de.wikipedia's Annemarie Eilfeld article, there are dozens of edits marked "automatisch". McJeff (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i really don't get the point: what do you see? can you give an exact link to it? a screenshot? ...? --JD {æ} 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC) see above.

By the way, I have notified Buchweizen of this discussion since no one has yet. McJeff (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• .....(repaired broken link + sources, +, ++, that's the best link you can get. The Germans name it de:Geständnis (the given information can not not be sourced with this link), reflink and more....
• What the hell is wrong with these summeries? Some of them are direct answers to your deletions (you missed a reflink - I gave it to you!) + her performing list as every pop idol contestant has it in wikipedia world). And when I present the full quote of Tom Sänger (the creator of super-bitch Annemarie Eilfeld), it is even more impressive. It reads:

"„Bild“ hat es mit ihrer Kampagne für Annemarie Eilfeld allerdings versucht. Wie sehen Sie diese Aktion?

Das kann "Bild" gerne versuchen. Dem stelle ich mich gerne und es ist mir auch Recht. Es gab aber keinen Kooperationsvertrag, wie uns immer wieder unterstellt wird. Eine gemeinsame Entwicklung der Themen mit anderen Medien gibt es nicht. Ich möchte allein für die Sendung inhaltlich verantwortlich sein und das auch bleiben. This is a de:Geständnis aka confession, nothing else.79.194.84.244 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• what is wrong with the summaries...? well, you didn't repair a link, you didn't add new things but reverted older stuff, i didn't miss any reflink,...
• your quote says that tom sänger sees himself as the responsible man in the making of "DSDS" and that there is no contract whatsoever between "bild" and "DSDS". there ain't no word about pushing eilfeld into the "super-bitch" role. firstly, this labelling was given to her by other media and not "DSDS". secondly, it's still not tom sänger himself who was pushing her into this role. thirdly, you are calling it a "confession". => you are doing original research then. --JD {æ} 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Which media? I am very curious 79.194.84.244 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

well, as i added it before here including ref-link: tagesspiegel, for example. --JD {æ} 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lügen haben kurze Beine. Tagesspiegel doesn't state this, but the opposite: Annemarie Eilfeld wird aber nun nicht erneut als Superzicke inszeniert, heißt es bei GZSZ (=also RTL, also under the leadership of Tom Sänger) 79.194.84.244 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ehm...? you're mixing it all up. eilfeld IS not a "super-bitch" but she was pushed into some kind of ROLE. but the labelling itself as "super-bitch" came through other, reporting media. RTL never said "we gave her the role of the super-bitch". that would be hilarious, wouldn't it? and yes, GZST doesn't want her again in that role. the latter doesn't have anything to do with the role before nevertheless. --JD {æ} 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Eilfeld was pushed into this role by Tom Sänger. The first who stated, that Eilfeld is now a super-bitch was Gala, a print and website, from... ? Right, Bertelsmann, the mother of RTL. LOL 79.194.84.244 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"LOL"??? interesting humor. i don't know what's the point here. she was NOT pushed into that role by tom sänger himself and i won't echo my reply @21:38 regarding this. moreover, you lack any source that "gala" called her this way as first media. it's nothing special that different organs of such a huge corporation like bertelsmann support each other. --JD {æ} 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time now, that you bring a source for your statements. Normally you are only reverting. And please forget Tagesspiegel or similar manoevres. You may impress only non German speakers. And concerning Tom Sänger: Maybe one of his employees had the idea. But he is responsible and he wishes to be responible in future too. Good night. 79.194.84.244 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• for which "statements" of mine do i still lack any sources?
• why forget tagesspiegel? i used that text as reference, you wanted it to be in the article as external link, too.
• i can't see any "manoevres" by me and unlike you i am not quoting any german stuff here, hoping that nobody will understand what is really meant.
• "Tom Sänger ... is responsible and he wishes to be responible in future too" – sure. because sänger is responsible for RTL's whole entertainment stuff you want to reference to a interview by him and use this as source for the edit "Eilfeld ... was pushed by Tom Sänger ... into the role of a "super-bitch"". you gotta be joking. --JD {æ} 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagespiegel states the opposite of your claim! as " Eilfeld was created a bitch in DSDS, but not for the new show GZSZ" (Statement by GZSZ/RTL, given to Tagesspiegel)

I am tired about your de:Nebelkerzen . So, let's go back to ther roots:

• What you have to say this obscene edit: [33]
• This is also fake: [34]. I have asked the German admin, why he has locked the German Eilfeld article and I have explained to him the definition of edit war, (in any case: not my "edit-war"). This was his answer.: Zu dem Zeitpunkt der Sperre fand dort ein EW statt. Damit hier EOD. -- Nolispanmo. Comment: Not only DSDS reminds on the film The Truman Show, German wikipedia too. 79.194.85.57 (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• don't you get it or is it just that you don't want to get it? "Tagespiegel states the opposite of your claim"!? no, it states exactly what you just said here. it's the same as i explained above. putting her in a role: RTL. labelling that in some way (here: "super-bitch"): tagesspiegel and other media.
• what should i say to this "obscene" edit? you even haven't told me yet what is your problem with that one.
• i have no clue whatsoever you want to tell me/admins here with the second "fake" link. i had done exactly two edits (june, 8th & june, 17th) until the point of semi-protection (june, 30th). --JD {æ} 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Tagesspiegel is only one of 30? 40? media, which describes that RTL has created a superbitch for the show. And who has created her and the other roles? That guy, who is responsible for the show. Got it?

2."IPvandal/79.194.88.93.... see history of article. IP and unregistered users straight from fan bulletin board try to make the lemma look like they want it to"

Answer: The author, who brings the content, is the vandal? The vandal, who deletes the content, is able to find one one who blocks the author? No comment, except: obscene!

3."and the lemma in de.wp is meanwhile also semi-protected because you did edits like this one over and over again...?

Answer: No, it's not semi-protected because of my edits, and there was no edit-war (according to the official wp.de-description: What is an edit war?) 79.194.85.57 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@1: the "bitchy" role was created by RTL. the labelling "super-bitch" came up in other media. by citing this labelling it is essential to give a source for this labelling. and the source is not tom sänger but some media calling her that. period.

@2: haha, yeah. content like the fantastic external links you tried to get back in the article like... 10 times?

@3: there was no edit-war? according to official de.wp description? eh? --JD {æ} 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@3 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WAR 79.194.85.57 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@3 extra service: a puts a link in, b reverts it. c puts another link in, d reverts it. Where is the edit war? 79.194.85.57 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@2 These are the links you don't like:

http://beta.audiomagnet.com/audiomagnet/LaMie Annemarie Eilfeld & Lars Retkowitz (LaMie): Moon and Sun (the free video, after the other site is broken)

http://www.rs2.de/cgi-bin/WebObjects/rs2.woa/wa/CMSshow/3593703 audio interview with rs2,

http://www.super-illu.de/musik/Annemarie_Eilfeld_1223217.html DSDS: »Wir wurden bespuckt...Interview (in German language)]

No RTL/Bertelsmann propaganda, no bullshit. It's Eilfeld herself. That is RARE 79.194.85.57 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i won't comment on these external links any more. "super-illu"... wow, you have the nerve to really defend that stuff. i'm outta here. --JD {æ} 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I must say this topic is new to me, but I can confirm that JD is correct in noting that the statement 'Eilfeld ... was pushed by Tom Sänger ... into the role of a "super-bitch"' inserted by the IP was a wild extrapolation from what the source says. Note also that the German WP does not have the 3RR rule (instead an admin locks the article if there is an edit war); some of the editors here may have been unfamiliar with it. JN466 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So, who do think has created the role of Annemarie Eilfeld? 79.194.85.57 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you or I think is not that important here. What is important, though, is that we don't write into an article what we think, while claiming it was said by the source we cite. If you haven't done so already, please have a look at WP:V, which explains this in more detail. --JN466 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You can prove or just believe me, that I NEVER have molested an article with stuff which i think. I prefer the spurs of the alpha-guys in the web. Tom Sänger was successful in making DSDS6 the most successful German show of the year between May 2008 and May 2009. Before they were afraid, that Nr.6 will get too boring. So they changed the show from a song contest to a reality tv show. And they were lucky. But Eilfeld has still some problems after the show, because of this image. And she has a contract to be quiet. But she's testing the border of being quiet with some stories here, there and there. 79.194.85.57 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and all this has to do nothing with that "case". i'm smelling fancrufty thoughts near around. --JD {æ} 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

YEP, you even smelled Buchweizen in me. And you were successful as Tom Sänger 79.194.85.57 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

New User Takes Issue With 3RR Warning

So...I'm just cruising along...minding my own business...when in the recent changes, I see this edit summary. It piqued my interest...so I clicked on the article history and saw that Danwilson82 (talk · contribs) had made 14RR on the page. Pretty straightforward block...except I saw he was a brand new user and no one had given him a 3RR warning...so I do just that. Thinking it might be the end of it...I get this lovely message on my talk page. I re-explain to him that he is violating 3RR...and I explain that he is consistently re-adding copyrighted material onto the page. I thought that would clarify things further...and I was totally wrong. His response is some bizarre rant about how I did not contact him (which, of course, is how this whole thing started), threatens to report me and calls me a 12 year old. I notified him that the entire reason this started was by notifying him. And - with admitted snarkiness - asked if he was going to report me for not blocking him. He responds, logically, by again calling me a vandal and saying he has "reported" me. I asked if he wanted to continue with the personal attacks. Apparently, his answer was yes...and he's apparently threatened to have "1000 other fans" vandalize the page. Of course, I could protect it...considering I've never actually made an edit on it. So...twofold problem...I can't block the user straight up since I'm engaged in communication with him...and the second is...can we get some extra eyes on that page in case we need to protect...because, despite never touching it...I feel like I'd be accused of admin abuse if I did it. --Smashville^talk 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a stern but friendly note on his talk page asking him to disengage and review our policies on these issues. He has also been informed of the consequences of continuing. Let's see where this goes from here. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have even money on a Plaxico. --Smashville^talk 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I suspect you are right, but new accounts are showing up to re-add the picture. I have rolled back to the non-copyvio problem one, and protected the page for a day as well. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a note at commons Admin Noticeboard to let them know about the situation. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the copyright violations that Jayron reported. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have a bit of sympathy with him, although his attitude it a bit ott, but he is new. Can someone not trim the picture to only show his head, because until the new fans have a picture it will continue. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

There's an existing picture (albeit a poor quality one) in the article which is appropriately liscenced, see File:Stewart Downing Middlesbrough v. Chelsea 1.png. Per WP:IUP, we may not replace a free image with a copyright image merely for image quality or other such trivial matters. If someone takes a new picture themselves, and releases it under a free-use lisence, then it may be valid to replace the current image. However, it is never kosher to replace a free, properly lisenced image with a copyrighted one. Also, one cannot merely crop or modify the existing image; such modifications still are based on a copyrigthed work, and the copyright protection carries to the cropped image. So no, merely cutting his headshot out of the copyright image will not solve the problem. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. :Thanks. I get all that, I was suggesting croping the poor quality one that is there now to turn it into a headshot, removing the team colours until the new team come uo with a free photo. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I thought you were talking about cropping the other one. Yes, that may be a good idea then! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, someone might have picture of him at a Starbucks that they took on their digital camera, like the one on Chris Chelios. --Smashville^talk 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're all missing the core of the issue. Read this edit. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• No one's missing it. It was a copyrighted image, which is why it was deleted. --Smashville^talk 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that you're talking about copyright here indicates that you are, still, missing the core of the issue. Address the underlying problem, revealed in that edit, and the symptom, the edit war, will go away by itself. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You do realize that the only thing I ever did to him was shoot him a 3RR warning...right? In all actuality...the picture and the content of said picture is irrelevant to his attitude. --Smashville^talk 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The edit war is caused by a misunderstanding of the image copyright policy. It's not his picture; evidenced by the fact that multiple accounts keep showing up to add it. A new one just left a note on my talkpage overnight regarding this very issue. If someone wants to take a new picture and upload it themselves, that would all be fine. However, this specific picture is clearly incompatable with our image use policy. I know the current picture is outdated, but is IS appropriately liscenced, and the IUP is clear; it is inapprorpriate to upload an updated, but copyright photo when a free one is availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You do realize that the only thing I ever did to him was shoot him a 3RR warning...right? — That's the thing. The edit war and the copyright issue are all that have been the focus here, and all that anyone has ever said to this novice editor is about copyrights and mysterious "revert rules". The editor, meanwhile, has a quite different perspective. From xyr perspective, as can be seen by reading the aforementioned edit, the problem is that the article has a misleading picture on it, showing this person in the wrong team colours.

        See the issue from the perspective of the editor, who is focussed upon bringing article content up to date. In particular see it from the perspective of a novice editor who didn't understand copyright policy, had never heard of a three-revert rule, and who merely saw other people repeatedly putting an incorrect picture back on the article. And whilst you are doing so, remember how … ahem! — let's say … enthusiastic sports fans can become about team-related matters. (I almost wrote "fanatical". ☺)

        All that's really needed here is to tell the editor the right way to scratch xyr itch. Tell xem that all that's required is for xem to take xyr own photograph of the player in the right team colours, now that the player has transferred, and to release that photograph under CC-BY-SA or the GFDL. There are lots of boilerplated warnings about copyrights, revert rules, personal attacks, and so forth at User talk:Danwilson82 and User talk:Smashville, but no mention at all of how the editor can go about fixing the problem that xe sees. To do so will eliminate the very grounds for the edit war in the first place. You never know, xe might turn out to be capable of taking and providing a lot of free-content photographs of sports players. But no-one has even hinted to xem that xe can even do that.

        See things through the novice's eyes. Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

        • Where does it look at any point like the editor cared what I had to say? I left him a 3RR warning and he went on the offensive. --Smashville^talk 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with Smashville here. He left a boilerplate warning (where all of the WikiJargon is helpfully linked for explanation), & instead of responding with something along the lines of "I don't understand; please explain" -- or any other reasonable response, this person responds with "Hello, I have read the dispute resolution page and have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt on a situation." (I don't understand what "dispute resolution" has to do with "edit war", let alone "three-revert rule".) Then xe proceeds to accuse Smashville of edit-warring with xyr over this image. (Or maybe xe thinks Smashville is edit-warring with himself: note the commment, "I would like to kindly ask you to either put my picture back up or leave it removed.") Maybe this person doesn't realize that there are a number of people contributing to Wikipedia, just like xyr, but this would indicate a failure of comprehension of the other person's part; had Smashville responded "I didn't edit this page, I'm just warning you about this", maybe the other person wouldn't have understood that statement. Maybe if Smashville had suggested how xem could fix the problem, xyr would have responded "I don't have any other images, except for this one." I honestly don't know. But this interaction did go off the rails near the very beginning -- if not before -- & it doesn't appear to be getting back ontrack soon. -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance with personal attacks

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked, unblocked, others blocked, continuation requires NO admin interaction and is best at another venue - what venue I don't know, but NOT this one

Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask an uninvolved admin to look at these comments from Giano and decide whether they're personal attacks that need to be removed? [35] [36] [37] Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the 2nd and 3rd one are pretty personal. Law _{type! snype?} 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been well and publicly established that the editor in question's judgement has been demonstrated to be flawed. Wiser editors never mention the D-word, however.--Wetman (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say they're blockable, actually. I'm going to warn him that that's as far as he can go, no more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you would say that, but which statement is untrue? Giano (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Would someone please just refactor the thread and let this rest? It's mildly amusing to read accusations that I'm racist against my own ethnic heritage, but there's nothing useful to be accomplished by making more of this. Durova²⁷⁸ 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

refactor and I will revert - your evidence is stil in circulation so you cannot deny it. Speaking German is not proof of sock puppetry. In fact, it;s a very unkind thing to say - full stop. Giano (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth or untruth is not relevant. Truth spoken in an abusive way, as a personal attack and rudely, is not acceptable here. It does not need to be false to be uncivil and abusive. You do not have to like her, or respect her, but you may not attack her or anyone else in that manner. Stop, now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have struck the personal attacks. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

and I have reverted you. The truth is the truth and history os something we need to, and should, learn from. Giano (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict.We have nothing to learn from personal attacks on other editors. He has reverted my edit and replaced the personal attacks, that is the same as repeating them. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Oh whine, whine, whine, poor Off2riorob! Editors are entitled to remove your input, however valuable, from their page. How about leaving Giano and his page alone? Have you considered that? Bishonen | talk 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Why you are permitted to be an admin with the sort of scorn you heap on people is beyond me, but that is not acceptable behaviour. It would also help if you actually knew what was going on: Giano didn't revert Off2riorob's posting on his talkpage--which he would have been entitled to do. He reverted Off2's strikeout of the personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux, if you have an issue with Bishonen's adminship, start an RFAr, for God's sake, instead of just sniping here. Heimstern:Away (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that pointing out current unacceptable behaviour was 'sniping'. How interesting. → ROUX ₪ 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Why you are permitted to be an admin[...]is beyond me" is not needed when pointing out whatever behavioural issues you might need to point out. If you have a problem with someone being an admin, do something about it instead of complaining. Otherwise you're just heaping more coal on the drama fire. Heimstern:Away (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Roux. I think you may perhaps not be aware of Off2riorob's (not "people's") corrosive attacks on me. I do not regret speaking unkindly to that editor, and you're welcome to my adminship any time.[38] Note especially Off2's accusation of "Harassment of the blocking admin", i. e. I've purportedly been harassing Jimbo Wales. (I wonder where?) Looking further at Off2's royalist contributions, I noticed the (to me) remarkable edit summary "Please remember this is a wikipedia living person"[39]—I thought for a moment he was talking about me! (It was actually about Jimbo.) Oh, well, of course you're entitled to your opinion in any case. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Ah.. so because he was rude, that means you're allowed to be? Not so much, no. You had hold of the completely wrong end of the stick, and were sniping due to a grudge. Interestingly, this is precisely what Giano did. → ROUX ₪ 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, am heading back to Photoshop to continue restoration on a seventeenth century map. There's nothing to be gained by quarreling. Durova²⁷⁸ 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And this is one of the people the ArbCom wants representing them. It seems to me like quite a few of the members of the advisory council could use a time out in their continuous personal attacks and ill-advised statements. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I invite uninvolved admin review, but as Giano reverted the strikeout after a final warning and there's a rapid but significant consensus that the comments were personal attacks, I have blocked him for NPA for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I have struck the comments again and an editor has done the correct thing and blocked him for 24 hours. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Your ability to divine "rapid but significant consensus" with the tiniest of fraction of input from regulars at this board is remarkable indeed Georgewilliamherbert. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure consensus is needed to block for the actions noted above. This isn't something sneaky or ambiguous. These are clear personal attacks, and Giano is maintaining them despite several requests to retract them. We frequently block other users for less strenuous attacks, and Giano has not earned a free pass to make comments like this merely because he has been here a long time. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether the block required or did not require consensus is immaterial here. GWH claimed "rapid consensus" in the post above as at the very least partial justification for his actions. Call me a fool if you wish, but "rapid" and "consensus" do not seem to be happy bedfellows. If GWH wants to block he would do well not to claim a community consensus that did not exist at the time he performed the action.Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating". There is no need to raise objections over the specific wording here. The block was justified at the time it was made on the content of the personal attacks alone, and that should be enough. Also, see most of the comments below.--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be proper to challenge if continuing consensus development indicated that I had erred and that they were not personal attacks. But I think that calling a developing consensus after 4 opinions is not grossly unreasonable, and the ongoing consensus that has developed is overwhelming by now. There is no here, here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To invite, nay request, uninvolved commentary on your decision to block - and then not to bother to read it properly when given is at best ill-thought out GWH. You asked for input - and you now argue when you don't like it. Get the hint? Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. There's no reason and no justification to carry on such personal attacks after repeated warnings. RxS (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the block. Calling someone "stupid" and a "racist" are defaming personal attacks. There are ways of criticising people which do not involve insults, defamation of character, or name calling in this manner. Additionally, Giano is not new to the project, and is also not new to these sorts of problems in controlling what is in his edit box when he chooses to press the "save page" button. Additionally, that he refuses to acknowledge these blatant violations as such, and instead not only maintains his position in using those exact words, but is edit warring to keep them in the page in question, only reinforces the preventative nature of this block. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If he was new, he would have been blocked longer, as a new user would not have been so tolerated. Law _{type! snype?} 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. It's not so much because of what specifically he said, but because he chose to persistently derail an ongoing debate where these attacks were patently off-topic, only serving to warm up an old grudge completely unrelated to the issue being discussed on that page. That's very immature behaviour indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the action, but think 24 hours are not enough to allow Giano to cool down again, would suggest extending to at least 72 hours. _→AzaToth 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And that still won't be good enough given the diff below. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but anyway, good job, though I would like the block to be for a week. I would like to bring everyone's attentions to this, and quote "What a funny little man you are George William Herbert" - I view that as a direct attack against the blocking admin, and I propose that an admin extend the block to 1 week for continued attacks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure extending the block would be a good idea, even if I endorse this block. Lets see what happens when the block expires. If he does not resume the attacks once the block expires, then it served its purpose. If he does, he can be reblocked. If the attacks intensify at his talk page, we can always just protect it for the duration of the block, but at this point I think 24 hours is fine. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that if the attacks do not persist that the block has served it's purpose, but making attacks like that continually even after an administrator tells the user "I have blocked you for personal attacks" is extend-worthy, in my opinion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Nah, an extension is precisely what we do not need to get this episode over with. He had to be removed from the discussion he was disrupting; now if he needs to continue hollering on his own user talk, that's just routine to be best ignored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm not so sure that extending the block would be 'going overboard'. Giano's is the longest block log I have ever seen (that hasn't ended in an outright ban), and I somehow doubt at this point that 24h blocks even register to him. A significantly long block might drive home that his relentless personal attacks are not allowed. → ROUX ₪ 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Two things: blocks are not used as "cool downs", and calling someone a "funny little man" is hardly a personal attack and is a poor reason for extending the block. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse 24hr block. I contemplated doing it myself at the time, before deciding that one dramatic action was enough from me for tonight. If that user had been anyone other than Giano I doubt this would even be contentious; particularly the second two diffs were definite personal attacks and were over the line. However, let's not go overboard on extending the block. ~ mazca ^talk 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also endorse, but agree with Azatoth on increasing to 72 hours, not to cool down (no never!) but because it's warranted after multiple instances. Blocks should be increased to have a credible deterrent effect. R. Baley (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets not grasp at straws. "What a funny little man", and similar comments are rude, obnoxious, and disrespectful, but are not personal attacks. The only personal attack here was this one. Perhaps a warning would have been better suited. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record - I did warn; after which he reverted the comments back in (all 3) after someone else struck them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• In line with my often-stated stance that I encourage not piling on additional block time for users who vent after being blocked, I would like to request that other administrators not extend the block. I am not suprised but nor was the comment anywhere near threatening enough to worry or offend me under the circumstances. If Giano cannot be civil 24 hrs from now, he is unlikely to be more civil in 48 or 72 hrs or a week from now. I AGF that he will not continue the particular behavior immediately in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Though I don't endorse or oppose the initial divination of "a rapid but significant consensus" by Gwh, extending the block would be punitive and would serve no real purpose other than punishment. Unitanode 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Persistently showing poor conduct after being blocked, whether you're acting that way while blocked or not is irrelevant. An extension would serve far more than punishment, in fact, not punishment at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • At some point we need to recognise that the current way of doing things is not preventing Giano from making outrageous personal attacks whenever he feels like it. Here's what happens: Giano makes some attack. He gets blocked. DRAMA. Someone else unblocks him. MOAR DRAMA. We wait a couple weeks or months, and then Giano makes some attack. He gets blocked. DRAMA. Someone else unblocks him. MOAR DRAMA. We wait a couple weeks or months...
  • Nothing is working to prevent these outbursts. Either he needs to be community banned (unlikely, to say the least; DRAMA), or the blocks need to be of significant duration in order to prevent more attacks coming. → ROUX ₪ 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly been subject to much worse attacks from admins and sole-co-founders than anything I have ever seen Giano say about anyone, yet none of them ever get blocked for it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse the behavior, however. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Surely we should follow the example set by such trusted members of the community? Or is it just another case of hypocrisy - those in favour can get away with anything, those out of favour get jumped on for things which would not be a problem if said by anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks + warning + persistence = Block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Only for some. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You understandably ignore the very valid point that DuncanHill raised above Mythodon, which is that administartors routinely get away with the most outrageous personal atacks, with hardly a word said, much less a block. It's understandable that you ignore it, because it's indefensible. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then something definitely needs to be done. Are you saying admins seem to feel unbound by policy? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are admins acting this way there should be some action taken, can you give us some examples? RxS (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Guy (a horribly abusive admin) has apparently gone off to sulk (hooray), and whenever I have pointed out such behaviour it seems to result in other admins threatening me or joining in the attacks (of course there are always a few honourable exceptions) but hang around on this page long enough and you'll see plenty of others - and there's nothing you can do about it, as you'll never get consensus for blocking the worst offenders. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? That admin uses the signature "Guy", so I assume you're referring to him/her. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think any regular at this page would know who a phrase like "Guy (A horribly abusive admin)" should be taken to be. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But are you referring to the user JzG I mention above? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if anyone wishes to object to my characterization of him as a horribly abusive admin, I'll happily add that he showed serious signs of incompetence too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to make claims of unchecked systemic personal attacks by admins you'll need to do better than one semi-retired admin (no matter how you feel about him) RxS (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell should I assume you'll be able to do anything more than has happened when I have done just that? My experience is that providing evidence of abusive behaviour by admins just results in an increase of the same behaviour. I have, as a result of my experiences, no confidence whatsoever in any admin unless they have already shewn themselves to be committed to honourable and decent behaviour in a discussion which I have been following. I am sorry if you find that upsetting, but that is what my experience of editing wikipedia has taught me. We are not allowed to compile evidence on-wiki of such behaviour by admins (even though some admins do compile such evidence against non-admins), and far too few admins are actually prepared to call out their abusive colleagues. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take whatever you are talking about to whereever it belongs. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

What conversation are you referring to? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant discussion here isn't about particular administrators, as examples of far worse incivility than Giano, or WebHamster has been accused of in another place with a "fuck off", aren't exactly difficult to find.[40] The important issue here is that administrators do not as a rule hold themselves to the standards that they expect of others, and the punishments meted out to administrators and non-administrators (let's not kid ourselves that blocks are preventative of anything) are disproportionate. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading that discussion, it looks like Scarian got uncivil with you. I also see incivility from you with your comment "I think you're a disgrace as an administrator". I'm not excusing either one of you, though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt the thread here by introducing material that it not related. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

• Endorse the block. Please take the tedious "civility standards are applied differently" discussion elsewhere. It's well past its sell-by date. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Given the considerable amount of incivility blocks Giano has already been subject to under his various accounts, and his apparent reluctance to learn from them, the block should have been considerably longer.  Sandstein  11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sandstein, you have joined the party a little late. Giano (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

An olive branch

Was hoping to resolve the matter without any block. But since one has happened, let's be better than our worst moments. As a gesture of respect toward Giano's content work and his profession, am interrupting other work to restore a scan from an original aerial perspective for an office building in Singapore. Would be delighted if Giano agrees to put this behind us and perhaps fill in the redlink for Francesco Muttoni, an eighteenth century architect (there's a restored illustration all ready to go; it's been hard to find biographical sources). Let's shake hands and get back to building the encyclopedia. Durova²⁷⁸ 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just about the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread Durova. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes... a charming thought. You guys will have to hold your beautiful gestures for some hours, though. Giano has gone to bed. Annoying habit, that, in the midst of drama, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Giano needs to gain respect for his politeness and respect of other editors. He is actually well known as a rude person. I for one, care less about whatever he has written. He has no special importance here at all. If his is rude, he goes. If he continues to be rude he goes for a longer period. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

I'll remember that you've given me full acknowledgement to block you immediately if you make a rude remark. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's bordering on a personal attack as well, you know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given the subject of the "personal" attacks does not request a block, and given GWH specifically invited review, I am minded to unblock. And, yes, I do consider my self uninvolved - in the thread above I never stated an opinion on the block itself (despite the assumption by Jayron and GWH that I did). So - who thinks lifting this block will result in damage to Wikipedia? I would of course prefer GWH reversed it. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The block is good. -

Bordering ?. It would be true that everyone gets a bit stressed every now and then, respect is given to the ability to hold your hand up and say..hey, I was rude, I take it back, I am sorry, lets move on in a better way. Some editors push on with the same attitude and they get to go and that is correct for the encyclopedia.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

• I agree with Mal, and support Pedros suggestion. Hopefully GWH will check back on this thread. — Ched :  ?  22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I quite strongly suggest you not do that. Prodego ^talk 22:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I might be just as good as GWH at divining consensus from 4 comments you know. But one rule for some people, another for others. I'm not going to wheel war - because frankly I don't give a fuck mate. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's never been the case that the target of a personal attack needs to consent or agree to a block, it's the editing environment that's at risk and not the personal feelings of the subject. RxS (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has not even requested an unblock. I would suggest you leave it up to him to state his point of view. Why he thinks he should be unblocked, maybe he won't do it again, or he takes the comments back.. or some other reason. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

1. Support unblocking per Durova and common sense. The point's been made. Let's end the disruption and move forward. And by the way, Durova and Giano are both elder statesmen for this project, whatever their respective imperfections.

• And please remember to sign up for the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout if you haven't already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Elder statesmen, repeated personal insults from an elder statesman are actualy worse than if they are from a new user. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Then what punishment would you suggest that this outburst from a well established administrator ought to have received? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander remember. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt the thread here by introducing material that it not related. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest that it is you who is disrupting this thread, in your obsession to see another editor punished for behaviour that falls far short of the example I presented that you have chosen to ignore. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pedro, I think lifting this block will result in damage to Wikipedia. It's already been established and agreed that the edits consisted of some personal attacks, that despite being warned the personal attacks continued (and reverts that reinstated them) and that the editor in question doesn't agree they weren't acceptable and showed no intention of stopping. By unblocking, you will send a clear message (yet again) that it is acceptable for this particular editor to consistently attack other editors that he doesn't like and to destabilize any discussion he doesn't agree with into ad hominem, rather than a discussion about the issues. By letting him know that his deliberately disruptive argumentation methods are acceptable you also send a clear message to every other editor that they should also use those same methods because they are effective and tolerated, which further contributes to the (allegedly) "broken" Wikipedia. In short, by unblocking you say "you are exempt from the rules and it's OK for you to derail discussions by diverting them into personal attacks" Ha! (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@Malleus: Totting up, that makes 722.5 hours! :) Seriously, I wonder about some of these blocks too. Giano criticising Durova for her behaviour on a Wiki-political page where everyone, including Durova, is claiming the moral high-ground and holding forth on WHAT IS GOOD/BAD FOR THE PROJECT is not the same as a hapless editor being called a fuckwit for making a content edit by someone they've only just met. In my view, it's the latter situation that WP:CIVILITY should primarily be for, to ensure there is a welcoming culture. But this is not the situation between Giano and Durova. Even friends argue sometimes; loving husbands and wives have at times been known to turn into over-the-top grumpsters ... As important as civility is, this nanny attitude of locking people in the cupboard for saying a bad word is itself in danger of becoming ridiculous, stifling and disrespectful; you don't treat adults that way in real life. JN466 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, many long-term editors with a track record of quality contributions to articles stand to be driven off the project if people are allowed to call them "stupid" and "racist" and other such personal attacks if it is left unchecked. The whole point is that no one should be given a free pass for creating a hostile environment for any reason. It is possible to vehemently disagree with a person, and to still not create a hostile environment by calling them base names or defaming their character. That all being said, if Durova wants to let this slide, I would think that we all could, since the attacks were directed at her. However, in general, we should never let anyone perform such acts against another user. Its not about avoiding swear words (fuck that) or about not engaging other editors when you disagree with them. Its about not resorting to name calling and defamation when doing so. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't officers of the court where we should press on, regardless of the "victim's" take. This isn't a domestic violence case and Durova's olive branch is a sensible one. If she has no problem with this case, we ought not to crusade while ignoring her olive branch. I support an unblock because we aren't police, and Durova's commentary should be given weight. Law _{type! snype?} 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Let's try and behave like rational adults, not like nursery school teachers, or some waif who falls into a swoon at the sound of a naughty word. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Some parts may stay which contains criticism [41][42] [43] rest are completely unnecessary personal attacks. Reply for first entry, didn't read rest of the discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the one thing I do request is extensive refactoring. That whole thread might as well go from the moment it went personal. Let's keep it about the project rather than about personalities please. Durova²⁷⁸ 00:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done [44]. Ha! (talk)

Rational adults don't hurl personal attacks at each other, this is not about swooning over a naughty word but treating each other in a respectful manner. This isn't some gaming board but a serious project. You don't casually call someone a racist in the workplace or a classroom and you can't do it here. RxS (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; I'm of the opinion that we should all strive to behave in a civil and professional manner, and that we should enforce the civility policy where appropriate. But what good is the block doing at this point? Ideally blocks should be used to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and while what Giano said was not acceptable by any means, the block is currently harming the encyclopedia by stirring up drama, creating grudges, and inducing stress. I'm not doubting the block was necessary at the time, but I endorse Durova's motion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be significant experienced administrator input that the block was good and should run its (24 hr) course. I understand the input here about reducing. I think that it may minimize drama all around if this one actually runs to its initial duration and simply expires, though. Another user making those comments would not have had large quantities of discussion and support and detractors show up. I understand the argument that drama / stress may be minimized by just moving past this, but perhaps simply treating the abuse and block as if it were any normal user will also help minimize drama and stress. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this in the interests of consensus? Wait until he returns and see if he accepts the olive branch. Durova²⁷⁸ 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to this block being truncated to time served if Giano's comments and actions in the morning indicate that the problem is over and will not recur tomorrow. Any administrator should feel free to do that if he affirmatively and credibly states that he will stop the personal attacks that started this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the restoration is ready but the devs have disabled image uploads. Here is the original. Will bring the restored version live as soon as it's possible. Durova²⁷⁸ 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think olive branches are best offered unconditionally. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The main goal is to find consensus and get back to work. Durova²⁷⁸ 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It takes a consensus of one to block. And yet here there is very broad agreement that the block has served its purpose and that a goodwill gesture is appropriate as per your reasonable suggestion. Yet here we are held hostage by the blocking admin. Is it vanity? Why are blocks so easily imposed, but so difficult to get lifted? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why such charged accusations? I see no evidence the block was made by a "consensus of one" -- have you read the thread above? Particularly as it existed at the time the block was set? Nor do I see any evidence we're being "held hostage" by the blocking admin; George has made it quite clear he wouldn't mind an unblock if any uninvolved admin believes, in good faith, that -- to quote him -- "the problem is over". Nor do I see any claim on Durova's part that this "olive branch" is being offered in anything but the best of faith, without any apparent conditions. While you haven't come out and said as much, the tone of your language seems to indicate that you believe other users are acting abusively, unusually, or maliciously, and with respect I'm not seeing any obvious reason to take that leap with you. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact read the thread and understand that GWH engaged in a block based on "a rapid but significant consensus" that may or may not have existed (an action that has not gone unquestioned). His action certainly doesn't seem to have limited the amount of disruption. Durova and Giano are adults, and sometimes people say things that are kind of mean. It's best to try to work it out with the least collateral damage wouldn't you say? But I was willing to let the block itself go as being well intentioned and within reason, and was trying to focus on moving forward. There seems to be clear and abundant consensus in favor of moving forward except for a couple of hold outs including the blocking admin himself who is certain the full 24 hours will be doubly helpful despite all the evidence to the contrary. This same admin was quick to find a consensus for his dramatic block, but heaven forbid anyone suggests the most civil and respectful action would be to unblock in good faith, it's as if we're raising some outlandish and far fetched suggestion that is incomprehensible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've dropped several of your accusations and traded them for new ones, the moment I questioned the first set and asked for specifics, and I can't help but find that noteworthy. Indeed, the block has not gone unquestioned; nor has it gone unsupported. While a number of administrators have commented on the thread, none of them have removed the block in spite of George's open offer. Why do you think that is? Is there some massive conspiracy of evil cabalists plotting behind the scenes? Is George speaking disingenuously or with implied threats? Could it be that no uninvolved admin happening upon this (fairly prominent) thread has thought that immediately removing the block would be the ideal course of action? Why wouldn't they believe that, do you think? I do agree that a number of editors support "moving forward", but such a nod makes no mention of blocking or unblocking -- to me, it seems erroneous to suggest that editors have specifically commented on that matter when they have slyly avoided doing so. "Moving forward" could be taken to mean many things, here, and I've a hunch that's intentional on the part of those saying it or trying to preempt one of those many meanings. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find George William Herbert's comment above disruptive. He's the blocking admin, so clearly involved, and yet he finds it appropriate to determine that the consensus is that the block should run its course? That's not my reading of this discussion. I see a clear consensus that the point was made that Giano needs to be more civil and that lifting the block will be helpful in ending the disruption and showing good will. If George William Herbert (I almost called him George Herbert Walker) wants to set an example for civility, how about being responsive to and respectful of the opinions stated by other good faith editors and abiding by the community's consensus to lift the block. Thanks man! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming I'm trying to block an external uninvolved admin block review. I'm not doing that at all - any uninvolved admin can step up and formally review the block. We're having an active discussion on the topic short of an independent block review. I believe it's considered helpful if admins can participate in these when their actions are under review. If I decide to change what I did as a result of a discussion it's a good thing, right?

If another admin wants to step up and formally review they can do that too... So far, everyone's just giving input in the open consensus discussion, though. That doesn't preclude anyone else from a block review, at any time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We've all reviewed it. It seems okay. Most of us now feel it's accomplished its purpose and have asked that you be so kind and courteous and generous in spirit as to lift it, especially per Durova's indication that she would have preferred avoiding a block to begin with and that she supports the extending of an olive branch in the form of lifting the block at this point. I say again that it takes a consensus of one to block, no matter how much opposition (although in this case the consensus seems to be that it was not a bad block even if it wasn't particularly helpful in limiting damage and disruption which is the stated purpose of block). Yet get a block reviewed or lifted takes a parting of the Red Sea. No wonder editors are so thankful for miraclulous actions of civility no matter how insignificant (thank you for the barnstars people) as we're left waiting for any crumb from all the big talkers about how important civility is. Where I come from actions speak louder than words. Durova's made an impressive display of goodwill despite some very bitey comments directed at her. I suggest you follow her example, and hope for the best. I'm sure off2rob and others will keep a close eye out that no further indiscretions follow! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my instinct at this point is that letting it run to expiration is the most healthy outcome. That said, I understand your and Durova's point, and as I stated if it becomes clear to any admin that it's over / ok then an unblock is fine. It's not clear to me yet, at this instant.

I would also support an unblock at time served if we get a consensus for it here, enough to outweigh the good block / good duration consensus in the section above. So far we have less consensus here for that. If it develops some time tonight and another admin calls it that way, I won't object in the morning.

I'm going to be leaving for the night, and I'll leave it as is for now, but I invite any awake admins to consider the situation and discussion now and as it evolves later tonight, and do what you feel is right if you believe the situation changes. I think that we'll all survive either way, the 24 hrs isn't that far out right now and Giano's going to have spent a large portion of that time hopefully getting a good night's sleep. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There comes a point when endless 24 hour blocks are no longer productive. At the moment, all these 24 hour blocks are merely punitive. They do nothing to calm the situation down; conversely, they stir up the situation. Nothing good is coming out of the blocks, and it just creates bitter feelings, irritated editors, and it's taking away the time to actually do what we all came to the project for. (X! · talk)  · @202  ·  03:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think this was healthy - there's a strong consensus the block was justified, nobody did a reflexive unblock just because it was Giano, the discussion here has been much light and little heat or threat. For a drama incident, everyone's responding pretty well. Giano is clearly not happy - but also has not responded with either significant nasty comments nor very many comments in total.

It's clearly more drama than we would have seen with random user block - but also a healthy and relatively normal response given who it was.

I think we ultimately win if we have less drama and more consistent handling of incidents for everyone. And I think we're seeing that here so far, and hopefully going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think the block has limited drama you are wearing rose tinted glasses or heavily inebriated. This long thread is testament, that polite discussion and mediation would have been far superior. Probably the best thing would have been to let the comments go for a while until everyone calmed down. But the civility police had to take action. Thank you for protecting us all. I will sleep well tonight knowing that Wikipedia is safe from any mean comments (at least those from editors who make easy targets). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the most calm and constructive incident with a Giano abuse complaint we've had in 3 years, in my judgement. The drama here has been verbose but not hostile, the discussion has been constructive, Giano has responded in a very minimal manner rather than confrontationally on his talk page. I understand that you disagree with all of this, but where you see a small disaster, I see a responsible and adult and constructive response. I apologize if my glass being half full at the moment offends your sensibility. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated, I have no major issue with the block, though I certainly don't applaud it as some masterstroke of genius that has reduced drama (since the opposite appears to have happened). The issue now is at what point you can show some actual civility and good faith instead of continuing to beat a dead horse. Is there something to be accomplished by further humiliating a long term good faith editor? Ar eyou going to teach him a lesson? Does it satisfy your ego? At what point will you be willing to let go? Do you want him to apologize for saying something he thinks was important and needed to be said? It's not going to happen. What then? Maybe you should extend the block. That will really do the trick. If only our admins were held to your high standards of civility. And maybe you folks could chip in now and then in the trenches where the content disputes happen instead of just playing good cop bad cop when a fight breaks out? You know, lead by example. Do some community policing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this badly, but this thread took about another hour of my time after you made (among other things) the comment on my talk page about another incivility incident that someone should look at. My efforts to go community police the thing you called in to report were delayed by this thread here. Your interest in this thread is certainly useful and welcome, but the side effect of one long discussion is several short ones being deferred. I have gone and left a warning in that case now, but it's useful to consider that admin time is a finite-sum game. Simultaneously engaging in lengthy active discussion in one area and asking for productive proactive "community policing" in other areas doesn't work - we can't be everywhere at the same time, and if one large discussion occupies someone's available time they won't get to other things during the time when timely intervention is helpful. I have been unable to go patrol several watchlisted hotspots today because of this stuff, including some where I've been working to defuse stuff or warn problem editors. Presumably anything that happened will wait until tomorrow. And I'm glad we're having an active constructive discussion about this block. But time is not a renewable resource. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

< heh! Whilst it's kind of interesting to watch folk bashing an editor with an olive branch as he sleeps, I don't really think this whole situation can be described as 'calm and constructive' (sorry!) - it seems pretty clear to me that Giano should be unblocked, and also that it's surprisingly easy for confirmation bias to kick in heavily, and for us all to be sat around praising the emporer's wonderful new wardrobe ;-) - This was a terrible decision on many levels, in my book, and I hope someone sane can sort it out soonish :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• A good meal and a good night's sleep usually helps the collaborative mood. Getting close to that on Pacific time, so thanks for keeping things relatively calm. Although Brion Vibber may have a coronary when he sees the size of the file that comes in after he reenables uploading. ;) Durova²⁷⁸ 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yes indeed :-) - My reading of your position is that you're up for moving along now, and likely support an unblock - I think that would be the best outcome at this point - but then I'm in the priviledged position of being about to crack the friday afternoon beer :-) Snags going on the barbie by the harbour if the weather holds too.... one and all are welcome round my place in this wonderful spirit of concilliation! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)it'd be great if giano could be released from his sleepy block to join us? :-)

Without comment on the original block, I see an offer of reconciliation from Durova, and an agreement from GWH for re-assessment of his block. I took the liberty of unblocking Giano. I apologize if I have offended anyone in doing so. My intentions are rooted in the hope that everyone will be nice after a good night's sleep. Please feel free to use my talk page to yell at me if you disagree. -- Samir 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Samir, I have indeed had a very good night's sleep. It seems though that some have been up all night. I always get very grumpy when I'm tired - fortunately though insomnia has never been one of my prblems. Giano (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with any unblock without allowing Giano the decency of dealing with this in his own way. What we have now is ridiculous, first you block him and then you unblock him..without even allowing him the freedom to do as he likes. You don't even know if he wants unblocking. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

If Durova wants him unblocked, who are you to ignore her wishes. There is no personal attack if the 'person' does not find it as such. Any reblock and I'll simply unblock. I'm not big on personal attacks, however, I really don't give a shit what people say to me, and when others, especially those who are the 'victims' of such an attack chime in, I believe they hold equal weight. NPA, like the unholy WP:CIV, are in the eye of the recipient. Law _{type! snype?} 10:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about that, Law. WP:NPA advises us that "Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." In effect, the harm done by a personal attack is not the hurt feelings of the person being attacked, but it is the disruption of the polite and collegial atmosphere that we want to work in, and the chilling effect of such attacks on others. Personal attacks are Wikipedia's equivalent of obscene slurs in public bathrooms; they demean not only the people they are aimed at, but all others who have to look at them. (See also Fixing Broken Windows).  Sandstein  12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova never said she wanted him unblocked, she said she offered him an olive branch and see whar he did with it. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) and..who the fuck are you to ask me who the fuck am I , you fuckwit. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob Blocked

I have blocked Off2riorob for 24 hours for this personal attack.  Sandstein  12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock RioRob has intimated he regrets the statement. This block is merely heightening drama. It serves no purpose Giano (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where has he stated that he regrets this statement? If he says so, and is willing to strike it, I'm of course OK with an unblock. Otherwise, the purpose of this block is to prevent more personal attacks.  Sandstein  13:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Immediatly above where you posted [45] perhaps you ought to take the time to read things and spend a little less time blocking. It's unlikely he will be making any posts at all - if he says he regards himslf as blocked. Giano (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to this edit, I find it merely confusing (non-admins cannot block themselves). If Off2riorob wants to make a apology, he can do so in an unblock request.  Sandstein  13:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt he's that sort somehow, sounds to me like he is mortified and gone off to confession or whaver the equivalent is in his part of the world. All that you have just done is to increase his pennance a little more - is that the role of an Admin? Giano (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Nowhere has s/he said that they plan to stop. To the contrary, they seem to find personal attacks fun - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I find this quite conclusive "Off2riorob has blocked himself in support of the No personal attacks and in the interests of civility." What aprt of it are you having a problem understanding? Obviously found out he could not block himself, so just gone off to pray for strength or whatever. Giano (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Giano (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he figures that his personal attacks are unacceptable, and that he enjoys it so much he needs some cool-down time, before he can edit Wikipedia without swearing at another user? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I took the comment "has blocked himself" to be an admission that he made the post above intentionally to obtain a block. Maybe that's just me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not just you. That's how I interpreted it as well. Enigma^msg 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Block comments like the one above and the one at User talk:Samir should not be tolerated. It seems that from Giano's link Off2riorob is actually saying s/he agrees that they should be blocked. It doesn't seem they are able to stay civil in this discussion - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if you wrote all this in a book, no one would beleive it. Giano (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UUser

just out of interest, and actually slightly off subject, has the thing that archives his talk gone ballistic or something, it seems to be archiving every 5 minutes, which makes things confusing. Giano (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, before I commented here I was looking through his contribs, and spotted this (the age is how long the bot waits to archive), seems a bit strange that he did that - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He's only just set up archiving - he asked me to help him with it. My talk page's archiving is poorly set-up, so I would imagine any help I gave to Off2riorob probably hindered more than it helped. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You set the 'age' parameter to wait only one hour and then archive if there had been no reply. I've set it to 48 hours and restored Durova's edit. At least I hope I've set it to 48 hours! Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano unblocked

Woooah, let's everybody please calm down, here. Swearing at each other and pre-emptively threatening wheel warring? Drawing battle lines is only going to encourage and prolong drama. Remember the intent of the section. As best I can tell, Samir has unblocked in good faith, Giano has returned graciously, and the immediate crisis is resolved about as well as could be hoped for, accounting for circumstances. The idea, after all, is to get everybody back to editing peacefully. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who is going to block you for another personal attack. I'm the one who will ask you to refrain. I'm the one who will ask you kindly again to rethink your omnipresence at this board: It is ANI. Editors come here for administrative action. Law _{type! snype?} 10:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LMAO "He has no special importance here at all. If his is rude, he goes. If he continues to be rude he goes for a longer period". --WebHamster 10:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed He is actually well known as a rude person. Law _{type! snype?} 11:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• what does LMAO mean? Giano (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just an irony to Off2's comment. Law _{type! snype?} 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only think of "laughing my ass off", but I don't think that likely do you? I wish people would not use these terms, my one of my regular correspondents keeps telling me that they are ROTFLOling, it has gone on for so long now, I don't like to ask what it is exactly that they are doing - the world does seem very odd these days. Giano (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My assumption is that you were not asking what it actually entailed, but to what it was in reference. Yes, you are correct. It is computer-jargon. Someone is laughing their ass off. Law _{type! snype?} 11:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was laughing my arse off (quite literally - though have no fear, my ass is still in situ but my virtual ass is rolling round the floor) at the hypocrisy shown. --WebHamster 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How very odd. Giano (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• edit box sez 70kb — and they say teh wiki isn't a battleground. Jack Merridew 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (who read it all)

Solutions

Have left a message at Off2RioRob's user talk, asking him to post a few words to say he won't repeat the problem. As soon as he does would someone unblock him please? Meanwhile am uploading the restoration and hoping it goes up without a hitch (nearly 100MB, unstable server connection, crossing fingers). Inviting fellow Wikipedians to join in drafting a new article for a Mark Twain essay. Durova²⁷⁹ 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to end this without blocks. I unblocked Off2riorob. I know he was probably just upset. I understand Sandstein wanted to prevent personal attacks, but I think this will all end up best if no one is blocked. I'm working for the next several hours but am probably reachable my e-mail if someone wants to discuss this. Thanks very much -- Samir 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Samir. Anyone who wants to join The Awful German Language before it goes to DYK is welcome. :) Durova²⁷⁹ 18:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

May we have a re-blanking of this, please? Durova²⁷⁹ 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Durova is pursueing this matter to cause increased drama, even to the extent now of following me to my talk. She knows my feelings very well. Giano (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regular Wikipedian procedure is to make a request directly before bringing it to an admin board. Durova²⁷⁹ 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You're planning to bring that to this board again, Durova? Please just desist and leave the man alone, because this is beginning to look like harassment. There isn't any rule that says it's obligatory to shake hands with you. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

I think Durova is making a perfectly reasonable request considering that she supported your unblock. My advice to you Giano is to swallow your dam pride as speedily as you did with the advisory committee, blank your post and move on.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. I have not touched the post since yesterday - if others have played about with it then really it has become their post. So I suggest you take your problems to them - not me. And please stop stirring and baiting about the advisory committee or you may find yourself banned.Giano (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Giano, I wish to inform you that I find it rather hypocritical of you threatening bans for "stirring" when it would seem you are the grand wizard at it. Forgive me if my best Giano impersonation wasn't up to scratch   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just do your research, stop attacking and we'll get on fine. Giano (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Norcalal and Highspeed again

I've received messages on my talk page (section Request for wikimentoring) from an IP claiming to be User:Highspeed, who was blocked by Carlossuarez46 in connexion with the issues mentioned at the thread that appears above. At the same time, Norcalal has left comments, and Carlos has left me some messages in response to my requests for information. In short: the IP is asking for Highspeed's user talk page to be unprotected, so that Highspeed can post an unblock request; Carlos has explained the protection as a drama-reduction attempt, because socks of User:Biaswarrior (which Carlos sees Highspeed to be) apparently misuse their talk pages after they're blocked. I have some doubts about Highspeed's integrity (see his comments at Template talk:Monterey County, California), partially due to this edit, although the IP explains this as a technical glitch. Although Carlos has told me that "I'll leave the decision to you" on this situation, I'm uncomfortable making these decisions myself. In short: I'm leaning toward say "no you don't get unblocked", but I'd rather let the community decide this matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read through the stuff on your talk page, and I don't see that resetting the block on Highspeed to allow him to request unblock is a bad thing. Worst case scenario we just have to re-enable it. I'll go do this presently, and if it turns out I've erred anyone can feel free to put it back. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Like the Keystone cops or something around here. Are admins hellbent on getting me and then keeping me connected to this Highspeed? Why has no one looked at the entire interaction?...From the very beginning? You guys are way off base. I do not know this guy and if you can trump this up to connect me to him then just get it over with. I am sick of this drama. My issue with Carlos is two part and totally unrelated to Highspeed. What harm did my comments do at Highspeeds talk page? They are direct and state what I was experiencing related to the GNIS place name debate? Then the IP related to Highspeed came to my page to leave a statement-totally unsolicited by me. I then asked Nytend to clarify what was going on. Is there a witch hunt brewing? Prove that I have done something worthy of all the drama or let it go. This is unbelievable. 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• FROM MY POST at NYTENDS TALK PAGE: Carlos states: "Here" the two seem to be working together? Give me a break. This smells like witch hunt and is truly ridiculous, if it is. I am not going explain why I was interested in speedy deletion tags again and again. And that note from me on Highspeed's discussion page related to the GNIS is a valid point and nothing in that post is divorced from the truth of Carlos' behavior or the concern in the community (beyond my own related to the GNIC stub article proliferation). NOTHING I have done can be connected to culpability no matter how hard any editor/admin may wish to try to connect it. Other editors or admins can decipher this mess all they want. But I am mindful of Goebbels (who worked for Hitler)--tell a lie (or misperception?) enough and the people (other editors and administrators) in this case may come around to believing it. What if this Highspeed guy did make a mistake with an editing tool? Just look at the mess he made in Carlos page. It makes no sense that he would do that blatantly unless he is nuts. POSSIBLY RELATED EXAMPLE: I had a problem with an article up in the northern forest a long while back (probably Yreka or therabouts in Northern California) and it looked to me like the editor was willfully vandalizing over and over. But guess what? He was suffering with a messed up keyboard and trying to work around it as best as he could. It wasn't satisfactory to me, but I could find no other reasonable explanation other than he was crazy. AND he apologized and it NEVER happened again. This is out of hand, if not out of control. Norcalal (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one here is saying anything about that, or you, except to explain the situation. Please calm down. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've requested some further explanation from the blocking admin; I'd prefer to see some more solid justification of socking or other misconduct accusations before we allow a single administrator, who seemed to be involved in a dispute with the user, to summarily and indefinitely ban -- talk page lock included -- an account that has been active since 2006. If there's more to be heard, here, so be it, but I'd like to hear it first. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Several misconceptions, Luna: (1) I didn't ban Highspeed, I blocked him; (2) as for whether there is a dispute with him, I had never had contact with him if (as he claims) he is not Biaswarrior until he rampaged on my talk page. As I explained on your talk: if this guy is Biaswarrior, it's a sock, gets a block no warnings are needed and given BW's prior drama on talk pages, enough is enough; given that you consider that there was some prior interaction between us, then you seem to accept that Highspeed is Biaswarrior (although you seem to have missed that Biasprotector was Biaswarrior earlier as reflected on your talk, but anyway - you seem to be as "involved" with Biaswarrior as I am) but having had prior interaction with socks doesn't disable an admin from blocking them - otherwise, socking would be more prolific than it is. Now, on the chance that Highspeed isn't Biaswarrior, the only interaction I had with this guy was the edits he made to my talk page including what seemed to be obvious vandalism which Highspeed denied on Nyttend's talk page even after confronted with the diff. Now, he claims it was a browser malfuction - I'm not technical so although it seems odd and unlikely I cannot disprove it. We've seemed to have reached the Godwin's Law level in Norcalal's latest post above. Note: there hasn't been a single apology for what Highspeed did (he claims unintentionally). If you all think that Highspeed will not do what he's done before, of course you can unblock him, asking for mentorship seems to be a positive step. So would an apology. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • An apology? You mean like this one? Or these two? Even if that one unfortunate edit had been made with the most malicious of intent, the appropriate response would have been a warning. Given your lock on Highspeed's talk page, attempting to prevent the user from appealing your hasty block, I think describing it as an attempted ban is more appropriate. You've repeatedly claimed that Highspeed is a sockpuppet of Biaswarrior, but so far the only supporting evidence I've found from you is a vague mention of WP:DUCK -- please explain why you feel it's appropriate to immediately and indefinitely ban a longtime user with such a flimsy justification. If you're unable or unwilling to provide supporting evidence, it seems to me that you owe Highspeed an apology, and an unblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from the available evidence here, on User talk:Highspeed and at User talk:Carlossuarez46#Highspeed, I also tend to believe that this was a very ill-considered block, both on the merits and because it was made by an administrator who appears to have been in a conflict with the blocked user ([46]). I suggest that Highspeed be unblocked and I strongly advise Carlossuarez46 not to misuse his administrative powers again in this manner.  Sandstein  12:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation violated

Barack Obama is under article probation according to you. Please ban Good Damon for removing valid comments from the article talk page. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=302543600&oldid=302542344 Calmano (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually just read but sawthis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calmano (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you in future to portray a situation you bring here in a neutral fashion. Giving the impression that you were a simple, casual reader who was strolling along and OMG OBAMA PROBATION VIOLATION LOOK I CAN SEE HIM REVERT SOMEONES EDIT is not an honest thing to do when it was your edit. Ironholds (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I re-closed was one of the many instances of trolling and quackery that shows up on that talk page. Frankly, I'm surprised that a brand-new account's first few edits show such a startling familiarity with the admins, processes, and template syntax used on Wikipedia. In any event, while I do not believe re-closing the discussion in question was an error at all, Calmano apparently believes it was such a grievous one that the user's 5th edit was to instruct User:Mailer diablo to ban me. I kinda think that one speaks for itself. --GoodDamon 07:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed it because it was obviously a returning editor, with a note showing great familiarity with the likely results of such trolling. The comment, and calmano's later, are of the 'I heard/read it somewhere, so it has to go in like I think I remember it or else that's proof there's a conspiracy' sort. That's not sufficient for changing the article ,and it's often, as in this case, already covered in the article in sufficient, or summary, style. The Obama article daily sees POV pushing from far right wing or racist editors upset that Obama's been elected, (illegally, they like to allege), or that he's black, or that a black man got illegally elected (this is usually the case). As such, collapsing these is the best solution, because it doesnt' blank the troll, but shows it's been read and moved past. Send such editors to Conservapedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also note the other Obama section below. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a connection. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons admin required

Resolved

Handled. Durova²⁷⁹ 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who is an administrator at Commons please protect this image as it is about to go to the front page. Thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like BorgQueen took care of it. Tan | 39 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So she did. Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem user 124.158.3x.* attacking pages.

I've noted that there is a IP-hopping vandal who has been attacking several user and user talk pages, including mine. Here are the list of IPs that attacked my talk page alone during the last six months:

• 124.158.33.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.158.32.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.158.33.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.158.32.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And it's not just me, as the vandal has also regularly attacked some, if not all of, the following editors' user and talk pages as well:

• Resplendent (talk · contribs)
• Momusufan (talk · contribs)
• Nakon (talk · contribs)
• Antandrus (talk · contribs)
• Dreaded Walrus (talk · contribs)

I don't have any connections with these users and I don't usually edit the pages they edit, so I don't know why this vandal decided to put my name on his list.

Any kind of help against this vandal is surely welcome as this guy giving me some inconvenience on my talk page. (In fact, this guy attacks, although under different usernames and addresses, are the reason my user page is semi-protected; I'd tried to have my user talk page semi-protected as well, but my request was refused.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given 124.158.32.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a long block, as it has been a repeat abuse vector; looking into the possibility of further responses. Looking at the 124.158.32.0/23 range, it looks like this has been going on for quite some time, unfortunately. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about 124.158.33.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? That IP's currently blocked for 31 hours. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of addresses on this range -- with the notable and confusing exception of the one I blocked -- seem to be dynamic, and therefore unlikely to be used by a single user over a prolonged period. Bearing in mind that I could be wrong, a longer block on a dynamic IP doesn't accomplish anything if the vandal has moved on to another IP by the time the block expires. If you've ever wondered why vandals on IPs seem to get counter-intuitively short blocks, at times, that has a lot to do with it. :) If they come back on that IP, though, I'd certainly bring down the thunder. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point there because, according to my talk page's history, it seems the same guy has also vandalized my user and talk pages (and possibly the others) last year under the following:

• 58.69.178.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 210.213.193.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Eauuuuuuuuuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism#India

Could a strong-willed admin please lay down the law over this section. A relatively new Pakistani editor has been trying to expand this section. Some of the text he has written is POV and has had to be toned down, but this is no excuse for the several experienced Indian editors rerpeatedly gutting the section. [47] is one of the more outrageous edits where "revert unRS" is used as an excess a range to remove material not only multiply sourced, but excessively so (up to eight references for one point). Pakistani sources will usually push pro-Pak lines, but the likes of the Indo-Asian News Service are among the babies being thrown out with that bathwater.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about excessive rangeblocks

A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Wikipedia articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan ^T 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno^talk 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma^msg 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique ^demandez 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.

As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.

So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On the general issue of range blocks

Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert

I received a 24 hour block for "edit warring" at Views of Lyndon LaRouche by User:Georgewilliamherbert. The article in question had seen 11 reverts spread evenly over a 17 day period, 5 by Will Beback, 4 by myself, and 2 by another editor. The 3RR threshold was never approached by anyone. As edit wars go, this didn't even rank as a skirmish. The negotiations on the talk page are presently succeeding. In my opinion, no admin intervention was necessary, but if such an intervention were necessary, Will should have been blocked as well, since it takes two (or three) to tango. Therefore, I believe that GWH's block was improper, and I would like to have it expunged and my clean record restored.

In this dispute, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not proceed until all issues were resolved on the talk page. The LaRouche articles have gone through a period of relative peace and quiet, and I think that all editors would do well to be circumspect about initiating any fresh round of POV warfare.

Now to a more serious matter. I received a warning on my talk page[48] from GWH, advising me that I was in violation of the various LaRouche-related arbcom decisions. With all due respect, this is utter hogwash. I began editing Wikipedia two years ago. After a while I began to observe the POV battles at the LaRouche articles without participating, other than to leave an occasional comment on a talk page. I never touched a LaRouche article until October of last year, and my occasional edits since then have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. GeorgeWilliamHerbert's threat to me is incorrect, inappropriate and should be withdrawn. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks aren't restricted to violation of 3RR. Why didn't you appeal the block? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All LaRouche articles are under a long list of mediation and arbitration restrictions as long as my arm. These are clearly visible on every talk page related to LaRouche. Editors must take caution. Also, 3RR is not a liscence to revert three times per day. You may be blocked for edit warring on any article at any time if your editing shows a willingness to use reverting as a method of forcing others to accept your personal view of how the article should read, regardless of how often you do it. The compelling reason for an edit war block is the appearance of using the revert function to stifle others contributions. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking had been actively participating in discussions with Will on the talk page, but had also taken to simply reverting saying "No consensus for that". It appeared that he'd crossed the line into sterile reverting rather than good faith discussions at the time I blocked him.

We have the long, long problem history with this topic; that very article was full protected for much of the last two years.

Leatherstocking's edits appeared to be pro-LaRouche; he appeared to have escalated to sterile reverting; the articles still have special attention due to ongoing efforts to insert POV.

Will Beback has been attempting to work with everyone to build the best, NPOV and not whitewashed article we can there. I've tried to stay well back out of the content issues so that he can be the admin working content and I can be the admin working enforcement when socks show up and try to abuse things, to avoid either of us having a COI over content / enforcement issues.

Leatherstocking - If you really have no pro-LaRouche agenda, everything you gained by those reverts would be gained equally well by long term talk page discussions. Will is extremely ethical and determined to do the right thing there. Please take the step back and talk to him more determinedly. He knows all about BLP and NPOV. He's one of our admins - with many many years experience. Work with him more collaboratively and there's no problem going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here speak Turkish or Armenian

Resolved

no admin action needed, just a little help... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting on Turkish Van and Talk:Turkish Van (it's a moggy, not a motor vehicle) to engage in discussion with User:Zara-arush, who is I believe Armenian. He says on his userpage that he has professional level english, but this is wildly optimistic, and I have spent the last three days trying to explain why his content is (a) not intelligible in english or (b) not properly referenced. Compare my version of the legend of the coat colour with his version, which is the second time he's included it. I'm getting about a one word in three level of what he's saying to me, he's probably only getting the same from me. For the reference thing, I've tried pointing him at the page in Turkish, but as he's Armenian I've probably mortally offended him doing so, and he's still posting unreadable content with malformed references that don't support what he's saying. Any suggestions as to where I might find someone better able to communicate?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to post this, but have you tried inquiring at WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Armenia - I think that there are fluent participants at those wikiprojects. Next, time tty our help desk- it may give you faster response than here. Cheers and good luck. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Didn't know where to ask - I'll nip over and see if anyone there can help. Thanks again--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Threat to prosecute if an image is modified

File:Aryavarta wiki.jpg - the summary says "Author: Russell Spence; Source: Own-work based on latest research on Archaeogenetics of South East Asia, and research on the Indus Script. Modifications will invite prosecution." He also has a copyright notice on the image, which is against our guidelines. (I also get tired of these editor-created maps which are virtually always OR, which we wouldn't allow in text). Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The image should certainly not be used anywhere – apart from being problematic in copyright terms, as you say, it's also shamelessly tendentious POV-pushing/OR in favour of a fringe theory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC with Fut Perf) I would say that you need to tag the image for speedy deletion here. The summary is CLEARLY incompatable with CC-BY-SA since it expressly does not allow for modifying the image. Also, not all editor-created maps are OR or incompatable with text; I know of some VERY good cartographers at Wikipedia who do scrupulously document their sources. If you need maps, I can certainly hook you up with some of these. As far as the legal threat issue. Meh. I'm for WP:IAR/WP:DOLT on this one. If needed, we could direct the user to WP:NLT at the same time as our WP:IUP policy to be sure they understand WHY such comments are inappropriate. (after EC) With regards to Fut Perf's concerns; they may be valid, but this should be deleted on improper lisencing grounds alone... If the user is advancing original research or fringe theories per WP:UNDUE then those problems can be dealt with seperately. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gave notice. seicer | talk | contribs 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (with everyone it seems) Thanks. I've raised the issue of user created maps at NORN,[49] maybe I should raise it on the policy talk page. As for the watermark, our guidlines at WP:IUP say "user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use". Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User Maxframe's conduct

Maxframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up already, but Maxframe has been involved in an edit war on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page by continually adding fringe conspiracy theories riddled with angry exclamations in all caps [50] [51], all of which have been reverted [52] [53]. He has also been leaving angry comments on the user pages of those who have reverted his edits [54] [55] and [56], which he did after he was warned about it. I'm not sure if yelling his propaganda at editors is considered a personal attack, but I calmly explained to him twice why it is inappropriate, which he has ignored. Can anything be done? [mad pierrot][t c] 16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a ONE-revert limit on the Obama articles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Via ArbCom, Stevertigo, Sceptre, ChildofMidnight, Scjessey, and Grundle2600 were handed 1RR/week restrictions project-wide. As far as I know there is no blanket 1RR in the topic area. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should ask is repeatedly using all caps words considered a personal attack? I have always interpreted it as yelling. [mad pierrot][t c] 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat dickish, but probably not a literal personal attack. Regardless of the tone, the stubborn insistence on claiming worldnetdaily and Taitz's personal blog as reliable sources is disruptive enough, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More interesting is that he made 3 edits 2 years ago, and then nothing until yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user talk page informing his about the article probation. I assume that if he continues to edit-war after fair warning, he will be topic-banned or blocked. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aghajani Kashmeri

Resolved

 – History mergers and splits done. Article talk page and user talk page are now separate. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:John Carter told me to come here, so if I'm in the wrong place, its his fault. I found this article, Aghajani Kashmeri. The main author, User:Kashmeri is using redirects to make his user talk page redirect to the article's talk page, and his userpage redirect to the article page. He then, within the article..well I can't explain it, so I'll just quote: "I (Zuhair Kashmeri, son and author of this article) remember sitting with luminaries such as Begum Akhtar, the famous ghazal singer, Josh Malihabadi, the poet, Munnawar Agha Manju, a humorous poet, Rajinder Krishan, songwriter and poet, etc." Remember, that was in the article. So I don't know what to do about this. Help. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he did it on purpose; it happened when he used his user page as a sandbox for an article, and moved it to article space. All it needs is an admin to move the talk page back to user talk space (A bot came along and made it impossible for non-admins to do). The article issues are someting anyone can deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll finish cleaning it up later, but will need an admin to do that thing you said. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama article needs administrator supervision

I made a valid suggestion to the Barack Obama article. His Illinois senate history is very sparse. All other articles have a campaign section. Obama's senate campaign was very controversial since he had all his opponents removed from the ballot. This should be described in a brief and neutral way. To refuse to have it is like refusing to have a section on his presidential campaign or refusing to mention the George W. Bush 2000 election controversy, an act of omission.

The point isn't debating inclusion in this board. The point is that enforcement of the probation is necessary.

ThuranX has collapsed all discussion into a box. GoodDamon removed someones comments (Calman), which is very unethical and acts to silence discussion.

Iniclusion of the edit is not the point of this board. The point is that removal of valid comments is worse than vandalism and vandalism results in block. So ThuranX and GoodDamon should both be blocked for at least 48 hours and prohibited from making more trouble at the Obama board. I am annoyed more at the process (or lack of process) rather than whether to add the proposed edit or not. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ on the article talk page. And could all the new accounts popping up to complain about the lack of information on how many babies Obama eats daily please keep it all in one incident report? --GoodDamon 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. As with Maxframe, this guy had literally a handful of edits a year or two ago and then suddenly turned up on this subject yesterday. Wow, man, it's like deja vu. Wow, man, it's like deja vu. The very same thing happened in early March when the WND siege occurred - a number of sleeper accounts suddenly got active again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me my esteemed colleagues, there is an extremely accurate article on President Barack Hussein Obama at our conservative comrades' website, Conservapedia. I suggest to all users who are dissatisfied with the blatent, disgusting, and smelly liberal bias that Wikipedia obviously has towards our so called "president" of the so called "United" States of America, go to this article and submit the brilliant journalism of dentists there. [mad pierrot][t c] 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which is worse - you're calling a conservative wiki's article on a liberal-leaning President extremely accurate, or you're saying it with a straight face. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to lighten the mood :-P. And that article made me want to vomit. So does that entire website really... [mad pierrot][t c] 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And it id - the conservapedia article is the funniest thing I have seen there XD Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ever try looking through the "references" at the bottom of the Obama page there? Some of them are just standard conservative newspapers, but there are a lot of references to things like Free Republic forums, LittleGreenFootballs, and Michelle Malkin. Surprisingly, there's even a DailyKos blog post in there. --GoodDamon 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and check out this reliable source! Obama apparently doesn't stand a chance in the Presidential election as long as he goes up against '"Sarah Barracuda," captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs.' --GoodDamon 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains. There is no civil discussion. Those who did wrong are accusing me of popping up after a year. (FYI, someone called me a sock last year, that other "Chase me ladies" user. That soured my taste of Wikipedia so I kept reading but did not edit). That shows that WP doesn't solve the problem but attacks the editor making the comment. So incivility again.

The solution is that ALL editors editing Obama should know that the article is on probation so ALL must show their best behavior. Collapsing comments and deleting comments and calling others socks worsens the problem. That's why the article is bad. Thugs chase away others.

So again, an administrator should uphold the article probation and stop all editors who are not at their best behaviour. In this case, it ThuranX and GoodDamon have acted less than honourably...in fact, horribly. Only when everyone is a diplomat, is ethical, and discusses will Obama article probation stand a chance.

In fact, I am so fed up with this bullying that I am quitting WP for the time being. Troublemakers, you have won. I am quitting for now but reserve the right to edit. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article has seen frequent disruptive behavior, enough so that part of the probation -- of which I'm fully aware, thank you -- is the swift removal of trolling discussions. There is no requirement that editors have to discuss Obama's mafia-like influence over politics in Chicago, his foreign birth, his atheistic Muslim religion, his refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance, his distaste for Mom and apple pie, his love of terrorists, his hatred of America, or the souls he obliterates with his laser eyes. In all seriousness, his time in the Senate is covered in detail in a sub-article, and the campaign itself is covered in another one. There's no point in duplicating existing articles in what's already a summary style family of articles that is absolutely enormous. I stand by my decision to close that pointless argument. --GoodDamon 23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chase me dinosaurs, as an uninvolved observer in this, ah, conflict, I must point out that dramatically flouncing off ("That's it! I'm quitting! You win! My hand's on the doorknob! Don't try to stop me, my mind's made up, I'm going!", etc.) seldom ever accomplishes anything productive. It might also be worth your while to consider that if it seems everyone's against you, it might be because your view does not accord with the consensus view. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please block me

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

---

Resolved

 – marked as resolved, and closed per request Ched

Dear admins, May I please ask you to block me indefinitely, with revoking the privilege of editing my user pages and disabling my email. Please loose no time to understand my request. I cannot understand it myself. Please just do as I ask. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a pointless time-waste to do such things. If you don't want to use Wikipedia for the moment, there is a "log out" button in the upper right corner of the screen. This has the added advantages of 1) nobody else has to do work to make this happen, and 2) you can log back in whenever you want. Friday (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do that, it never ends well. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer instead--Jac16888^Talk 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked per request. Either the request is valid, or the account has been compromised - either way warrants an indefinite block. However, I declined to protect the talk page or disable email. Tan | 39 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No it does not! What were you thinking? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I have no idea how to answer your question. Tan | 39 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. There's no reason blocks shouldn't be doled out on request. Once, anyway. If the user was EUI, s/he may request an unblock via the normal process. It's also worth noting a current thread with the same comment on the Commons version of AN. → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will only block users if:

• A) The editor is disrupting Wikipedia
• D) The editor is violating policies and guidelines.
• C) The editor has been banned by the community, Jimbo Wales, or the Arbitration Committee.
• D) The editor has violated an editing restriction by the community or the Arbitration Committee.
• And more can be found at the blocking policy

Hopefully that helps! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Don't block him. He could be drunk or EUI (no, I'm not an admin, but nobody thought of this yet. Sorry). Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I'm just a regular editor (and rollbacker) who just happened to show up here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw no reason not to conform with this request, and especially if the account is compromised, as is a very real possibility, given the "block me and lock everything down" nature of the request. Talk page remains enabled; when he iether changes his mind or regains control of the account, the situation can be reinvestigated. Tan | 39 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Except it's always been protocol to not block people on their whim. If they just needed a wikibreak, now they have a tarnished block log. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the proscription of self-requested blocks was removed from the policy almost nine months ago. ÷seresin 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And see the relevant discussion here. — Satori Son 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also what if the autoblocker kicks in and blocks someone else who edits using the same IP? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I can agree with that concern. I have removed the autoblock. Tan | 39 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

→Non-admins can comment here? The page name is a bit misleading. I actually agree with Tanthalas now. Especially since the user said "please loose [sic] no time". BUT this could also mean the compromiser of the account wrote that, to get the real account owner blocked. It's probably safer just to block for now. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

never mind, this was after 3 edit conflicts. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins can comment here. The page name is because it's for bringing incidents to admin eyes. But that doesn't mean only admins get to give their input. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as Spongefrog - that the user might have done this as a way to get someone else blocked. Another possibility is that the account is compromised and that someone else asked for it to be blocked - but if it's compromised, it should be blocked anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, and mainly because of that I disagree that this user should be blocked. They claim that it's because they are addicted to editing, and need to get away from Wikipedia. That's what the wikibreakEnforcer is for, not what admin's blocking abilities are for.
If it is a compromised account, then they still have e-mail/talkpage if they manage to regain control of their account, otherwise they'll have to create a new user, which they would have had to do anyway - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm with the block having been done, although I think I would have told the user he needed to answer Theresa's "Why?" first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's totally against every precedent I've seen for blocks. I guess we're setting a new precedent, then, and admins are going to be now tasked with ensuring that people get away from the keyboard / do their homework / get a life, now? Bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as long as this isn't done again... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Like what? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a similar request in the past. One time I asked administrator Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to block me for a half-hour as a test, but the conclusion of the discussion was that the test not be made. (see here). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I agree with Tan - it could have been compromised. However, the talkpage specifically says he's semi-retired from sometime ago. At that point, we simply show him how to scramble his password, and leave him alone until he requests a password fix. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good nota bene for future such requests. I don't see any harm with this one. Scrambling the password has essentially the same practical effect as an indef-block combined with not being able to edit his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment, but I doubt the account is compromised. Looking at the slightly broken English (no disrespect intended to Mbz1) from historical diffs and comparing the languge style to the above request and current talk page comments I am sure this editor is in control of their account. As to the block, well whilst there are other ways to stop editing, maybe we need to accept that sometimes editors will only "accept" a block as a route if they really do need to get away from WP (which is indicated here). I'm no psychologist but even I can see that's pretty likely. I don't see any need to start having a go at Tan over his actions here which he has explained clearly. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is "having a go" at Tan here. I have the utmost respect for Tan as an admin but disagree that blocking the account was the best course of action.That's not having a go. Theresa Knott | token threats

Please, Theresa, keep your bile at arms length and assume good faith - at what point did I say YOU were "having a go"? No doubt you will stump up the diff or retract your comment... Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF? What bile? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF? No diff? Let's take it to our talk pages Theresa. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see no harm in giving them what they ask for, now that Tan has changed the autoblock setting. I'd always wondered about the rationale behind the "no self-requested blocks" policy; if anything, blocking on request prevents the logical next step, which is continuous vandalism until blocked. Glad to see it was changed, I hadn't noticed that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? Things like this don't always fit a nice and tidy rule. That's the way it works in dealing with humans. Sometimes compliance with these requests is warranted; sometimes it's not. What harm was done by complying? If I had the tools, I'd have done the same thing as Tan, for the same reason. --Elliskev 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this should be marked as "resolved"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. With the reasoning, "Typical ANI endless discussion" --Elliskev 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment addition - It should be resolved by an admin, however. --Elliskev 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note - For context, see [57] and [58]. The account's definitely not compromised. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I had read those before commenting. I concluded that they were irrelevant out of respect to the requesting editor. The requesting editor asked that the reasons not be considered. Hurt feelings aren't healed by having them aired to the world. --Elliskev 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested blocks should not be done. Prodego ^talk 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Not to be abrasive, but seriously - what's the issue with them? Granted, however, that we probably need to take this to WT:BLOCK for a decent discussion and not here. Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion might make sense at WT:BLOCK, but it's irrelevant here. --Elliskev 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OH. Yeah. I concur with User:Pedro. --Elliskev 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I agree with Pedro's sentiments to the letter. So much so I almost posted a similar message, but it's late and I couldn;t be bothered to type it out. We don't, but is there an actual reason why not? Ale_Jrb^talk 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLOCK? Where in that does it say that blocks are to be applied on request? Or you proposing that administrators should just make up the rules as they see fit? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I am proposing that this be marked as resolved.

I would like to continue on for the fun of it, but I do think we should not be focusing so much on this when we've already discussed it for too long. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that everything that can be said probably has been. The fact that the discussion now has got to the point where personal attacks are being added (which I removed) shows that it should probably be closed. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. --Elliskev 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Above was a response to the removed attack. Not to Theresa Knott. For the record... --Elliskev 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your response before I removed the attack. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Notice: I have started a discussion at WT:BLOCK regarding this. I think it's worth some input. --Elliskev 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing by User:Sarandioti

I have recently proposed that the article on Chameria be merged into that of Cham Albanians. User:Sarandioti has taken it upon himself to notify his fellow Albanian editors [59] [60] [61]. Since all three of these editors are national-advocacy SPAs with a checkered past, I believe this constitutes disruptive canvassing. This user has a history of nationalist edit-warring, tendentious editing, an extremely confrontational, battleground mentality, and is in general highly disruptive, as evidenced [here] (and i can supply many more examples if necessary). Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I worry that he might try to turn that accusation back on you now, though I see exactly where you're coming from. ninety:one 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not invite or do anything like that. As most of them had participated in a previous discussion for an article merge related to this one, I simply notified them for our new discussion on this new issue, which is related to our previous discussion in which most of them participated. The same thing you Athenean did here [62], [63]. I don't know what gave you this wrong impression. And JDelanoy clarified to me that I should discuss issues, which I do as you can see. I would appreciate it if you apologized. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP . Good. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that this misunderstanding was solved.--Sarandioti (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Infonerd2216's personal attacks and incivility

[[::User:Infonerd2216|Infonerd2216]] (talk · contribs) was unblocked last month after an indefinite ban on the condition that they adhere to WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL (see block log or [64]), but the latter has been breached.[65] —LOL ^T/_C 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvious incivility, although I don't see what deafness has to do with reading text. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-block

I am proposing a re-block for violating an agreement to a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL. Comments like "Did I ever say that I own any pages?!! Let me tell you something; I edit pages, not own them, moron! Try listening to what I am saying and maybe you won't have to be so deaf!" are a clear breach of that policy, in fact a breach of WP:NPA. The duration I propose is indefinite until he/she has learned their lesson. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick review of the talkpage does not indicate whether any violation of the agreed civility parole will result in a return to the indef block, so I would suggest that an initial sanction of 1 week will suffice in emphasising that the community is not prepared to tolerate further violations. It could also be made clear that any further backsliding will result in considerably longer blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing and incivility by User:Sanitycult

Following an uncivil post by Sanitycult (talk · contribs), I looked at the user page and found a pretty offensive bit of soapboxing. A request to remove it resulted in this unproductive exchange. I don't think there is anything more I can do here. I will notify the editor about this report. Looie496 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about any decicion made here, but thanks for informing me, I guess. Now if you excuse me, I'll be changing my IP and becomeing a different person in about twenty seconds, cheerio!Sanitycult (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading this userpage (which describes the LDS as "horribly dangerous free will hating bigots"), it seems to be an obvious candidate for deletion, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox or place for attacks. Would anyone like to nominate at at MFD (or simply delete it)? TNXMan 03:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage deleted, block under consideration. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And done, for 72 hours. Others feel free to unblock, but only if you feel this user is not going to continue his anti-Mormon campaigns here on Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the block, but I wonder what the editor meant by "becomeing [sic] another person". Are they confused on what using a different IP address means or are they intending to create one or more sock accounts? TNXMan 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

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

---

Resolved

 – As I said, we are done here. Prodego ^talk 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How are the usernames User:CigarAmbassador, User:Dead-dog-135, and User:Putputpoo not violations of the username policy? Iowateen (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How are they violations of the username policy? Algebraist 03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Offensive usernames: Dead dog. Offensive usernames: Cigar. Disruptive usernames: poo. The users that checked these said that they aren't violations. Iowateen (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How can 'poo' cause disruption? And who is offended by 'dead dog' or by 'cigar'? Algebraist 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Usernames with stuff like poo are usually used for vandalism (the account has only two vandalism edits also). Dog lovers would be offended by dead dog. Cigars are drugs. Iowateen (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You are also not an admin. Iowateen (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither are you. Do you have a point with this observation? Algebraist 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm requesting a reply from an admin hence the title of the page. Iowateen (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Poo" seems entirely inoffensive in this case. One of my dogs is right next to me and neither she nor I are offended by the name. And cigars aren't drugs. Anybody can comment here - you're not an admin either. Maybe you should stay away from the user creation queue? Acroterion _(talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, one of the most respected neuroscientists in this country is named Mu-Ming Poo. One should be careful about these things. (And I'm not an admin either.) Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So I can't ask a question without people treating me like crap. Iowateen (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your posts at UAA were handled appropriately by the reviewing administrators. Please do not forum-shop, and please do not assume bad faith of new users or treat non-administrators as second-class citizens. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith. Iowateen (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

People didn't start getting huffy until you got huffy about not getting a response from an admin. Until then we simply disagreed with you respectfully. (Admins are often hard to come by on Friday night, by the way -- they're busy handling the drunken vandals.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's possible for anyone to make mistakes, I don't know what forum shopping is, I thought the usernames were against the guidelines, and I thought that only admins could reply to questions in ANI. People that get blocked for inappropiate usernames are able to change them. Iowateen (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The names aren't offensive. Use WP:UAA in the future. This matter is closed... Prodego ^talk 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did use that and I thought that the admins possibily made a mistake so I brought it here which is what was already said. Iowateen (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence my comment on forum-shopping. We're done here. Acroterion _(talk) 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence I don't know what forum shopping is. Iowateen (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting an answer you don't like in one place and trying for a different one somewhere else. Acroterion _(talk) 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Badagnani category blanking again

Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of [Bazian language] origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? [66] At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaCarax

Time for a nice big long block. AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for edit-warring on In a Perfect World... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and today she did it again. Previous similar edits were here,here, here, here, here, here, here, ... hell, you get the drift.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaCarax opened as well.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

There's a backlog forming at WP:UAA could some kind admin do the honours? Ta muchly. --WebHamster 13:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

need help move

i need help moving my article Tom chesterfield to Tom Chesterfield