Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651

Disruptive editor at Plasmodium article

An editor, User:DrMicro has contributed a number of articles on obscure species of microorganisms--very useful. It now appears there may be a lot of WP:OR in these articles, which will have to be checked.

Right now, though, he insists that the Plasmodium article's taxobox must include a list of 274 species. Other editors, including myself, have tried to remove this list and put it in the article, but, for various, endless arguments, DrMicro insists the list can only be in the taxobox, not in the article, not in another article, nowhere but the taxobox.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] We have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page.[13]

He is now engaged in battles on OR, admitting his subgenus assignments are OR, which means they must be checked (see talk page link).[14]

This is not just a 3RR issue, it includes time needed to research and edit the list elsewhere without being accused by DrMicro of vandalism for moving the list from taxobox.[15][16][17][18][19] (It appears that 3 of these are not accusations, but mistakes, so this long list here might include only 1 or 2 actual such accusations, but also the accusations in edit summaries on the article as linked above.)

Can one level headed administrator assist in this matter? Protecting the article with the 274 species in the taxobox will not be helpful, as long lists of 100s of items are not the purpose of an information box on wikipedia. What would be helpful would be an attempt to ask DrMicro to simply stop editing the article for long enough for other editors to create a list in the article or elsewhere and investigate his OR on subgenera. The latter will require access to a research library. I am glad to do it, but not in the midst of being accused of vandalism for trying to make the taxobox readable. I think if he backed off for long enough for others to do any work, he would see that the list of 274 species can be located in a useful manner without being in the taxobox. However, this can't be demonstrated against his single-mindedness to maintain it only in the taxobox.

If it is reasonable to request the intervention of a single level headed administrator and one such person volunteers, please work on the article talk page or the user talk page as appropriate. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning to DrMicro, and I am now watching the page. Since it is clear that the issue has been extensively discussed and DrMicro's position is isolated (as well as unreasonable), I will respond to any further revert-warring with a suitable block. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I think your initial warning and monitoring will be sufficient result from this AN/I request. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the page for say 2 weeks without fear for the wrong version, and have people work it out. I am willing to assist with this discussion. I think the Drosophila article is an good example of how it can be solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am against protecting the wrong version because of the importance of this article and because the additional text in the taxobox crashes my (not-too)smartphone's browser. Still, if it amounts to that, there's not that great an inconvenience. I do like the Drosophila article, also. Please feel free to suggest it on the talk page, if you have not already. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help the New Editor

User talk:184.74.22.161 is not careful with WP:V or WP:UNDUE. Adds material from sites like www.lifesitenews.com and catholic.com [20], quotes bunch of people without specifying why they are significant (same diff), gives too much space to a non-significant person disagreeing with entire scientific organizations [21]. This behaviour repeats itself in articles like Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage and the family.Phoenix of9 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to warrant an AN/I discussion; furthermore, note that the IP is engaging in discussion and is attempting to address your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 appears to be doing their best to solve this dispute. They have even indicated their willingness to remove information they have added simply to satisfy another user (User:Phoenix_of9) here. I see no problem with their behaviour, if this is the concern at hand. Tomayres (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding violent Christian material, this is a problem. See the section below. Phoenix of9 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not 'keep' doing anything. I have responded to your second ANI below. Tomayres (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a POV pushing problem

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 who appears to be the same as (vanished) User:DarlieB is adding citations which don't support the text at The Man Who Would Be Queen (see talk page there and [22]). This seems to be a long term problem. I've notified the parties to that discussion and two administrators (Looie496 and DGG) who probably have full-text access to the academic journal cited. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) this specific question is a matter for the RS noticeboard, where most of the prior discussion has been. If it is brought there, I will comment. If anyone want the full text of the short note meanwhile, email me. But as a more general matter, the entire history of the article is marked by selective and repetitive quotations, intended only to appear to advance an argument, and this applies not just to one side of the question. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User Ssilvers

Resolved

Explanation by Ssilvers is accepted Mjroots (talk)

I'm raising the issue of editing to the Ellen Terry article by Ssilvers (talk · contribs) here as this editor seems to be saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

I added the {{Tenterden}} template to the article at 18:51 yesterday. Ssilvers removed it at 21:48 as a "tangentially related navbox". Terry lived in Tenterden for 28 years, so the template is hardly tangentially related and the Ellen Terry article is linked on the template. I reverted the removal at 21:48, with an explanation for this in my edit summary. I also explained the reversion at 22:00 on the article's talk page. I also notified Ssilvers of the revert at 22:02, which he removed at 22:03 with an edit summary stating that he was fine with the revert.

At 22:13, Ssilvers removed the template again, yet made no mention of the removal in his edit summary. I'm making no comment on the rest of that edit, but the removal of the template after stating that he was fine with it and with a false edit summary is bordering on disruptive editing or a ownership issue. I've readded the template, and stand by my edit summary.

Apart from discussing the issue, which I have attempted to do without success, is there anything else I can do apart from raising the issue here? I'm unable to take any administrative action myself as I'm involved in the issue, but I will state that I don't believe that this is a blocking issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I am mystified by that edit I made. I must have mistakenly gone back to a much earlier version of the article by mistake. I certainly did not intend to delete all that text, images, etc. While it is true that I deleted the insertion by Mjroots of the {{Tenterden}} template earlier in the day (and don't think it should go in the article), I did not intend to delete it a second time, so sorry about that Mjroots. I was going to leave it there, although now that we're here, what do other people think about that? Anyhow, I think I have now restored the article and included the most important edits made by a third editor today. Any comments or further corrections are welcome. Best regards, and again, sorry for my sloppiness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, explanation and apology accepted. Let's close this and move on. Mjroots (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see that I had been reviewing edits back in October 2009 and mistakenly edited that version instead of the new version. Again, sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would still be interested in any experienced editor's take on this navbox and the ones referenced on my talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden blocked

I have blocked User:Colonel Warden indefinitely (see below) for disruptive editing.

• This offense: Moving tags from the top of an article to the bottom, in defiance of convention codified at WP:TC, here. I asked him to explain himself four and a half hours ago, and have received no reply.
  • His prior warning, for a similar incident less than two weeks ago (Nov 10th), as discussed previously at ANI, is here.
• Other recent and relevant incidents that contribute to this outcome:
  • Moving articles during AfD in a manner that disrupted the AfD outcome. The discussion was held less than a week ago, on November 16th. A topic ban proposal I authored but opposed received less than 50% support.
  • Omitting the un-redirecting of an article in an edit summary, as raised by User:Kww on my talk page on November 15th, at which point I again warned him. Note that Colonel Warden has been reprimanded for such edit summary omissions as early as December, 2008 here at ANI.
  • Improperly non-administratively closing an AfD discussion to which no speedy keep criterion applied, on October 14th, less than six weeks ago.

Sadly, Colonel Warden's involvement at ANI goes back years. While there is no doubt he contributes meaningfully to the encyclopedia. His conduct has been deficient in so many ways, despite multiple warnings and ANI threads, that the disruption is unconscionable; as a long-time contributor, his competence has not been questioned, so attributing ever-shifting deviations from editing expectations to simple mistakes strains credulity.

Unblocking terms

I do not believe in punitive or hand-slapping blocks, so I've blocked Colonel Warden indefinitely. Not infinitely, but until such time as the community and Colonel Warden are able to come to a mutual agreement about the conditions under which he may positively and productively participate in Wikipedia. While the community may feel free to support additional outcomes, I recommend one of the following:

• Unblock immediately the block itself will serve as a warning against Colonel Warden taking disruptive actions in the future, and waiting for him to apologize and/or promise not to do it again might be construed as punitive and/or coercing crocodile tears from him.
• Craft a community restriction as a condition of unblocking, akin to the one I proposed last week which failed to achieve consensus. I leave the specifics to someone else.

It's my hope that Colonel Warden will choose to edit with appropriate caution and respect for the deletion process, and I encourage the community's input on how we can best accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make sure I understand the timeline:
  • he makes that edit at 12:46 yesterday
  • he stops editing at 16:something today
  • you warn him about the edit at 18:58 today
  • he does not log in
  • you block him at 23:something today

Is that about right? I guess my suggestion then would be to unblock immediately and wait for him to answer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Colonel Warden was warned on November 15 about his behavior. He continued anyway. I say let the block stand until conditions for his unblock can be agreed upon. AniMate 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As the question was put to me: is there anything Colonel Warden would have said in explanation that would have altered the situation, given the spate of recent warnings he's received? I'm not opposed to unblocking him and admitting my error if he managed to convince me he was wrong, but that seems sufficiently unlikely to make delaying the response unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See: User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again, where much of this was initially discussed.

Someone craft some sort of restriction, such as last week's, plus a general restriction re disruption. The block should stand, in the meantime.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support open-ended block until he agrees to conditions such as...

1. No editing of article maintenance and/or cleanup tags (ie. adding them is fine, but moving and/or deleting is not);
2. No moving of articles currently at any stage in the deletion process;
3. No actions regarding the deletion process other than nomination and participation in discussions (ie. no removing PROD-tags, no closing XfDs etc.);
4. All edits to be accompanied by a comprehensive summary to the extent that a reasonable person would expect;

I tend to think that this would make all our lives a bit easier. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific on the edit summaries: "not undo or modify any redirects without explicitly stating in his edit summary that he is undoing a redirect and explaining the policy or guideline which justifies his change."—Kww(talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really object to that, though it would absolutely have been covered by a requirement for comprehensive edit-summaries as construed by the man on the Clapham omnibus... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd question whether forbidding the removal of PROD tags is necessarily appropriate. My understanding is that any deprod is considered valid, even if done in bad faith. I would not question, however, requiring strict compliance with WP:CONTESTED, especially requiring the use of {{deprod}} if it's felt there's substantial disruption of the PROD process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has the habit of adding extremely dodgy sources to articles in order to removed PROD tags. It's apparent to me that the tag shouldn't be removed until a second editor has had a chance to review.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think TT has hit on all the relevant points of CW's disruptive behavior. Thanks to JClemens for accurately reading the situation taking the necessary action. SnottyWong ^gab 23:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support TreasuryTag's restrictions. AniMate 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — This is good stuff, but it's missing:

  "Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months." (from Jclemens' thread in the prior ANI)

  This is the crux of his disruption. And, ya, I see that this could break the proposal.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Let's go with restricting the behavior first. If he acts up, we can always remove him from AfDs at a later time. AniMate 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sigh. I do support this, but maintain that more is necessary and hope others will nudge things further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm being a pragmatist. There's no way the Keep Squad will let him be blocked from AfDs. I do hope that consensus is reached for these restrictions, but I also think this block should stand for a couple of days. I can see no good faith reason for him to move those tags. AniMate 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I see that; and that, too. Does teh {{rescue}} template work on ANI threads? ;) The 'necessary' can be layered-on per subsequent discussion. I have significant experience with the "You're blocked" message, mostly when I tried, I was actually focused on 'viewing source', here, for efforts related to other projects. It's damned-effective at conveying the community's ire, so I agree that it should stand for days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I am often offended, but never surprised at the things you two say. Thank you for your kind comments, Deletionist Cabal. (/sarcasm, but not) Silverseren^C 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block and Support proposed restrictions/conditions for unblock. Not sure about the ban from AfD, OK either way. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, Support TT's unblock requirements proposal, Oppose AfD topic ban. CW's behavior is clearly disruptive, but topic ban is probably too much at this point, and as AniMate says, it can always be done later if needed. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Confused - Warning on 15th was for removing a citation needed tag; not moving one (for which no warning seems to have been issued). There seems to be one and only one article this was done to (I didn't find a second in the edit history, and only one diff on his talk page). Is this a disruption block or a community patience exhausted block? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's both. Colonel Warden has been behaving in a disruptive manner and people are tired of it. AniMate 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• And This ANI gives more background to the maintenance tags disruption issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• My comments at User talk:Colonel Warden#Explain yourself. in response to his comments there may be illuminating. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's evident to ANI participants that CW has not been making friends and influencing people, yet I don't see a pattern of serious disruption. Pops up, is resolved, something else pops up a month later, seems resolved, something else a month after that...

I don't know what that pattern makes; I would think "User conduct RFC" on first impression, not an indef for disruption.

Usually, I notice if people here are actually reaching the edge of truly exhausted community patience. I never got the sense of that here, with CW. I have no pretention that I couldn't just be missing the pattern - there's godawful much more stuff going on around here than any one human can coherently drink from the firehose. But I'm surprised.

Surprise is making me want evidence. There's A (singular) diff for the current block. There has been a tendency for there to be large ANI threads in the past with one or two diffs, and not a good pattern shown there either. I haven't seen a fully developed history of ANI incidents, etc.

In the name of fairness and reasonable information - I would like to request that someone pull together a reasonable evidence section for this request, so that people not closely following the CW saga can get a better picture of the events which are being argued warrant relatively significant enforcement.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap: Colonel Warden was first discussed at ANI for a clear pattern of inappropriately removing cleanup tags, and continuing this behavior after ignoring a warning on his talk page. See the original thread here and the following diffs: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. He was given a clear warning in that ANI thread that he should not continue this behavior. Four days later he continued his behavior, as can be seen here. He was again given another warning on his talk page (by Jclemens), and was discussed at length at User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. Despite the knowledge that he is skating on thin ice with regard to cleanup tags, he made yet another disruptive edit only a week after his second warning, where instead of deleting cleanup tags, he moved them to the bottom of the page. Technically, moving them to the bottom of the page isn't the same as deleting them, but it accomplishes the same thing and shouldn't be viewed any differently (lest we play into CW's thinly veiled attempt to game the system and avoid a block on a technicality). Hopefully this recap puts the pattern in perspective. SnottyWong ^communicate 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block, Support unblock requirement, but no topic-ban from AfD yet unless CW repeats anything like the moving of articles or closing AfDs wrongly (per above). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• #2 is unnecessary, as explained at length before. AFD is designed to accommodate this. You're going with the pile-on-everything-and-anything approach to this sort of thing, which is never good, as experience should have taught at least some of the people in this discussion. Stick to just the things that are actually problems. Read the prior discussion about page moves, don't just blindly hyperlink to it, to see what Colonel Warden said on the subject, including what xe said xe would do in the future. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that assessment. #2 does seem to be somewhat tangential to the immediate issue at hand. The pattern of disruptively moving articles during AfD is not as clear as the cleanup tag problem, and so it is plausible to AGF in that case and assume it was an isolated mistake. In addition, CW seems to have actually made an effort to correct that behavior. SnottyWong ^chat 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Support a topic ban preventing him from editing AfDs and articles that are the subjects of AfDs for a reasonable period or until he agrees not to act disruptively by moving articles, citing "sources" that he presumably knows are not relevant to establishing the notability of topics, and all the other tricks he's developed. (Ventriloquizing A Nobody seems a particularly poor choice of tactic, given that editor's ultimate fate.) Deor (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse two week block with topic ban I think changing the block to two weeks and after the block is up an indefinite topic ban to prevent further disruption. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse To some extent I feel this is building a mountain out of a molehill, but I agree his actions seem designed to disrupt and/or annoy other users. I'd really like to have a just "don't be disruptive" clause and move along, but I don't know that will work. So: Endorse 4 for certain, 3 assuming that doesn't mean he can't work to improve an article (though I think removing prods should be fine) and 1 assuming it doesn't mean he can't ask others to check an article and remove the tags if they think they should go (otherwise we end up with tags where they need to be removed and we are worse off). Weakly oppose 2 per Uncle G. I'd like to see a time limit on all this (say 6 months) at least #1. Oh, oppose other bans/blocks/etc. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and support some form of restrictions: I felt that the AFD mess was a genuine mistake, and the article was dramatically improved. But I talked to Colonel several weeks ago about moving maintenance templates and deleting them without addressing the issues - the excuse being that they were cosmetically not very nice. This is a recurring issue and CW is definitely aware of community views on the matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the community is aware of the views of the editorship at large and in practice on the matter, though. There's a reason that Wikipedia:Perennial proposals includes this. I can name several prominent editors — SimonP, David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Philip Baird Shearer spring immediately to mind — who have over the years expressed their dislike of the festivals of coloured boxes that some articles become, or who have objected to the notion that all tags should go at the top of an article in a big banner blindness lump. Even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags it has already been mentioned that not all maintenance tags create boxes, let alone go at the top of the article, even now. The community is not nearly as unanimous on this subject in practice as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup would lead one to think. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and support topic ban. Colonel Warden should be banned from dicking around with maintenance tags, editing in any way articles under discussion at AfD and using deceptive edit summaries. These are the three major ways his behaviour has been disruptive. I would have recommended an unblock as well, but since he's now wringing his hands and moaning about how hard done by he is (as though he doesn't know full well that his behaviour has been dodgier than the Average Joes buying a second-hand Dodge Charger in Dodge City), I support about a week-long block. I do not support banning him from commenting in AfD discussions. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever. Seems unlikely that giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is going to improve the encyclopaedia if next to no one with real talent wants to editor here anymore. Unless the Colonel is set free, there certainly wont be anymore of my hauntingly beautiful literary articles or very expert work on the interplay between international finance, politics and economic affairs. But maybe you guys know what youre doing... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is a deliberate misreading of the situation, as you well know. Why would you even bother? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Favor Unblock: No doubt CW is ruffling some feathers intentionally here, but I say let the block expire in a typical amount of time (24/48 hours?) like a normal block punishment. Going directly to an indefinite block does not seem to fit this "crime" if it indeed was a crime. Now, I know its quite horrible that CW gets upset in AfD when notable topic articles are nominated for deletion when the articles are in bad shape, but could be improved. Perhaps if CW was an admin and, say, deleted a slew of unreferenced BLPs along with eyebrow raising declarations and caused mayhem by it he would be rewarded for it, but instead he chooses to try to improve articles. Punish behavior that violates rules when we must, but don't punish his good goals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• But no block is meant to be a punishment ever. Blocks are preventative not punitive. In other words there is no such thing as a punishment that fits the crime. There are preventative measures that fit the disruption and indefinite blocks followed by discussions of long term solutions prior to unblock certainly fit this current disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block until this user demonstrates that he gets it, and ceases the annoyingly disruptive behavior that leads us to An/I week after week after week. I'm also concerned about DGG's willingness to unblock a fellow ARS comrade, as this is similarly protective/enabling behavior shown for menaces like "A Nobody". This is not a healthy mentality, and certainly not what one would expect from an admin. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Hopefully the RFC/U will bring desired results, if it can avoid being hijacked by the fan club. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews from uninvolved users

Can we get more uninvolved administrator comments here? Please use this section for admin comments, community members use the general section above. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can repeat or move what I said above, if you like: I have no prior involvement with CW and I endorse the block and support the restrictions/conditions for an unblock. I suspect I am not the only uninvolved admin who posted above. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not 100% sure I like the admin/nonadmin dichotomy (although the involved/uninvolved distinction might be useful), but I won't fight it right now. I'm a little uncomfortable with how this played out, and for a long term editor editing in good faith and no emergency, I would have preferred an RFCU before a block. It's quite possible that CW will need to modify his behavior some, but I don't think the long term pattern of disruption is nearly as clear cut as has been implied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well you should; the Community consists of uninvolved users - not simply uninvolved administrators, so the unsubtle/subtle attempts to change this set up is not acceptable. ANI is not an AE board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin response: I find this entire thing to be utterly ridiculous. The recent AfD thing was, as I raised my opinion there, not an important issue and a mistake on CW's part, which left an improved article all in all. Furthermore, why the heck does someone get indefinitely banned when they move some tags on an article to the bottom of an article? I've seen this done a number of times by various users and i've never heard of WP:TC before this discussion. The edit summary thing from the 16th not really an issue at all. If it was being used to cover up vandalism or perpetuate a edit war, that would be one thing. And then, bringing up something from six weeks ago that is on a subject that has nothing to do with this is strange. Again, this seems like an over-reaction. Silverseren^C 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• How many mistakes does Colonel Warden get in his participation in AfD's and article rescue? Is he incompetent or gaming the system? You tell me; either way, his actual conduct has been consistently below that we expect of editors. Warnings haven't worked--I've given him two recently. You tell me what it will take to get Colonel Warden to participate in a forthright manner, and I'll back it 100%. If there's consensus on the circumstances under which he can be unblocked and contribute, I'll be happy to either do it myself or have any handy administrator do it. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sure you're not really that dumb, Seren. If you're told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that persistently removing maintenance tags is disruptive, do you think "OK I will stop doing that", or as CW has, do you think "well, I'm going to ignore all those people, but if I delete the tags I'll get blocked - so how can I get rid of them without actually deleting them ... oh I know, I'll move them to the bottom of the page where no-one can see them!". The former is what most editors would do, the latter is deliberate disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the tags down, following all that, was blockworthy disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not making any assumptions on CW's motives. I'm pointing out that numerous people put or move tags related to references or categories to the associated sections near the bottom. If you wish to assume bad faith about CW, feel free to do so, but i'm not that type of person. Silverseren^C 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Really? How prevalent are {{Article issues}} tags at the bottom of articles? How many other editors move tags there during AfD discussions? How many editors do so when they've been warned multiple times in the past couple of weeks for odd and unusual editing patterns that have disrupted AfDs? Go read his latest response and tell me what you see: a user acknowledging that his editing style has consistently been held to be not up to expectations? A user who admits he should have known better? What do you see? Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I've read thousands upon thousands of articles on en.WP and cannot recall ever once seeing those colour-banded worry tags at the bottom of an article, until I saw the CW diff. I guess they get put down there now and then but I think it's fair to say, it almost never happens. Ss says, "numerous people put or move tags [...] near the bottom." I'd truly like to see some diffs showing this, because putting them at the bottom utterly thwarts what they're meant to do, which is to make a reader aware of any editorial worries before they begin reading. I also think this is why CW put them at the bottom, he was hiding them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The only cleanup tags that routinely goes at the bottom of the page are ones that pertain to categories. Also, if a user is not familiar with (or has "never heard of") WP:TC, then they really shouldn't be touching cleanup tags at all. That's like an admin who is unaware of WP:BLOCK going around blocking people for no reason. SnottyWong ^babble 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct that the Article issues tag is not likely to be moved down, but i'm willing to believe that that was an accident or mistake on CW's part, as he did also move down the reference list and categories tags. I really don't see the harm in doing so, however, which is why I still believe that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The tags have little to do with an AfD discussion, since its supposed to be about the notability of the article subject, not the number of tags slapped on the article. And I did read his latest response and I thought it well-thought out and it addressed the various points that you have raised, especially on pointing out that WP:TC is neither a policy or a guideline. And he has a good point in the fact that you have been rather negative toward him in the past few weeks. Silverseren^C 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to each of CW's points on his talk page. You're right that WP:TC is neither a policy nor a guideline. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes) clearly is a relevant, long-standing guideline which states that such templates "go at the top of articles/sections, and identify problems or issues with the article." The argument that there is no consensus for the proper location of cleanup tags is pretty tenuous. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And you expect him to know about every aspect of the manual of style? I know very little about it myself and certainly nothing about individual pages of it. Silverseren^C 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. Yes, I expect a user with 20,000+ edits to be familiar with the MOS. Is that too much to ask? Even if he's not familiar with that particular page of the MOS, I would expect any editor who has looked at tens of thousands of articles to be capable of recognizing the pattern that everyone puts cleanup tags at the top of the article. Everyone. I would bet the farm that if we programmed a bot to look at every article on Wikipedia that has a cleanup tag (with the exception of category-related tags, or tags that only refer to a section and not the whole article), at least 99.99% of the articles would have the cleanup tags at the top of the article. I only have made less than a third of the edits that CW does, and I am familiar with the convention and have no problem understanding it. This is wikilawyering at its best. As many have said already: if he doesn't understand the conventions and guidelines for cleanup tags by this point, then he is completely incompetent. If he does understand them, then he is purposely disrupting. Either way, we don't need completely incompetent people nor do we need intentionally disruptive people on WP. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think almost experienced editor is bound to understand that the tags are wholly thwarted if they're not at the top, where a reader will see them before they begin reading the text. Why else would CW have put them at the bottom? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, and support an unblock once an RFC/U is opened, as per above by Floquenbeam. Nakon 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unless he gives an indication of what he'll stop doing, or understands what he should avoid doing, I think in this case (right at this point in time), formal restrictions would prolong the agony of it all. Endorse RfC/U by involved parties. But note, in an RfC/U, the only place he would be able to respond is in his response section, and on the RfC/U talk page. No comment on the block or potential unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as strongly as I possibly can. As I see there is not unanimous support for JC, I am willing to unblock, though I like to avoid conflict and would prefer if someone else did it, and to oppose any topic ban. This is a ridiculous attack on an excellent editor and one of the most helpful contributors to AfD-- based on what are trivial misdemeanors. (I am not being uncritical: there was a short burst of what looked like WP:POINt in the past, which did need attention, and received it. Had he continued on large scale detagging U would not be supporting him, but these are individual articles.) The additional events are as minor as can reasonably be imagined. Removing a single citation needed tag is cause for a talk page discussion not a block. I have removed many unnnecessary and disruptive such citation needed tags, (along, of course, with adding others when they are needed). If someone removes a tag I've placed, And if the matter is moving a tag, that's about as trivial an offense as can be imagined. Seizing on this as a attack for a block must have am motive, and I cannot think of a good one. I do not try to block them. What else is there, Jclemens? You've never to my knowledge been this unreasonable before, and there must be some reason--do you think perhaps he is personally out to spite you in particular--if so, you should not be blocking. If an RfC is needed, open one, but remember that such action tend to lead to the comments about everyone concerned. The idea of blocking until an RfC is opened is total nonsense--what purpose is supposed to be served by that? Punish first, and discuss afterwards? DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since the consensus here is very clearly that some sort of block is appropriate, I would suggest unblocking before the community has decided on a plan going forward would be extremely unwise. Incidentally, how would an RFC on Colonel Warden involve the actions of anyone else? Who else has been disrupting AfD, screwing around with maintenance tags until they got blocked, and using deceptive edit summaries here? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• How disruptive does an editor that is trying to "save articles" have to get before you would act, DGG? You defended Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles well past any sane point, and Colonel Warden has always been a similar problem editor. It is apparent that Colonel Warden has determined that the most effective way to "save articles" is to disrupt the deletion process. We can't afford to have editors around that intentionally disrupt processes.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• DGG, this is exactly the type of sentiment that enables CW to continue his disruptive behavior. There has never been an acknowledgement of, apology for, or promise to cease CW's cleanup tag jihad. Unblocking him now (before we have seen that acknowledgement, or decided on a topic ban) would send him the message that what he did wasn't really disruptive, and he can continue to find ways to push his POV about how cleanup tags should be used. Also, if I might add, a wheel war unblock coming from someone who is a good friend of CW could be interpreted as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. To this point, no one other than friends of CW have opposed these actions. SnottyWong ^chat 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SW, reverting another admins block is not wheel warring. Reimposing it would be. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. Struck through. SnottyWong ^converse 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, but only pending the filing of an RfC/U. Despite the problems I've had with this user in the past, the blocking does seem a little harsh given the rather quick turnaround time after the final warning. With that said, the community definitely does not approve of the good Colonel's behaviour, and examining the issues rationally in a less heated environment than ANI might be helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
• Neutral comment I understand Jclemens' thinking behind the block. I would have thought a short block for disruption followed by discussion, maybe or maybe not leading to an RfCU, would have been more fitting. Now that this has happened, an unblock (as in "shortened to time already blocked") followed by talking with CW about these worries is most likely the way to go from here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at CW's talk page, I no longer think an unblock will help much. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• endorse block Several threads have been started to talk with Colonel Warden and yet he carries on from one disruptive activity to the next, barely escaping blocks each time. It finally caught up with him and this really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Colonel Warden has been a pain in the side to the AFD crew, Some type of further action needs to be discussed. I think an RFC/U is best course right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose the block because no disruptive editing has been cited. It's only convention that places tags at the top--the bottom may well work better for all I know. It is quite in order to move articles during AfD, especially if in doing so one resolves issues that would otherwise lead to deletion of the article. So let's see some actual evidence of disruption, please. He should be unblocked if none is forthcoming. --TS 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, CW is a long-term disruptive editor: as noted in Jclemens's summary above, he's been using false edit summaries for years despite complaints. Snottywong provided a good recap of the most recent troubles here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a content dispute. There is absolutely no requirement to place cleanup tags according to some preset formula. If JClemens has been harassing this editor because he's doing it differently, he's doing it wrong. That isn't how Wikipedia works, and JClemens and all others should know it. --TS 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The MoS guideline about it says they go at the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the entire thread and/or the previous ones linked above. When an editor is told by multiple uninvolved editors at their umpteenth visit to ANI that they are being disruptive by removing clearly valid maintenance tags from articles at AfD with deceptive edit summaries (and this after previous disruptions of the AfD process), then would you not suggest to them that deliberately yanking the communities' chain by instead moving the maintenance tags at an article at AfD to the bottom of the article (where they won't be seen) isn't a good idea?. Wouldn't you? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse good grief. Been using misleading edit summaries for years, stating stuff exists in sources that, when examined, is not found there, refuses to be straigthforward about his behavior, uses manifestly bad sources and refuses to correct that behavior and, yes, continues to seek to remove tags after repeated warnings to stop doing so. Only unblock if you get a promise to change the behavior (which would require an acknowledgement that he's been refusing to heed advice from multiple editors for a long period of time). If he continue to insist that he doesn't understand what's going on, then leave him indeffed. Taking him at his word (that he really hasn't understood all this communication) that's a competence problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and unblock length reduction with suitable conditions. By convention tags are placed the top (with very few exceptions, and {{article issues}} is not one of them). As an experienced user, CW knows or should have known that, especially given that they left the {{rescue}} tag, which they added in the same edit, at the top. With them having been previously warned for disruptive removal of tags, I do not see how it is possible to interpret this edit as anything other than intentional disruption. The incident itself may be minor, but the disruptive intent is evident, and it is the latter that matters. T. Canens (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• After reading their bizarre interpretation of WP:DE on their talk page (as far as I can follow it, the argument goes that, because it is disruption to "disrupt[] progress toward improving an article", and because their edit, in part, "improved the article" by adding references, questioning that edit - even if unrelated to the references - is disruption). Either they are intentionally wikilawyering, or they are totally clueless. I think a reduction is appropriate once the conditions/restrictions are worked out, but I am no longer convinced that time served is a good option here. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really involved in the current dispute, but I've had run-ins with Colonel Warden in the past (in particular, on bus route AFDs). I'm seeing an editor who perhaps had good intentions at one point, but now seems to have gone past disruption point. There's a reason we're called editors, and Colonel doesn't seem to understand that. Editing involves removing as well as adding material. I endorse the block and the restrictions mentioned. A ban on AFDs is a good idea, perhaps for the future, as this is where most of his disruption originates. AD 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm amazed by this. Or perhaps I should not be . This is a classic example of piling on when someone whose has a position one does not like has made some trivial errors. It's the sort of bullying which remains present at Wikipedia. The way of resolving disputes, especially content disputes, here has tended to be to wait until the opposing party has done something wrong, and then seize on it to get rid of them, without the need to address the real issue. It'a a manner of proceeding which does us the highest degree of discredit. This is one of the most absurdly exaggerated examples I have seen here. In this case, it's based not about a specific content issue, but an general one about the way of improving Wikipedia. The people opposing the Col are, for the most part, people who have dedicated themselves to improving Wikipedia by removing articles, some in a less reasonable manner than others. The Col takes the other approach entirely--of rescuing whatever can possibly be rescued, and he does it by rewriting and sourcing articles. This method of preventing deletion is indeed impossible to answer,for if one fixes an article enough, neutral people almost always !vote to keep it. It therefore should not surprise me that those who are frustrated by his success might seek to stop him.

with regards to some comments above: I supported A Nobody because I basically agreed with what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, he adopted for some reason I have never understood a very peculiar way of discussing things at inordinate length, with excessive repetition, and an affected style. This style not unreasonable annoyed a great many people of all persuasions and eventually made it impossible to defend him,and, beyond a certain point, I did not do so. The col, however, works for the most part in an entirely beneficial manner, and will be much easier to defend. There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him. He is not perfect, and the one charge against him that is correct is misleading edit summaries. I do not know why he does it, for I doubt they actually mislead anybody. It is not reason for a block, and if sentiment is otherwise, it's reason for a very short one, in order to give the earliest possible opportunity to show improvement. I therefore suggest shortening the block to time served. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nothing to do with disagreeing with a user's opinion. It's how the opinion is presented and forced into articles in a disruptive manner. It's nothing about bullying - victims of bullying do nothing to attract the bully, and yet Colonel Warden frequents AFDs and votes to keep pretty much everything, and has on several occasion made several disruptive actions which cannot be seen as good faith. That is not a sign of innocence. It's easy to play the bully card, but your understanding of what bullying is, is flawed. I'ts nothing at all to do with stopping his "success" - it's stopping his disruptive editing. It does not surprise me to see inclusionists supporting his disruptive behaviour. As I don't believe in having agendas on Wikipedia, I look at every article objectively so I cannot be considered a deletionist - or as you might believe, an "enemy" of Colonel - so it's not like it's people getting their revenge. Really he has had numerous opportunities to show improvement and has completely failed to, so what makes him so special that he is above the rules? AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to press one or two admins of my acquaintance to consider whether they would unblock this editor on the condition that he await the outcome of an RFC on his conduct before resuming his contributions at AfD, his work on redirects, and his use of tags on articles. To my mind none of this conduct is actually disruptive, but I recognize that it is widely considered (at least in this discussion) to be "the wrong way to act." If this fellow is really so disruptive, perhaps it should be made more apparent to those of us who would otherwise actually think the chap might be making legitimate and even beneficial edits. --TS 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He's already unblocked, but regardless it's safe to say that you don't seem to be understanding the concerns here. AD 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I didn't want to see this editor hided off to hell for allegedly engaging in the kind of editing I assume is quite in order on Wikipedia. I don't understand what the problem is, and I want to see it explained. --TS 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked, RFC/U to start

In light of multiple, reasoned opinions that an RFC/U is the proper place to establish patterns of editing and appropriate expectations and restrictions, I have unblocked Colonel Warden. While the consensus is clear here that blocking was not incorrect, I do not believe that leaving Colonel Warden blocked for the duration of a drawn-out discussion is warranted. An RFC/U, incorporating the discussion from this ANI thread so far, seems to be the proper venue going forward.
At the same time, I'm interested in stepping out of this particular case. I would rather that someone else could start the RFC/U and proceed from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens. You've done a good job here to get the ball rolling. AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. It's pretty clear from CW's talk page that he does not understand how wrong his behaviour is. If that's willful, that's one problem, if it's due to real lack of comprehension, it's another. I don't see anything that happened between the block being made and the block being lifted that signals that any meaningful change will occur.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you unblocked, but at the same time I'm disappointed to see that CW's regular tactic of just waiting it out and letting the pressure build has worked. Throughout all of the warnings and ANI threads, we still have not seen an acknowledgement from CW that there is a problem, or that he is aware that he's doing something wrong. I would have hoped for that to be a minimum prerequisite for an unblock. If anything, the comments on his talk page have shown that he believes there is no problem at all. While I tire of the drama related to this, I am not ready to let this go. I will start a draft RFC/U on a user subpage. Anyone is free to edit it before I post it. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you've got supposedly reliable admins like DGG verging on personal attacks with "There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him", what else do you expect? I hope this - which is effectively enabling disruption - will certainly be brought up in the RFCU. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I weighed that, Snottywong. If Colonel Warden edits in a manner inconsistent with best practices at this point, someone else can block him. I'm pretty thick skinned, and I'm OK with the abuse I've taken to date, but it's really time for someone else to take over. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is expected; I outlined this on your talk page, yesterday. I do thank you for your overall approach. I expect to certify or endorse whatever emerges; TBD, of course, and I'll certainly opine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, another disruptive user pointlessly moved to RfC/U. ANI is the exact spot to discuss a disruptive user. From a rough look there was a significant majority supporting the block. You've done nothing to curb his behaviour by doing this and only further enabled him to continue it. He now knows that even with a majority of people supporting him being blocked the blocking admin will just turn around and unblock him. Bravo. RfC/U is non-binding and does nothing to serve the community in this instance.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the RFC? I've been shown a draft linked from somebody's talk page, but it looked like a joke. Where is the RFC? Presumably the evidence is easy to come by. Put it on a page and let's look at it. --TS 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare the RfC not be filed immediately! Clearly not having this filed less than 12 hours after the unblock occurred means none of the complaints are valid. True many people in the US are gearing up for a major holiday, but that just proves even further how baseless all of these complaints are. Thanks goodness we have Tony Sidaway here making such helpful comments. AniMate 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty sickening to see a bunch of minor issues blown up by the mob like this. Can't you just accept that some inclusionists are going to edit Wikipedia alongside you deletionists? Fences&Windows 02:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I know eh? I refuse to go anywhere near deletion debates unless absolutely necessary after I see the way those things degenerate so quickly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the Evil Scary Kitten-Eating Deletionist Legion of Doom can't accept that at all. We think all disagreement with our mission to destroy the universe and kick puppies is disruptive and so we constantly drag all outspoken inclusionists to ANI on trumped up charges. Why, just look at all the ANI threads concerning, say, DGG or Milowent or Silver Seren. Mwaaaahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Oh, wait... Seriously, though, I don't accept that people who lie in edit summaries, fake sources, and obstruct cleanup efforts by removing maintenance tags without fixing the problems, are going to edit Wikipedia alongside other users who act in good faith. Attempting to excuse this kind of thing by trying to paint it as an ideological dispute is missing the point and not very helpful. If it was just this one thing, I would agree with you that it's making a mountain out of a molehill. But this is just the last incident in a history of dodgy behaviour going back at least two years. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

it's very easy to find low quality work in those who oppose us, and I suppose it's inevitable that everyone is more concerned with that, and tends to pass over similar in those who support us. I do not want to start a comparative list of who does things worst, that's not a way forward. I personally decided some time ago that I would be very reluctant to initiate an action against anyone for this sort of thing, no matter what I think of them & I never have done so; the odds of overall benefit are much too low. What is a way forward in our inclusionism discussions, is for more people to actually participate in AfDs. If it is left to the people who are passionate about the subject of the article, as usually happens, or who are trying to express a general view or make a point, we're not likely to get as good decisions as from a non-committed jury-like attitude. If additional uncommitted people don't step in, we're going round in circles.

I've seen a pattern to our discussions here: first, someone brings up a long standing problem; then, a number of people join in and suggest overly drastic punishment and then supporters then suggest awarding a medal and punishing the other side for daring to complain. finally, usually, we either decide on something moderate, or people actually change their behavior. Perhaps we could skip the middle two steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better solution. How about this: whenever someone makes a complaint on your user page about your behavior or editing patterns, and multiple editors and admins voice their agreement with that complaint, then you should immediately acknowledge that you've made a mistake, and genuinely resolve to discontinue the offending behavior. Had that happened a week or two ago, none of this would have been necessary. Everyone is so quick to judge and blame the people who brought this to ANI for the drama that you've forgotten all about the root cause of the problem, Colonel Warden. Unless, of course, you think it would be better for editors to stand by and watch a disruptive editor damage article after article, turning a blind eye and not lifting a finger to do anything about it. I request that this discussion be closed, as the RFC/U will likely be posted within the next 24 hours. SnottyWong ^speak 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Plasmodium article

An editor, User:DrMicro has contributed a number of articles on obscure species of microorganisms--very useful. It now appears there may be a lot of WP:OR in these articles, which will have to be checked.

Right now, though, he insists that the Plasmodium article's taxobox must include a list of 274 species. Other editors, including myself, have tried to remove this list and put it in the article, but, for various, endless arguments, DrMicro insists the list can only be in the taxobox, not in the article, not in another article, nowhere but the taxobox.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] We have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page.[44]

He is now engaged in battles on OR, admitting his subgenus assignments are OR, which means they must be checked (see talk page link).[45]

This is not just a 3RR issue, it includes time needed to research and edit the list elsewhere without being accused by DrMicro of vandalism for moving the list from taxobox.[46][47][48][49][50] (It appears that 3 of these are not accusations, but mistakes, so this long list here might include only 1 or 2 actual such accusations, but also the accusations in edit summaries on the article as linked above.)

Can one level headed administrator assist in this matter? Protecting the article with the 274 species in the taxobox will not be helpful, as long lists of 100s of items are not the purpose of an information box on wikipedia. What would be helpful would be an attempt to ask DrMicro to simply stop editing the article for long enough for other editors to create a list in the article or elsewhere and investigate his OR on subgenera. The latter will require access to a research library. I am glad to do it, but not in the midst of being accused of vandalism for trying to make the taxobox readable. I think if he backed off for long enough for others to do any work, he would see that the list of 274 species can be located in a useful manner without being in the taxobox. However, this can't be demonstrated against his single-mindedness to maintain it only in the taxobox.

If it is reasonable to request the intervention of a single level headed administrator and one such person volunteers, please work on the article talk page or the user talk page as appropriate. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning to DrMicro, and I am now watching the page. Since it is clear that the issue has been extensively discussed and DrMicro's position is isolated (as well as unreasonable), I will respond to any further revert-warring with a suitable block. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I think your initial warning and monitoring will be sufficient result from this AN/I request. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the page for say 2 weeks without fear for the wrong version, and have people work it out. I am willing to assist with this discussion. I think the Drosophila article is an good example of how it can be solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am against protecting the wrong version because of the importance of this article and because the additional text in the taxobox crashes my (not-too)smartphone's browser. Still, if it amounts to that, there's not that great an inconvenience. I do like the Drosophila article, also. Please feel free to suggest it on the talk page, if you have not already. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help the New Editor

User talk:184.74.22.161 is not careful with WP:V or WP:UNDUE. Adds material from sites like www.lifesitenews.com and catholic.com [51], quotes bunch of people without specifying why they are significant (same diff), gives too much space to a non-significant person disagreeing with entire scientific organizations [52]. This behaviour repeats itself in articles like Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage and the family.Phoenix of9 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to warrant an AN/I discussion; furthermore, note that the IP is engaging in discussion and is attempting to address your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 appears to be doing their best to solve this dispute. They have even indicated their willingness to remove information they have added simply to satisfy another user (User:Phoenix_of9) here. I see no problem with their behaviour, if this is the concern at hand. Tomayres (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding violent Christian material, this is a problem. See the section below. Phoenix of9 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not 'keep' doing anything. I have responded to your second ANI below. Tomayres (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a POV pushing problem

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 who appears to be the same as (vanished) User:DarlieB is adding citations which don't support the text at The Man Who Would Be Queen (see talk page there and [53]). This seems to be a long term problem. I've notified the parties to that discussion and two administrators (Looie496 and DGG) who probably have full-text access to the academic journal cited. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) this specific question is a matter for the RS noticeboard, where most of the prior discussion has been. If it is brought there, I will comment. If anyone want the full text of the short note meanwhile, email me. But as a more general matter, the entire history of the article is marked by selective and repetitive quotations, intended only to appear to advance an argument, and this applies not just to one side of the question. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User Ssilvers

Resolved

Explanation by Ssilvers is accepted Mjroots (talk)

I'm raising the issue of editing to the Ellen Terry article by Ssilvers (talk · contribs) here as this editor seems to be saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

I added the {{Tenterden}} template to the article at 18:51 yesterday. Ssilvers removed it at 21:48 as a "tangentially related navbox". Terry lived in Tenterden for 28 years, so the template is hardly tangentially related and the Ellen Terry article is linked on the template. I reverted the removal at 21:48, with an explanation for this in my edit summary. I also explained the reversion at 22:00 on the article's talk page. I also notified Ssilvers of the revert at 22:02, which he removed at 22:03 with an edit summary stating that he was fine with the revert.

At 22:13, Ssilvers removed the template again, yet made no mention of the removal in his edit summary. I'm making no comment on the rest of that edit, but the removal of the template after stating that he was fine with it and with a false edit summary is bordering on disruptive editing or a ownership issue. I've readded the template, and stand by my edit summary.

Apart from discussing the issue, which I have attempted to do without success, is there anything else I can do apart from raising the issue here? I'm unable to take any administrative action myself as I'm involved in the issue, but I will state that I don't believe that this is a blocking issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I am mystified by that edit I made. I must have mistakenly gone back to a much earlier version of the article by mistake. I certainly did not intend to delete all that text, images, etc. While it is true that I deleted the insertion by Mjroots of the {{Tenterden}} template earlier in the day (and don't think it should go in the article), I did not intend to delete it a second time, so sorry about that Mjroots. I was going to leave it there, although now that we're here, what do other people think about that? Anyhow, I think I have now restored the article and included the most important edits made by a third editor today. Any comments or further corrections are welcome. Best regards, and again, sorry for my sloppiness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, explanation and apology accepted. Let's close this and move on. Mjroots (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see that I had been reviewing edits back in October 2009 and mistakenly edited that version instead of the new version. Again, sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would still be interested in any experienced editor's take on this navbox and the ones referenced on my talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate canvassing concerning currently open MfD

Nothing more to do here, Move along The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An MfD was opened here for the very short essay Wikipedia:Civility police. At the time, the author of the essay, User:Christopher Connor, was blocked for "inappropriate use of Nazi imagery despite warnings". (Coincidentally, User:Christopher Connor had also made similar use [54] of Nazi imagery in the Civility Police essay itself, but this had been removed by another user before the MfD was issued.) The first four !votes in the deletion discussion were Delete [55]. Then, while Christopher Connor was still blocked, an IP address 184.168.193.22 appeared [56] on the talk page of Malleus Fatuorum, who is well known for his negative opinions about "civility warriors" and similar, and also happens to have one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia. (One might presume a fair number of the watchers share his views.) The IP address suggested Malleus may have an interest in the MfD as "An attempt by the civility police to obfuscate their shady activities and stifle documentation of their character". Malleus did not participate in the deletion discussion, but, within 12 hours of the IP address post on his page, the situation in the MfD had been effectively reversed [57]. Special:Contributions/184.168.193.22 shows that this canvassing was the only edit ever made by this IP. In addition, IP address lookup sites (example [58]) describe this IP address as "Suspected network sharing device" - in other words, it's likely to be a proxy. I'm not sure where exactly this falls in terms of seriousness, especially given that only one message was posted in total as far as I know, but I would suggest under WP:CANVASS it would meet votestacking as being aimed at a partisan audience, and stealth canvassing as being completely lacking in transparency. Nor do I have any idea of what action is practical. (I'm about to go and notify the two accounts and one IP address that I've mentioned above.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Popcorn? Pass the popcorn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Corrections: at the time the IP posted their message, there was the nominator and two others in favor of deletion, and one comment by someone questioning the validity of the nomination. While I can't be sure, it appears from the timeline like the next delete opinion was expressed by someone likely led to the discussion from seeing it on MF's page. Indeed, MF's page is watched by a wide variety of people, not all of them sharing his general outlook; some probably consider themselves nemeses. In other words, I'm not entirely sure it meets any of the conditions for canvassing, and even if it meets one of them, it seems to be a tempest in a teacup. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I'm quite sure that a very significant number of my talk page watchers do not share my views on the civility police, or indeed my outlook in general, as you say, so at the worst this is reverse-canvassing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Come to think of it, the one place more likely than any other to have a high concentration of people who think that page should be deleted is..... ANI! --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sure that never occurred to Demiurge1000. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Facepalm Mr. Connor are we seriously here again over another Nazi Page? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) That IP goes to an address in Scottsdale in the US, whereas I live in the UK. I also don't appreciate this issue being repeatedly raised. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Its where Go Daddy's and Sprint Nextel's Severs are so the Geolocation means nothing. On a side note What other essays have you written or contributed to? I dont think we can technically do anything about this one since it was created long before your last block. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC) (ec) As I pointed out, the IP is probably a proxy. That would allow a user in the UK to make edits from it despite not living in the USA. It would also allow a blocked user to make edits from it. (That said, it's also possible that someone trying to make CC look bad, made the edit - apparently that sort of thing happens occasionally.) And yes, the original creation of this essay predated all the later excitement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC) (ec with self) I don't think posting this on Malleus's talk page will change the effect of the mfd. It'll only give the MfD more attention. Malleus' talk is heavily watched, mostly by ive groups of people: People who share his opinion on civility police Active FAC reviewers "Civility police" chomping at the bit for a chance to block him for the umpteenth time Random passersby Editors working on GA's/FA's making copy-edit requests Access Denied 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC) The point regarding Connor's proposals for Wikipedia essays are moot; he has not created any other proposal since the On being Jewish incident. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I dont think there is anything else to here. I think a WP:TROUT might be in order for not getting a clue and changing the Nazi image in the Civility-Police Essay after we flipped out over the other two. . Its seems likely to we would not have sent it to MFD had it not had the Nazi Imagery. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Yes that's all history now (although it's worth re-iterating that the Nazi image was gone from this essay well before the MfD was opened). Might as well consider this closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:4chan_front_page_2010.png

Wrong venue. Please move to File talk:4chan front page 2010.png

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some administrator please delete the version of this image that I've just reverted away from? It is being used for 4chan-related lameness. Also, it would be nice to protect the non-lame version, since otherwise this is going to recur. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? It was recently changed by a user who has been here for 6 months, and has had nothing but good-faith edits. Have you tried conversing with that user and asking them why they changed the picture? WP:AGF could be used here. --Jayron32 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser banner seems to be in the image. --Bsadowski1 07:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you notify AndrewN of this section? It appears not. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have carefully not implied that there is any problem with the user who uploaded the image. However, the image in question deliberately misuses WMF imagery, and regardless of the uploader's intentions 4chan itself is currently full of posters chortling gleefully at the prospects implied by the image. I will notify the uploader, but that image is a terrible idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected the image for 3 months. There is a reason why we have a neutral picture of that image on the 4chan page. I know it sounds COI-ish, but having Jimbo's picture on the 4chan article brings forth more issues as far as WP:BLP issues on the Jimmy Wales article; the inclusion of that is clearly intended to slam him in light of the current WMF fundraising campaign. –MuZemike 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad block due to excessive length (it needs immediate protection to prevent the drama llama coming to town, and to allow for content discussion to occur), and subverts the possibility consensus discussion on the File:'s talk page, a page which could be well used by most of the people here as this appears to be a content dispute, see the characterisation of the File upload as "vandalism". Fifelfoo (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it being lifted at any time, provided there is a consensus to do so. I do not want a revert-war over images to occur, which it was clear to me that this was imminent. There is no talk page discussion being prohibited, unless you think the lack of drama is prohibitiing that. –MuZemike 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: I think User:AndrewN acted in good faith - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I admittedly did originally think it was vandalism, although after looking at the uploader I no longer think so. I'm afraid I can't change the edit summary, so you'll have to take my word for it. Meanwhile, however, it is not a "content dispute" - the image version that was uploaded recently has content directly aimed at Wikipedia in it, and the previous, neutral version does not. The recent screenshot is, again, just a really bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to MuZemike: no worries, I'll contact you if any changes occurs. My main concern is the licensing status of the banner image, as to whether the banner's use on 4chan is licensed or simply parody fair use. I think the variance between the prior and current versions displays something previously not displayed in the fair use image: server level enforced parody structures, such as text filters or "party hats". In reply to Gavia immer, that sounds like a desire to censor external content because you don't like it. As regards the image's neutral depiction of its subject, see the content point immediately prior. Can you point to policy reasons for your belief this isn't a content dispute? "An external party is critical of wikipedia by parody" does not seem to be adequate to describe this as anything more than a disagreement over content. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "neutral depiction of its subject", is my point - we had one of those. The problem image was uploaded specifically to show the subject taking a jab at Jimbo etc., and is not neutral. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint is a content complaint. Your belief is that an image of 4chan does not neutrally depict 4chan because it does not neutrally depict Jimbo. I would suggest that there is a flaw in your argument. I suggest you take your content argument to the file's talk page and seek to build consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend following Fifelfoo's recommendation there, which is the main rationale behind the protection. (We do have a content dispute here, which needs to be handled.) Please discuss there or, if absolutely need be, on Talk:4chan, whichever is the best place. –MuZemike 08:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake

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

---

User talk:Meco#Shelling of Yeonpyeong talk details an exchange between myself and Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which began after I had posted a user warning, {{uw-tpv3}}, on their talk page. This diff is the incident which started this. Now, as I write in the follow-up thread, this is really no big issue, but having uncovered the misapprehension on the user's part and explained it to Mztourist, and they refuse to acknowledge obvious facts I wish to bring the case here so that the user will not simply go on doing the same transgression and blaming faulty software for destructive editing that is his/her mistake. __meco (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified this user, as you bold lettering asked you to? Basket of Puppies 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. __meco (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is 95% likely to be a glitch in the edit conflict handling software, and 5% likely to have been an innocent mistake. Something similar happened to me just last night at ANI; I quietly reinstated my edit and moved on. Your template on his talk page, and your tone with him, seem a big over-reaction. Has this really not happened to you? The edit conflict handler seems to suck even worse than usual the last few months. There's really nothing to do here, except ask you to review the situation again, and perhaps apologize to Mztourist for the tone if you think it appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I agree that my tone is too stern. However, in the discussion on my talk page Mztourist confirms seeing the same edit diff as me. That edit diff unequivocally reveals that text by me is about to be removed. I do realize that there are problems with the software handling edit conflicts, but in this case the edit diff clearly shows that damage is about to be done, the user acknowledges having seen it, however misinterpreted it, and then ignored it. Then I point this out and I'm basically being told off because the user has more important things to do than discuss something that wasn't their fault. With that attitude it is likely that even the little safeguarding which the diffs provide us with isn't going to protect other users in the future from having their edits carelessly removed by Mztourist. __meco (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Something similar happened to you, too, yesterday: [59]. What do you suppose Mztourist's response would have been if you had been as polite on his talk page as Yakushima was to you on yours? Are you saying that you saw that you were about to undo Yakushima's edit, misinterpreted it, and the ignored it? Please don't be snippy with people, and then run to ANI when they're snippy back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something similar happened to me, and I do concede my tone was too harsh. The issue does however not seem to be with Mztourist balking and becoming uncooperative over this. There is nothing to suggest that. See also what I just wrote to Msnicki below. __meco (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would have let it go here and offered an apology to avoid hard feelings. But that's just me. Msnicki (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I made this report was not over hard feelings but over the fact that the user appears not to acknowledge that they had any part in what happened – whatsoever. In fact, in the post in the link which you provide Mztourist asserts that no edit was even saved by them. I have never heard of that happening to anyone, i.e. someone attempting to save an edit but getting an edit conflict error, then instead of saving again loading another page, but the aborted edit is still being saved. Either Mztourist is confused or mistaken about their actual actions, or we are dealing here with a technical problem much more serious than the faulty edit conflict handling. But it is the complete renunciation of any connection to the problem from Mztourist which I find frightening. That does not convey, "hey, I'm unsure what really happened there, I don't think I did anything wrong, but I'm going to keep an alert eye out so that it doesn't happen in the future!". Instead we're seeing: "I didn't do that. It must be something the software did on its own." __meco (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an unlikely response to a level-3 warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you read up on the ensuing dialog bwtween Mztourist and myself there is nothing to suggest that Mztourist was ostensibly offended by my taking a possibly too harsh initial approach. The reason I did use a level 3 warning was the edit diff. It is so clearcut and easy to decipher that I basically couldn't believe Mztourist could have missed seeing what was about to happen. __meco (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What you do not seem to understand is that Mztourist's description of what happened is quite likely true. It is very likely that the software messed up, and that he did not try to save the page again, and that the software removed your edit and declined his edit at the same time that it gave him the edit conflict message. This has happened to me before; I suspect it's happened to a lot of people. He wouldn't have seen the diff that you're referencing when he hit "save" the first time. The first he knew of it was when you threatened to have him blocked if he kept being disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I have acknowledged the possibility of Mztourist's description of what happened being correct, however as a remote chance. I have also stated that if that is the case, then this incident uncovers a very serious technical glitch in the MediaWiki software which I have up until now been unaware of. If, as you are suggesting, this technical issue is so severe, then for whatever incorrect angle this thread may have started on, I find this incident even more important to bring to the attention of the appropriate forum. Now, that forum may not be WP:ANI, but I would certainly not leave this matter alone before I got a confirmation that the problem has been acknowledged and is being addressed by the software developers. __meco (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration. But it seems unlikely you'd get the admission you're seeking. What does seem likely is that you'd get an escalation, which is just what happened. I think all you needed out of the exchange was that (a) he knew you didn't want your comments deleted and (b) you'd warned him, which you would need if it's a pattern that continues. I don't think your life gets a lot better if he admits his explanation was just an excuse. That's why I would have let it go pretty quickly. But again, that's just me. Msnicki (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that would be a show of bad faith. Since my position is one of good faith, Mztourist's absent display of taking any responsibility, even theoretical, for the situation, dictates that I simply must take the issue further. But not to teach Mztourist a lesson, simply to do what I can so that the encyclopedia isn't continuously being corrupted by an inadvertent vandal with a blindspot. __meco (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Mztourist. I really can't believe that Meco considers this is such a big issue that it needs to be elevated to this forum. Two words from Meco: "go ahead" were lost. I have told Meco repeatedly that I did not delete them, so yes I deny any responsibility. I wasn't editing that section and so the only explanation I can come up with is a problem in the Edit Conflict software. Floquenbeam thank you for confirming that a software glitch is a possibility. I attempted to explain this repeatedly (an politely) to Meco, but was met with obvious scepticism and so eventually just decided to move on, so I am amazed that Meco thought it was so important that it needed to be brought here. Meco is making a mountain out of a molehill here, look at how much time he and I spent discussing this and now how much time has been spent on this forum and I am getting all these rude comments thrown at me by Meco so he can prove what exactly?Mztourist (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the issue were the importance of my post which got removed in an edit by you (or if your and Floquenbeam's description is accurate, by the MediaWiki software), then yes, any and all of my posts on this issue would be a blatant over-reaction. In my 40,000 edits experience however, this being an edit made solely and autonomously by the MediaWiki software is so astounding, and up until this point unbelievable, that should that be the case, I would certainly make a special effort to make sure it is being acknowledged by the software development team. That is the issue here now. That scope seems quite lost on you, and I regret to realize that you and another editor see this only as me seeking petty retribution.. __meco (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see I've been called a vandal, accused of bad faith, unwilling to discuss issues, things are lost on me... whatever... Meco as I said before, I have spent enough time discussing this issue with you. An apology would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Administrators thank you, I am assuming that you will decide whether any of this warrants further discussion with Meco. Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My gosh! All of this because a user edited their own comment on a talk page?! The edit Mztourist made served to better state a thought and was done within minutes of the original post. The only intervening edit was a page tag, and Mztourist's edit did nothing to change the circumstances for the tag. WP:REDACT does not prohibit self comment edits. What is really astounding is that Mztourist is expected to apologize for a "theoretical" transgression. (Is Political correctness behind this expectation?) It's time for this line of nonsense to stop.--S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the basic facts wrong. The user did not edit their own comment, they removed the post of another editor. __meco (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Meco is correct. I thought he was objecting to an edit that Mztourist did to their own comment. And I apologize to Meco for my error. IAE, let's put an end to this fruitless discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious software glitch–MediaWiki making autonomous edits?

Just so that more editors won't jump into the preceding discussion at points which really are neither important nor constructive, in my assessment, where the information has taken us thus far is that this may be a technical issue of unrecognized proportions. Now, I have stated that I want to assure myself that this is being acknowledged and adequately addressed before I leave this matter to rest. I would appreciate some competent response to this particular angle. __meco (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody find the bugzilla report - this has been a problem for months. I have raised it more than once. What happens is that if the conflicted editor attempts to reinstate their post in the upper window, the results are unpredictable. You have to back out completly and open a fresh edit window to guarantee that you don't affect the post that conflicted yours. Hence I think the guy is saying that he could see your post (in the upper window) but thought his action would not affect it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:11922? bugzilla:21494? 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Just a clarification, the technical issue is that in some (rare) cases an edit conflict is not reported as such, so saving a talk page will remove some recent post/edit without warning. Probably some sort of race condition. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is referencing violent Christian Bible sections acceptable? Or inciting to violence?

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

---

“ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ”

[60]

User talk:184.74.22.161 User:Tomayres keep inserting this "Leviticus 20:13" on Same-sex marriage [61][62]. Is this acceptable? Or, are we going to see more religious references like this and others like Deuteronomy 22:21 [63] (she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death...) referring to non-virgin women in a women's issue article or something like Qur'an 2:191 [64] (And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers) in Jewish people article? Phoenix of9 02:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I made one edit (hence I think your use of the word 'keep' is just a little inaccurate) as shown in diff 133, which was as part of a revert using Huggle. I made this revert based upon the assumption that content was being removed without a clear reason, hence my questioning of the previous edit summary. The user then engaged with me on my talk page about the matter and I realised they were removing information they had added to satisfy you.
  I then (in response to the courtesy message you left on my talk page) responded to this ANI. I reviewed the information and commented in support of the IP in question. Within five minutes of this, you have logged this second ANI, implying that I might be inciting violence. Not sure what to make of this. Tomayres (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it's pretty nasty stuff. As long as you don't keep inserting it I suppose that is okay. --TS 02:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you asserting that User:Phoenix_of9's claims are true? Tomayres (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only wondering out loud what some ancient and very nasty biblical nonsense was doing on an article about same-sex marriage. Having visited the article since my earlier comment I find it to be full of all kinds of nonsense, to the extent that I think it irretrievably lost. I would not object to a proposal that we delete the wretched thing and write a new article, particularly one that wasn't so obsessed with American religious viewpoints. --TS 02:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What it's doing? It's presenting those "ancient and very nasty" facts about the Bible's views on same-sex marriage. I see nothing wrong with that. --Carnildo (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The people who wrote the bible were ignorant goat-herders. What the fuck does that have to do with same-sex marriage? --TS 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your point of view. We Christians know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Just stop and think about something. If you know anything about just how corrupted human nature is, then how could man alone ever come up with the Bible? I dare you to at least read the New Testament, and stop to think: How could man and his corrupted human nature ever come up with such grace and kindness as God has and has expressed in the Bible? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Yes, "grace and kindness." Including the mass-murder, endorsement of slavery and torture, condemning non-believers... suffice to say, it's not a lack of reading the New Testament that turns folks off from the religion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your clarification. I just wonder what reason User:Phoenix_of9 might have for thinking that the revert I made represented my own views. Tomayres (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Scriptures in question are not being quoted in the article, as far as I can tell from the diffs, so I do not see what is wrong here. Practices such as shown in that Leviticus verse are the practices that were in place before Jesus. Since Jesus came, we have been in the Grace period, where God does not punish sinners here on earth (although he will allow (not cause, but allow) bad things to happen to such people), but instead we are toi accept Jesus as our Savior. Gays are able to change their ways and accept Jesus as Savior, I do not believe they are still condemned to be killed here on earth, but they will have to answer to the Lord and suffer the consequences of their actions. There are probably many Old Testament practices that are no longer practiced since Jesus has come, so the New Testament would override the Old Testament where appropriate. Same-sex marriage is still a sin, however.

Although I am a Christain, I do know that Wikipedia is a religion-neutral place. We should give all different religous points of view in the article, as different religions have different points of views on this subject. Again, the scriptures in question were not being quoted in the article, so I do not see what is wrong. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a content issue to me. Post at the article's talk page; if consensus is to include that, then leave it in. If not, leave it out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, what admin action is needed here? I say we close this and go over to the right place to discuss this. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin action is needed in that people shouldn't be able to insert hate speech as they please, even though hate speech is not technically vandalism. Phoenix of9 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Scriptures are not hate speech. We need to cover different religious views on the subject. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides, a true Christian knows better than to do Old Testament practices instead of following the New Testament's practices which override the subject in question. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling for a death of a certain group of people is indeed hate speech / inciting violence. And referencing to that kinda information is the same thing. Kinda like giving book numbers of Mein Kampf in Jewish people article. Phoenix of9 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said, the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in areas. The Lord would not have us to do something that was done in the Old Testament days, if it has been overridden with something more appropriate in the New Testament. If the people who follow the Old Testament and do not follow the New Testament (who are not true Christians, regardless of what they think themselves), think that it is OK to murder people just because they are gay, that is their problem, and they will have to answer to the Lord for that. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your religion and ANI is not a church class. Old Testament is still sacred under Christian ideology and those hate speech material is still referenced in same-sex marriage article. Phoenix of9 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should think very carefully in future, User:Phoenix_of9, of accusing me, or any editor for that matter, of 'inserting' material, when this was not the case. It creates a situation where I have to defend myself when I shouldn't have to. May I also direct the administrators' attentions to the other, related ANI filed by this editor. Tomayres (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I did say at my edit summaries why addition of those material was wrong. Do I need to open talk page discussion sections why hate speech should not be added into an article? And you still have not reverted your re-insertion of 184.74.22.161's hate speech material. Phoenix of9 03:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article doesn't contain a reference to that ancient bit of nonsense, then I don't know what the problem is. If it does, then it needs some considerable context. We don't get to cherry-pick bits of ancient scripture and say that it applies to modern situations. Or does somebody want to insert a comment about the Amalekites into the genocide article? It would make as much sense. --TS 03:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It still does contain those references, I cant revert due to 3RR. Phoenix of9 03:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that my edit constituted one "re-insertion" of material, as opposed to "keep inserting". As for reverting my re-insertion, people here seem to have decided that the relevance of these references is a matter of discussion and so I won't revert anything yet. That is for those interested in the contextual side of this argument to decide, through means of discussion. Tomayres (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And this is precisely why I made an ANI thread. Adding hate speech which incites to violence should not be a matter of discussion or content dispute. This is where admin opinion/action is required. Phoenix of9 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The edit in question (which I understand is itself a revert) appears only to reference the biblical verses and not to reproduce any of the language in them. Is that correct? Some of the above discussion makes it seem like the actual language of those verses was added to the entry. Referencing the biblical basis for some piece of conservative Christian dogma about marriage is not exactly "hate speech". I'm not sure that it is needed in the entry, but the presentation of what is going on here is a grossly over-dramatized.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. None of the actual words of the Scripture in question was actually quoted in the IP's addition. Only the names of the verses were given. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Having reviewed the IP's work earlier today, I'm a little concerned by what I'm seeing from Phoenix_of9 right now. Is there any need to take this issue to the LGBT project, AN/I, and Jimbo Wales' talk page at the same time? I'll look again to see what the IP is doing, but it appeared earlier today (as I mentioned in the earlier ANI section) that the IP is making efforts to address concerns, is working to remove material they added that others have questioned, and is engaging in dialogue with others. Isn't that what we want from new contributors, especially when it involves controversial topics? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix_of9 is abusing several forums with frivolous complaints. It is quite possible that this IP is adding UNDUE material, or even material that otherwise doesn't belong to the entry, but from what I'm seeing here Phoenix is going about dealing with the IP in a very disruptive manner. Someone should give Phoenix some helpful advice here so this doesn't repeat the next time a similar situation occurs.Griswaldo (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain such extremist material is UNDUE, yet it is still there. Phoenix of9 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: (edit conflict, big time) Maybe we aught to just stop all this bickering. It seems to me that just like with political discussions, the different POVs in religious discussions can lead to just a lot of bickering. Of course, Wikipedia is full of heated debates, so why don't we just go over to the talk page, and figure out some consensus about this? The addition that the IP user made does not say "this is what you must follow", instead the IP user did what he should do, giving everything in a neutral tone, giving both sides of the issue, people who follow the Old Testament, and people who stand by the New Testament. Both are presented in the same tone. People who follow only the Old Testament can already access the Scripture in question, and there are most likely other sources out there which back up their POV, so what are we doing? We are giving both sides of the story, without saying that one is better than the other. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"both sides of the issue" are the Old Testament, and the New Testament? In an article on 'Same-sex marriage'? Total crap. This is Wikipedia, not a Bible study class. Does anyone in this debate actually have a clue what NPOV means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Long-time Wikipedia lurker, first-time Wikipedia commenter here. This is how I see it:

1. Is same-sex marriage a controversial issue? Undoubtedly, yes.
2. Are there opponents of same-sex marriage who claim Biblical justification for their position? Undoubtedly, yes.
3. Do those opponents comprise a significant part of the total opposition to same-sex marriage? Undoubtedly, yes.

Thus, it seems clear to me that the Biblical citations are perfectly appropriate, as a means of explaining the arguments made by a significant portion of one side of an issue that is extremely contentious in the United States. Maintaining a neutral point of view would require as much, no?

I say this as an avowed atheist and firm supporter of same-sex marriage.

Húrin Thalion (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — Húrin Thalion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Tricky stuff - Censureship -vs- Hate crime encouragement. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever said earlier that Christians "know" that the Bible is "the inspired word of God", needs to be aware that Muslims equally "know" that the Quran is directly "the word of God". Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well said. Furthermore, this is a content dispute. Take it to the talk page and keep it civil. Remember the article must be written in a neutral point-of-view. If you've got specific problems with an editor violating wikipedia policy, bring it here with diffs and reference the relevant policy. Otherwise there doesn't appear to be anything actionable here. N419BH 05:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• In the meantime, does anyone want to explain to Retro why NPOV does not mean "find a balance between what the Jewish texts say versus what the Christian texts say"? NW (Talk) 05:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't that what NPOV is? Giving all sides/POVs of the issue, but not saying that one POV is better than the other POV, giving all different POVs equal weight? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No. WP:NPOV's section headed 'Balance' says "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Note 'in proportion to their prominence'. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OR issue - we should be using secondary or tertiary sources, not references to primary sources

Comment/Question - I assume everyone can agree though that editors simply sampling material from or referring to the primary sources of the Abrahamic religions themselves to demonstrate something is original research and isn't allowed, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. In fact, I can quote our NPOV policy again on this. "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Secondary or tertiary sources.

This was going to be my point as well; for religious views the Bible is a primary source; for the sentence inserted (which I don't at all find irrelevant if sourced) you would need a third party source to draw that link. Within the sphere of LGBT articles the religious view (usually negative) is extremely significant and should be treated with due care. In this case the problem is not with the content but with how it is sourced. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Faith-drawn outlooks from widely-known writings such as the Bible have much bearing on both the historical backgrounds and current developments of many topics. On a talk page, calling quotes from the Bible hate speech is but a political polemic, even dialectic, wholly unencyclopedic and could now and then become highly disruptive to building the encyclopedia, never mind it's also blatant original research. However, attributing such a claim within an article's text to a verifiable and meaningful source could be helpful to readers, so long it is done neutrally, the claim is not carried in the article's narrative voice and the text straightforwardly lets the reader know where the claim comes from and why it's notable to the topic at hand. Meanwhile, some Biblical quotes, without sourced interpretation, might be ok for historical context, but any interpretation must be cited to a secondary source and sometimes there will be a need to cite sundry interpretations which do not agree. Hence, I would strongly ask editors who have done so, not to call a quote from the Bible hate speech, but rather, if a secondary source has made or carried such a claim and it's notable to the topic, cite the source in a neutral way. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

However, many passages when looked at carefully are a direct attack on practices being done by others at the time; for example, it has been argued that the passage regarding lying down with a man as you would a woman was originally directed at certain nations who would use male rape as a method of subjugation of the subject tribe: it was therefore "ungodly" to act that same way. As it was an attack against a race, it was at the time a hate crime. Now, I'm off to slaughter a bull in my back yard - after all, Christians should not be picking and choosing which as aspects of Leviticus to practice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling something a hate crime is a lot like calling something witchcraft a few centuries ago, a broad brush meant to spread fear and... hate. Meanwhile, attribute that outlook on the Bible to a meaningful secondary source and one may be off to a helpful start, otherwise, it's all OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen Gale. It may be OR or UNDUE to include the verse references but we need to be weary of calling such references "hate crimes".Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bwilkins. The idea that we can force modern notions of what we feel a "hate crime" is onto the practices of ancient Judaism is completely absurd. I have no problem seeing modern practices, which claim a biblical basis, as hate crimes when appropriate, but saying that the ancient text is a hate crime is so lacking in appropriate historical context it makes my head spin.Griswaldo (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree with that, Griswaldo. This aside, Bwilkins may have been drawing what one could call a "comparative criticism" between Biblical texts and modern legislative/political rhetoric. Either way, yes, bringing this kind of thing to a talk page will grow very thin very fast without citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack/Threats at Druze

Would someone remove this and delete it from the history? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see that as offensive enough to for revision deletion. TNXMan 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it as a way over the top personal attack, I do not read anything like a threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

London Oratory School

Is this worthy of a revdel?[65]

Also should I be leaving a message about this ANI on the IP talk page? I haven't, but will if I should.

a_man_alone (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gone, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, but for future ref, when something is as obvious as that - does convention dictate that we/I still inform the OP? a_man_alone (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not for something so straightforward as that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

IP user on the loose!

Resolved

 – Blocked—Kww(talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The user with the IP address 69.203.68.71 has been warned repeatedly to stop vandalizing articles, among those being Gullah Gullah Island. Look at his contributions and see all the pages he has vandalized. Again, he has been warned repeatedly. -MegastarLV (talk) November 2010

I can't reconcile User talk:69.203.68.71 with the empty block log. Has the IP been reported to WP:AIV? If so, what happened? David Biddulph (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP has edited only once in the last 3 days, and not at all since the most recent warnings, so the odds are good that AIV would decline a request to block. If it starts happening, the OP here should go straight to AIV with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side point, I've just rolled back a number of their edits that had been untouched for a week or so. If you know an IP address is vandalizing, please do revert the vandalism as the first step before complaining about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking again I'm even more confused. The talk page entries saying that the IP had been blocked were from the OP (MegastarLV - talk), so did you block him or not? David Biddulph (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing; IP has yet to be blocked. Stop messing around, Megastar. HalfShadow 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor that has been using the IP for a long time, with a constant interest in the same group of articles. I blocked the IP for a week.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet money that IP (as well as that entire /13 range)` is dynamic. –MuZemike 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll monitor to see if the edits come back on a related IP. If they do, I'll unblock this one.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Andy.LM-Leung

Andy.LM-Leung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This user has been adding multiple links to Naxos Records in classical music articles at a furious pace. He's even created a template for the purpose Template:NaxosDotCom. Each article has a link to a page at Naxos Records in the External links section, and many of them also have media files from Commons (some of which appear to have OTRS permission in place [66] and others not,[67] but all of which also contain an external link to Naxos when placed in the articles, e.g. [68]. Some of these additions are probably useful, others are pretty redundant. Note that there was similar issue about this with another user, blocked in September as a spam/advertising account:

Naxoshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• User notified [69]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Andy Leung is listed as admin contact for the naxos.com domain.[[70]] No mystery here. Spam filter anyone? 69.111.192.233 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems old and maybe trying to advertise?

Resolved

I was looking to see if an article on "Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act" existed and found User:Jjpregler which looks like a political essay, but maybe it's fine on a user page? Munijym (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Halfshadow blanked it per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Good job. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins

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

Please do the productive thing and place any further comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey or it's talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211 § YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections.

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

Original poster:

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

Admins:

• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

1. A group of administrators is threatening me with blocks. One has abused his administrative privileges by using administrative clout when the discussion got argumentative. In a discussion in which he was a participant I was warned for being tendentious[71], after [72] I had withdrawn from the discussion about a specific point. Later I took opinions on the concerned page then wrote that I had withdrawn from the article page, [73] After my withdrawl a final block warning for being tendentious was issued.[74]
2. When I was warned for canvassing [75]- for writing to those whose views on the subject were known to me as favourable, inviting them to participate in a discussion, I was not aware that it was breaking the rules, and when it was brought to my notice I immediately stopped doing so.[76], to make amends I wrote to those editors whose views were known to me as unfavourable to make up for the earlier canvassing.[77] [78] After this I was issued a final warning for canvassing.[79]
3. Earlier I was blocked without warning for 15 days.[80] After the warning expired I wrote on the blocking administrators' page asking hin to justify his action.[81] A month has passed but I have not received a reply.[82] Now this block is used against me to create some kind of criminal record.[83]
4. An editor learns by the mistakes he makes. Some I corrected myself. I did not repeat mistakes. I have made ammends to the mistakes I have made. I appeal for action against the following administrators.

The concerned administrators are user:YellowMonkey the administrator who made the first block without warning and without justification, user:RegentsPark who has mis-used his administrative privileges when the discussion got argumentative and user:SpacemanSpiff issuing a final block warning without reason. I do not know what comes first the chicken or the egg, so first I am issuing this ANI and then posting notice on the concerned administrator's pages. If I am breaking rules I will apologise and even face the necessary penalty, but if I am not then the three administrator's should be reined in. They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone's welcome to take a look at the contribution history and the sequence of events. I don't think I need to say anymore, my warning was quite explicit and there should be no confusion on that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The contribution record is here as evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After I it was brought to my notice that I was votestacking (out of ignorance), my thanked user:SpacemanSpiff, for his notice. The wikirules are How to respond to inappropriate canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Immediately on receipt of the notice, I stopped without arguments. Please see contributin history. Why then the block threat? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I was wrongly accused of Forumshopping by user:RegentsPark, unprofessional behaviour unbecomming of an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A two week block for trolling as a first offense with a user who has run up several thousand edits without trouble seems ... stern.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The block was strange in that, there was no warning at all and Yellowman User:YellowMonkey never once posted to the blockees talkpage or left him a template or anything at all. A few days after the block he did appear to have emailed twice to the blockee but the user didn't see them for some time. Discussion of emails is here. No comment of the general editing of Yogesh but there is a fair bit of disruption in the wake of them. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean User:YellowMonkey, the former arbitrator and functionary, or somebody else? Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The email was posted after the block was enforced, not before. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:YellowMonkey, corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, please avoid lengthening the thread. Please wait for the administrators you have accused of impropriety to respond. If would be helpful if you added some diffs to your above statements so the observers could know which specific warnings or comments you object to. The comments of Wehwalt and Off2riorob while possibly correct may be premature. We don't know if all the facts are on the table yet, so let's be patient until everybody involved has a chance to comment. The user is currently not blocked, so there is no urgency. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC), 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To say it is stern is hardly prejudging the outcome. Either way, we do need an explanation from YellowMonkey.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's not start the party without him. For the record, the OP has notified all the admins in his complaint. I reserve comment until YM has had a chance to share his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We may be waiting a while, given that YellowMonkey has yet to explain the controversial unblock (without consultation with the blocking admin) of Dr. Blofeld which occurred last night and about which several editors asked for an explanation on YellowMonkey's talk page. However, not everyone lives on wiki, we can afford to be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are asking for an explanation for a block that occurred a month ago. That's a lifetime in wikitime and responding to this request may not be easy. Generally, and this is addressed to YK, it is better to bring up the matter when events are fresh. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean during the two weeks when he was blocked without a block template telling him how to appeal it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean during the one month that has passed since his block expired. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

YM has served long as an admin and in other positions. I am not aware that YM suffers from lapses of memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I. I am also not aware what speculation about his lapses of memory has to do with this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. Then there should be no trouble about an explanation of the block, though it took place a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed seeing my comment above (or perhaps you forgot) ([84]). Since the events happened more than a month ago, he may not remember the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking at cross purposes; my point was that YM is likely to remember and be able to explain to us--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'cross purposes' describes it accurately but this ain't going no where. So ok. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should make a comment here. YK was soap boxing and engaging in tendentious editing here. I warned him about that. He showed up on my page with complaints about abusing admin privilege (here) and I explained that warnings are not an admin function. He didn't get that and continued to post on my page I (gently) let him know that he was now being tendentious on my talk page as well. He started an open move request at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga and then went and started an RfC on the same topic (here). So I directed his attention to the policy on forum shopping here. He is clearly being tendentious on the talk pages of British Empire Talk:British Empire and on the move request Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. My suggestion is that he heeds my well meant advice that he realize that it is better to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later (given here). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This user does appear to be rather tendentious - see previous ANI thread: [85]. He has been accused of trolling which I think is rather unfair, he is just a far-out Hindu nationalist.

This [86] was the state of Talk:British Empire before he was blocked. He does not appear to have received any warning. See also [87].

Any recent warnings of this user would seem appropriate given the user's editing style; what doesn't appear to have been appropriate is blocking him for two weeks with not a word of warning or even notifying him on his Talk, which was basically dead prior to his block. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SpacemanSpiff is known to me to be an over-zealous administrator, warning and banning editors without giving in-depth consideration to the matter. He repeatedly violates the basic foundational pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility and refuses to AGF.

I have borne the brunt of his administrative actions when I was still a newbie here when he removed well-sourced content and contradicted himself in the edit summary. That showed that SpacemanSpiff either doesn't read edits/study the matter in its entirety before making use of his administrative privileges or lacks competence. This is a pattern, not just 1 or 2 incidents. He is doing damage to Wikipedia by refusing to AGF and by scaring away constructive contributors. I have asked him to step down as an admin in the past and urge him to do so again. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

user:RegentsPark has indulged in hounding me See his edits on a issue proposed by me, that is his first edit on the Ganges page in many thousands edits, and he has opposed my proposal.[88], such actions do not behove an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that just in a cursory check of the most recent contributions from RegentsPark I found edits to Burmese and Indian topics, it is not at all unlikely that they would also be monitoring the Ganges article. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check his contribution history, I did to as far back as September 2008, no contribution to Ganges.[89] [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous (and potentially disruptive). I'm willing to respond to reasonable requests, but this is mere delusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that exhaustive list. That doesn't however invalidate what I said: RegentsPark has edited on many different India-related articles. It is not unlikely that Ganges would be on their watchlist. I have lots of things on my watchlist that I've never edited, that are even outside the topic areas that I've edited. However, please feel free to keep digging and assuming bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add that we are all humans and all have our failings, so administrators should also assume good faith, instead of calling names and terms like disruptive. If you can give user:RegentsPark who is an administrator the benefit of the doubt, even though he needs to be judged by a higher standard, why do you not understand the hurt of a common editor and how he feels threatened with blocks for flimsy reasons, and accusing him of digging as if he is some grave digger? Please be fair and bi-partisan.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

user:RegentsPark asks why I delayed in reporting user:YellowMonkey to ANI, that is because I wanted to avoid official action, but my previous block was brought up as some criminal record which forced my hand.[112] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not need the 'benefit of the doubt'. The move notification is posted on WT:IN as well as WT:AT. I would have to try very hard to miss it. You need to get a handle on yourself and think about changing the way you're approaching editing here. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No unsolicited personal comments or advice and stick to the issue at hand, (1)Administrators' haste in (mis?)using administrative privileges, and browbeating editors using them. (2)user:RegentsPark's sudden interest in Ganges, and editing against a proposal submitted by an editor to whom he had issued a block warning. (3)Why is user:RegentsPark speaking on behalf of user:YellowMonkey, he should keep out of any discussion but himself, he is not a third party here and such actions consists of hounding! (4)Action to be taken against such administrators. It is 12.32 am local time, I need to call it a day. Good night. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with Yogesh on the move proposal he's making right now, I do agree something smells rotten about these three administrators actions. We've got truly and repeatedly warned disruptive users that pass through here who we can't get blocked for 15 minutes and they had a 2 week block with little to no warning? Yeah. I don't think so. YM's diffs seem clear, as do spaceman's. However I'd like to see some clear diffs on where Regentparks misused his power during a heated discussion. I see one linked warning, but that's hardly sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I can't see a problem with SacemanSpiff's warning [113] - it appears justified, as the editor does appear to have been editing tendentiously. Part of the problem seems to be that the editor is finding it difficult to distinguish between a warning and an administrative action, in spite of attempts by RegentsPark to explain: neither SpacemanSpiff nor RegentsPark have misused the administrative privileges, as claimed. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about YellowMonkey's block, but concerning recent activity, Yogesh's editing on the Ganges move request has been disruptive and tendentious. It was bad enough when he rebuked an editor for voicing an opinion, but when I saw he started going after editors on their own talk pages (here and here) I understood and supported SpacemanSpiff's warning. --JaGa^talk 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I have no idea as to what the underlying dispute is about but none of those three diffs you link to is in anyway problematic. Rebuking somebody for "voicing an opinion" - usually called "disagreeing with someone" - sometimes happens in the real world. The other two diffs are same thing; evidence that a disagreement exists nothing more. Calling it "going after editors", which implies an attack of some sort is itself a form of personal attack since it violates the part of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks can be Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here, check out the discussion and decide for yourself about Yogesh's behavior. I thought he was coming on a bit strong... --JaGa^talk 05:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether they tried to use their administrative powers or not, things have a greater weight when said by admins. That's a fact of life on Wikipedia and why people often bring things here. When random editor X warns someone that they might be blocked for action Y, the response, if they're not an admin, is many times not what we'd hope for. On the other hand if an admin repeats the warning it's taken with far greater importance. A final block warning after someone has disengaged seems inappropriate. More so when it comes from an admin.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but in this case the warning from SpacemanSpiff was more general - it mentioned the canvasing, which had stopped, but the other issues raised in the warning - especially badgering oppose votes - were (and are) ongoing. If it was just about the canvasing then I'd agree, but it was about a general pattern of tendentious editing, which seems a justified issue to raise. However, whether or not it should have been worded is a final warning is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to say this because I've a lot of respect for YM, but the block in question appears to be shaky and is pushed into the "bad block" realm by the lack of notification, which is mandated by policy and this is not the first time I have found YM to be unresponsive when faced with questions about his admin actions, though it is the first time the action I've questioned has been a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do recall a quite recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive_edits_and_usage_of_abusive_language, where YM appeared to have called another Indian editor a "retarded nationalist" in an edit summary, and never showed up to answer the complaint. --JN466 05:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• A comment on content: it is not at all clear to me that Yogesh was "soapboxing and being disruptive" at Talk:British_Empire#Sepoy. It seems to me there is a very legitimate question of terminology at the bottom of this dispute that Wikipedia should be neutral about -- the British speak of "the sepoy mutiny", while Indian sources speak of "the First War of Indian Independence". [114] It is quite possible to find a neutral term, such as "1857 revolt", and I see no reason to stuff British terms – in the article's editorial voice, rather than marked as British usage – down Indian editors' throats with warnings for "disruption", when we are writing about Indian history. On the positive side, none of the three admins has contributed content to the article, or has a significant talk page history at the article. I'm over to the article talk page ... --JN466 05:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• P.S: See India's First War of Independence, and note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857 in mainspace. --JN466 06:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yogesh Khandke is a patient and mature editor who shows respect for WP policies. If he inadvertently violates a rule unknown to him, he is quick to make amends when pointed out. His only 'problem' is the cultural gap that exists from being an Indian editor editing from India in an English Wikipedia dominated by Anglophone people. He needs to know when to persist, when to back off and needs to learn the general etiquette of the Western world. According to userboxes, SpacemanSpiff is an Indian editor who has migrated to California. RegentsPark is in New York. It is ironical that these editors, instead of helping Yogesh bridge the cultural gap, are going after him. Perhaps it's just being callous or perhaps it's the acting white phenomenon or something similar to the zeal of the new convert. Whatever it is, it is damaging Wikipedia by scaring away assertive, persistent and constructive contributors. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Putting in a note that being an editor from India does not mean you are alien to Western etiquette. Personally, I can't find enough of a 'culture gap' to warrant any of my edits being put away due to naivety. I have had first contact with User:RegentsPark over two years ago, and he is anything but callous or whitewashed. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please it is not about black or white. The three administrators have displayed inadequate understanding of their jobs, and have acted unprofessionally in my case. I request adequate action be taken against them. Please refer to the diffs above. Sorry for interrupting the conversation. Please base comments on the evidence submitted by me in the form of diffs above, and not experience elsewhere or at someother time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• About your point #2, you were warned not just for canvassing, but for badgering users (non-supporters included) on their talk pages. This edit cannot be seen as a way to "to make up for the earlier canvassing" as you have stated. While I do not fully agree with the way your ban was handled, I am not comfortable with the way you have handled this issue as well. This is certainly not proof that an edit like this constitutes hounding. Also, your continued insistence that the issuing of warnings are an abuse of administrative power come off as unnecessarily naive for an editor with your edit count. I am not an administrator, but have issued over a thousand warnings in my editing history. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think at this stage, we are waiting to hear from admin YellowMonkey, who has not yet responded, to explain administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've left him an invitation to this discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  And he's apparently decided to keep editing without so much as a courtesy note here. If that continues we'll have to carry on without him and assume he has no input, and frankly if that's the case I think it reflects very poorly on him.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've been seeing a large number of problems with tools usage by YellowMonkey in the last 6+ months. At the very least he's taking administrative actions without responding to questions about those actions. I've seen blocks for socking without an SPI case as well as the issues listed above. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we propose something for the AN/I community to support or oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfC/U maybe? Or should we keep it relatively informal and just look for a consensus on the propriety or otherwise of specific actions of YM that have been questioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious proposal I would make is to see how much support we have for having SpacemanSpiff step down as an administrator since his actions seem to me like they are driving away potentially constructive contributors and this is impacting the quality of articles under the India project. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to YellowMonkey, and let Zuggernaut start his own thread. I would agree with the informal aspect, and possibly the start of such a determination will prompt YellowMonkey to engage in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started a new subsection with what I think is a neutral statement of facts and policy. Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way

Somebody explain WP:FORUMSHOPPING to Yogesh; he started 3 subsections, went to Wikipedia talk:Article titles (unsuccessfully), and now wants to take it to talk at WP:COMMONNAME. The strategy to disperse this mission over many different pages in the hopes that somewhere the mission's accomplished isn't very helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried. But YK is much better at writing lots of words then reading them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sub-sections were started for the very reason you have started a sub-section has been introduced here, the length made editing tedious. Wikipedia talk:Article titles is the discussion page for WP:COMMONNAME. so that is the only other thread, there I began the discussion there with information that a move proposal was on[115], WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about hiding different threads, I on the other hand opened the thread with information of the other thread. I have even offered to close the thread on talk:Ganges[116], so that it is easier for editors, does that still make me a forumshopper, which is in my opinion about hiding and deceit which I did not resort to. I need to call it a day it is 1.54 am local time here. Good night.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not about 'hiding and deceit'. It is about raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages. Initiating a move request on an article talk page and then raising the issue on a WP space page when you aren't getting the answer you want is forum shopping.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, that is unfair. Yogesh Khandke has done two things:

1. He has proposed to move Ganges to Ganga, in line with an overwhelming preference in Indian English for Ganga. This preference is present on Indian government websites and in the English-language Indian media.

2. He has asked that Wikipedia:Article titles should not give "Ganges" as its key example of when not to follow local English usage in Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. You can hardly blame him for that -- if the article is moved, the guideline has to be changed too, and indeed editors could argue that until the guideline is changed, the move would be -- naturally -- against the guideline. --JN466 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{ec}} I am sorry, WP:COMMONNAME redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles. You are talking about one page. --JN466 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a particularly big deal because it is not an egregious example and, given that he's trying to undo it, I think he gets it (but, apparently, he would rather not admit it). But, raising an RfC ([117])on a topic while a move request proposed by you is ongoing, and when you perceive that the request is not getting enough traction (User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ganga), is forum shopping. It is better to wait till the move request is closed and then raise a more general question on the AT talk page (rather than raising the same question). --RegentsPark (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my bad, I didn't see that it's the same page. Yogesh, the subsection was started because I raised a related issue, not the same issue.

That being said, I nonetheless do see a problem with the way you approach this; your stance/opinion is very clear by now. What I've seen is your re-hashing the same argument over-and-over again, as if nobody had heard you, jumping into almost every other vote. This is not a spoken conversation; what you've written is on record, everybody can read it, re-typing it is thus a waste of time, and, quite frankly, annoying. We've heard you. It just so happens that others disagree with you. You should just step away now, let others say whatever they want to say, and then come back next week or so; unless you have something new to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's block of Yogesh Khandke

• On 30 September 2010, YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks with a log summary of "trolling and pov pushing at British Empire and talk". YellowMonkey did not inform Yogesh Khandke of the block on the latter's talk page. This was the first block in the latter's block log. The purpose of this subsection is to gain a consensus on the matter of whether or not the block was justified and whether or not YellowMonkey acted properly in the matter.
  • Applicable policies include WP:ADMIN, particularly WP:ADMIN#Accountability and WP:BLOCK, particularly WP:BLOCK#Notifying the blocked user. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if a block was justified, the length was inappropriate for a first time offender with no obvious warnings. In addition the conduct of YM around this issue seems highly suspect beyond the block length. If there is further evidence of his inappropriate use of tools as mentioned above, it should be presented here in diff form. I disagree with going to RfC/U because it is a wasteland of uselessness. Nothing is binding and it's where most discussions are sent to die. There is a discussion happening here, right now, let it carry on to it's conclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections. were the two most recent ANI threads I could find on YM. There have also been numerous notes on his talk page from admins (including me) and concerned non-admins regarding his protections. He has a tendency to semi articles for 6 months where most admins would go with a few days but that's an issue with his protections, not an individual block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block An admin is part of a community, and must follow community expectations. One of those expectations is informing the subject of administrative action the reason for the action, and in the case of a block, how to see review by another admin. YellowMonkey just left Yogesh hanging on the phone. To say nothing of the fact that the length of block was wildly excessive. Look, play social networking games if you like, but that name over there is a real person who needs to be treated with respect. It looks like YellowMonkey let down the side.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this page is not for dispute resolution. If there are lingering concerns about YellowMonkey's tool usage, WP:RFC/U is the correct venue to discuss them. Two of you (preferably editors uninvolved in the original conflict) should discuss your concerns with YM at User talk:YellowMonkey. If you don't get satisfactory answers, you can then start an RFC. This thread has done the most that it can reasonably be expected to do: it has alerted the community to potentially valid concerns, and provided the aggrieved editor with several outside views, and brought in several uninvolved editors who can take any needed follow up steps, such as RFC. I suggest we close this lengthy thread now because ANI is not a substitute for proper dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On a procedural note, we don't have a clear consensus that this was a bad block (which would be a step in the right direction) and I for one am reluctant to drag someone who has done as much for this project as YM has to RfC/U without exploring alternatives first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with you. Since YellowMonkey hasn't responded here, why don't you take up the issue with them directly, as should any other uninvolved editors who are concerned about the block. Perhaps some discussion on his talk page will result in a clarification of why the block was needed, or a recognition that the block was incorrect and assurance that such errors will be avoided going forward. Only if those outcomes fail, then you can go to RFC if you are still concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but disruption isn't a dispute just because the one doing the disruption is an administrator. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor, who happens to be an administrator, acting disruptively. I'm also seeing a lot of familiar names in one of those previous discussions. Regentsparks, how about instead of running to YM defense, you encourage him to actually partake in it. As far as I can tell at this point YM acts disruptively and refuses to discuss it. As such I recommend he be desysopped. We simply cannot have editors who have no respect for the other users they interact with running around with the tools to do harm as they've done.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• It appears YellowMonkey has not followed the correct procedure, and a two-week block may have been excessive. However it also appears that firm action was desirable. I have just looked at Talk:British Empire where there are several discussions in which consensus clearly is against Yogesh Khandke; the sections are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here are two comments addressed to Yogesh Khandke: not a forum for your opinion...not about India..., please do [not] post spam or nonsense on the talk page. Accordingly it appears only that YellowMonkey should be asked to follow procedure in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block As per User:Wehwalt. But also agree with User:Johnuniq's comments - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So where the eff is YellowMonkey? Does s/he exist? Or has s/he dug a hole to now hide in? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

From the last discussion cited above, that seems to be standard operating procedure. Make a mistake, not explain it, refuse to partake in the discussion of it, carry on. We simply do no benefit from that kind of editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. If Their Highness doesn't respond here in, say, the next 12 hours and somebody wishes to file an RFC, I'll certify it. Ping me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey hasn't edited for over 24 hours - I'm not to surprised there has been no response to HJ Mitchell's comment, as he hasn't been onwiki since it was left. I don't know if he will respond, but YellowMonkey has barely been active since this discussion began, with only five minor edits over about five minutes. At this stage I don't think too much should be read into the lack of response. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he has edited. He could have left a cursory note saying he was busy and would respond soon, or something. He hasn't even acknowledged the discussion, much like last time his behaviour was questioned. Instead he let regentparks fight his battle then, and he's letting him do it again.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate to be using ANI, let alone Wikipedia, as a battleground. I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

?? Explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not waiting for him to "fight back", we genuinely want to hear his input so we can resolve any outstanding issues over this block and his admin actions in general. In his defence, I don't think he's edited since I left him a note pointing to this thread. The OP did leave him an ANI-notice, but it didn't point to a specific section. It's not the first time this has happened, but, if he hasn't edited, it's entirely possible that he hasn't been able to, so let's AGF for a little while longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My reservations surround Crossmr's references to battle and fight; that mentality and assumption-making doesn't help. Oh, and I suppose I should mention that YM rarely (if ever) edits Wikipedia during weekends. Obviously though, there's no point mentioning it when some editors keep assuming the worst anyway ("I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down"). That's why "I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when [some] editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back." I added that "some" qualifier in square brackets in fairness to the users who are genuinely making efforts to avoid unhelpfully inflaming this even more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called a metaphor. Fighting someone's battles simply means to speak for someone. You're reaching hard. YM has twice been accused of inappropriate behaviour and he's twice failed to join in the discussion and Regentspark has twice been the person to apparently speak for him. YM is free to break that cycle at any point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I did not speak for YM. I just pointed out that the block in question is an old one and it may not be easy to dredge up the details given that wikipedia is not our primary occupation (I do wonder about some editors though!). Then I got into a totally pointless exchange with wehwalt, which was my 'battle' - not YMs. Just a clarification. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block. No prior warning, no real justification, excessive duration even if it had been justified, no talk page notice. --JN466 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconfirmation RFA - it's just that bad. An appalling block, per comments above (eg JN466), made substantially worse by a failure to notify. There was nothing to justify a block of any length; other participants on that page had been a bit dismissive of the user's concerns (a remark about "spam or nonsense" stands out as inappropriate), but in toto there was nothing there to justify any administrative action at all, let alone a 2-week block without warning. In view of such a blatant mishandling (intentional or not) of admin tools, the community should revisit the issue of whether it trusts YellowMonkey with them. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad harsh block. YogeshKandke wouldnt be around too long after he is done with his POV pushing. YM has done a lot to the project, especially for the India project. we have way too many nationalists, regionalists, casteists, all kind of "ists" and he is one of the few administrators who is willing to confront them what many Indian administrators often hesitate to do for several reasons. He monitors India pages well and identifies vandals and trolls much more easily than other non-Indian administrators. I do not support any harsh action against YM. It would be great if YM says a few words to defuse the situation. --CarTick (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is just the thing. No one here is grabbing pitchforks and torches and going after YellowMonkey, whom we all respect. Frankly, if YM said "whoops, my bad guys, I meant to leave a template, totally forgot, he has my apologies" I think we'd be inclined to let it go at that. But to say nothing and ignore the thread just greases the skids of this towards a RFC/U. Right now there is great sensitivity about so called admin abuse. We can't just ignore this because YM isn't responding. He left an editor out in the cold for two weeks, an excessive block with no block template. We have to work to resolve this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than lengthening this thread, which risks turning into a soapbox for those who feel they've been put upon by administrators, why don't you start a conversation with User:YellowMonkey at User talk:YellowMonkey. I am confident he would reply to polite inquiries from an uninvolved editor such as yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done that. If there is no reply within 24 hours of YM's next edit, I also will be willing to certify a RFC/U. I am sad over this but see no alternative. WP:ADMIN makes his responsibility to explain his actions clear, and the fact that he is a crat and functionary makes his obligation even greater.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he editing again then? He seems to have been offline before. I'm not entirely convinced that switching the conversation to his talkpage would be a good thing, but I do agree that this thread is turning into a bit of a coatrack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, going by my previous experience with YM, I highly doubt he would respond unless some drastic action is taken. The fellow won't even bother to explain his position to others. I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down. --King Zebu (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of AGF, but I don't think moving it to YM's talk page would do much good. It would reduce exposure to the wider community and most likely be left to stagnate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely we just need to leave a note saying "Consensus on ANI is that the block was too long, and you failed to correctly notify the editor, please be more careful in future." Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, we can do that, but you have to question, in an administrator what is it that has led him to ignore and apparently refuse to answer the communities good faith questions related to his administrative actions ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why he's being disruptive and why this discussion belongs here. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to make one, pretend it didn't happen and ignore the community around you. It's disrespectful, it's disruptive and it's unbecoming of an administrator.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• <ec>unblock if it hasn't already happened. It's pretty clearly both too long and lacked a proper notice. In addition I'm not sure a block at all was appropriate here. It looks like YM hasn't been around much since the block so I can understand his lack of response here. But he also hasn't responded to a request to explain an unblock before that and has had issues with following policies and guidelines in the past. I'd like to see him agree to actually follow the rules when it comes to using the tools. Barring that I'd favor an RFC/U. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, the block expired a few weeks ago, otherwise I'm sure the block would have been overturned by now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I knew that. It's what happens when I read this and then walk away for 24 hours without rereading. thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

YM hasn't made any contribs for the past two days. He may not be ignoring this discussion, he might be genuinely unaware of how large it has become. A bit of good faith on the part of the mob wouldn't go astray ;-). On the topic of the block, two weeks is harsher than I'd have done, but nationalist POV-pushing will be the death of this project if left unchecked, so I think a stern approach is preferable to a permissive approach. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

He has contributed since this discussion was started, so unless he made those edits to a random article while ignoring the notification on his page, he's probably aware of the discussion. He has a history of ignoring these discussions and letting others speak for him. Being stern is entirely different than side swiping someone with a huge block out of the blue with no notification, explanation, etc and then trying to pretend the situation didn't happen.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Taking YelllowMonkey to WP:DRR or RFC/U isn't a productive way of sorting this out. Here's what I propose:

1. YellowMonkey or someone with administrative priveleges should redact/purge/permanently remove the block from Yogesh Khandke's block log. It should never be used against Yogesh Khandke in any way including the way SpacemanSpiff did.
2. YellowMonkey and Yogesh Khandke should continue their e-mail exchanges and sort this out with the goal of becoming friendly, collaborative editors who yearn to improve India related articles. YellowMonkey should make an effort to understand that not everybody is this area is a "retarded nationalist". There are gray areas and our goal should anyway be one of "proselytizing" the so-called Indian nationalist editors in to policy abiding long term contributors.
3. Editors/administrators should consider revising WP:CANVASSING per WP:BRD with the goal of avoiding situations such as this one which IMO was partially trigerred by a message from YellowMonkey to SpacemanSpiff. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per Off2riorob's comment just above. We need to know what's up here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support 1; 2 would be nice, and 3 is interesting. (Otherwise I agree with Wehwalt.) --JN466 06:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No need to do anything to Canvass or BRD. I personally don't see the diff given as canvassing, maybe a lack of good faith, but not canvassing. (Zuggernaut's previous attempts to reform canvassing can be seen on its talk page here and here) As for BRD, how does this relate? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for #1. Support for #2 - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks should not be excised from logs. A 1-second block can be made to leave a note in the block log, if there is consensus that the block was bad enough to merit that. Still waiting to hear from YellowMonkey. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the method I had in mind. --JN466 19:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an RFC/U has been opened regarding YellowMonkey, and I will call it the most respectful RFC/U I've ever seen, I suggest we close here. RFC/U may be found here--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC is a wasteland of uselessness. Nothing is binding, discussion will pointless drag on for weeks and then all parties can just ignore anything said there. This is the proper venue for dealing with a disruptive user.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

and I would also note even if RfC was the proper venue for this, it should have been drafted first as there are far more concerns to his behaviour than this single incident. A previous similar incident to this wasn't mentioned, and there is also apparently concern over his protection use. If an RfC is to be drafted, it should be complete.--Crossmr (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• For reference: Comments by YM, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey#Response. --JN466 09:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which barely addresses any of the problems raised here, or even there at all. It's as close to a non-response as it can be.--Crossmr (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

YM Needs to be desysopped

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

ANI does not have the power to desysop administrators. If this is really the route people want to take, then ArbCom is thataway. Leaving this thread open will only produce more drama and its aim is unachievable at this venue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

As the outside views roll in at the RfC. Two very interesting views have been shared. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey#Outside_view_by_Physchim62 Has noted that YM as an arbcom member once voted to approve a principle that he himself has violated numerous times which resulted in Betacommand losing his bit. This alone should be sufficient for his removal as an administrator.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey#Outside_view_by_Serpent.27s_Choice has also analyzed the last few months of several of his actions and found numerous questionable blocks and page protections. All of these things come with little to no discussion and as noted by several people on the page he seems to be "allergic to discussion". His response to the RfC is a slap in the face to the community as he does nothing to discuss what was actually raised and does little more than express shock that people don't support him. As such he should be demoted immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If that doesn't scream cover-up, what does? The RfC doesn't have an address out-come of whether or not YM can remain an administrator. YM is a disruptive administrator and this is the place to address disruptive users.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also User talk:MuZemike#Please stop the cover-up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball says that's not gonna happen... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think ANI is an appropriate venue to address desysopping. RfAr would be the appropriate venue if that is the redress sought. An RfC on user conduct is underway; perhaps the better approach would be to allow that to be completed to flush out the issues as opposed to continuing with a parallel discussion here. Samir 02:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you avoid plucking chickens and boiling tar while the community is discussing this in a current ongoing process? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there is a disruptive user out there who will barely discuss what he's done let alone show any signs that he's going to stop doing it. The current on-going process is inappropriate for this issue. RfC has no power to tell anyone to do anything at all, let alone desysop someone.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I advise you to closely read the RfC in relation to your bold and curious assertion, "let alone show any signs that he's going to stop doing it," which appears to not be fully informed of the content of the RfC. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it, see above. His response is basically a non-answer. It doesn't address anything at all. He's made a couple of comments on the talk page and attempted a small attempt at explaining some of the lesser things, but really hasn't even begun to address the bulk of what he's done. The one comment he's made hardly addresses the breadth of what has gone on here even in the last 6 months that things were checked. At the time of my original posting of this, the comment on the talk page of the RfC was not present.--Crossmr (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Recall - I also support desyopping and Recall of this administrator. He has ignored the community and his comments about Indian contributors and his actions in this poor block all show very poor judgment with no sign of any understanding or care of his actions. It would do him good to treat him as he has treated others - make fun of him and then block him for a lengthy period without warning and then ignore him. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, no. An eye for an eye is not how Wikipedia works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, RfC is not remotely the most productive or appropriate place to discuss desysopping someone. In addition the RfC is moving to be closed. Desysop isn't under the perview of the RfC.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for ANI, either. I'd say, if you're determined to keep digging this hole, you need to go to ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Desysop discussions can and have been brought up here numerous times in the past, and Jehochman should be well aware of that. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Community_desysop.3F and more recently Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Causa_sui on a sub-page here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Fcsuper and User:Viriditas

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

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § Timeline_of_the_burrito

Fcsuper (talk · contribs) has been engaging in obsessive and tendentious editing on Timeline of the burrito and Talk:Timeline of the burrito for more than a week now. As a means of improving the atmosphere of harmonious discussion and raising the tenor of debate, I proposed a merge as a compromise, hoping that in the process, I could bring Fcsuper to the table of reasonable discourse. I was surprised to find that my proposal had the opposite effect: Fcsuper began edit warring over content that was discussed on talk, and began to engage in tag bombing.[118][119] Multiple attempts to discuss this behavior with the editor have failed, and I have documented at least three instances where Fcsuper has asked a question about the content, received a response, ignored the response,[120][121][122] and then proceeded to ask the same questions over and over again, going so far as to copy and paste them into new threads, three more times.[123][124][125] In order to put a stop to this behavior, I've asked Fcsuper to go back and respond to the points I've already made to his questions; he has refused to do so, preferring to ask the same question about the content, over and over again. I am currently involved in merging salvageable information into the history of the burrito article[126] per my original merge proposal.[127] Although there are several routes administrators could go down to help diffuse this situation (blocking, protection) it would be most helpful if Fcsuper could be asked to slow down and address the points that have already been made instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again, pretending the answers have never been given. Discussion with the user on his talk page[128] and on the article talk page has come to a dead end. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See below for new issues. In addition to the above problems, Fcsuper has now begun a campaign of inappropriate canvassing. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas is engaged in protectionsim of an article that has multiple WP violation. This is that person's effort to redirect the problem with the content of that article. It is in the interest of Wikipedians to improve the content of the Timeline of the Burrito article prior to merger due to its poor content. Viriditas is trying to game the system to introduce this poor content into a main article. When I first brought up issues with the article, Viriditas was responsive (though a bit delayed). But when it came time to redact WP violations from the article, Viriditas reacted with unqualified and unexplained reverts. He is already come close to a 3RR violation, which I have been more than gratious to ignore. I have nothing further to add since I am editing and reacting in good faith. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fcsuper, why have you not responded to my comments about the content on the talk page, and why have you continued asking questions about the content that have already been answered? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem here beyond Viriditas' difficulties in focusing on content on the article talk page, at NPOVN [129] [130] [131] , and at Fcsuper's talk page [132] [133] [134]. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've focused solely on the content on the talk page, only to have my comments completely ignored by Fcsuper. I hope you don't support tendentious, IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, Ronz. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you've not [135] [136]. --Ronz (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this the part where I respond with, "yes, I have"? Bait much, Ronz? Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Update: User:Fcsuper has continued to obsess over the article, and is now engaging in inappropriate notification per WP:CANVASS. Fcsuper has begun contacting his friends on their talk pages informing them that the article "is currently being protected by an individual that does not want to accept any changes" and requesting their help.[137][138][139] Could someone please inform Fcsuper how to compose an appropriate notification? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you note, my call for response specifically stated that I was not looking for support in my edits. These are individuals I have worked with in the past that I respect. My invitation was to see if they are interested in bring their neutral eyes to the discussion, as stated in my comments. As a matter of reverting behavior with the article, this is in the public record for all to see, and it is OK for me to note that as well. All edits to improve the article have literially been reverted by Viriditas. My actions are well within WP. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. Please take a moment to read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:CANVASS#Inappropriate_notification, as you canvassed other users for help in a discussion by 1) presenting the topic in a non-neutral manner by describing the article as "being protected by an individual that does not want to accept any changes." That is an entirely non-neutral and false statement, as I have accepted many changes on the talk page, all of which have been completely and totally ignored by you. Furthermore, every attempt to respond to your questions about content, has resulting in you completely and totally ignoring my response, and proceeding to ask the same question over and over again, in a tendentious, disruptive manner. When I have asked you to stop doing this and to reply directly to the points made, you say, "You were told that the entries are inappropriate....your response did not address the violation...it is your own original research. It didn't change the fact that the entry is very unencyclopedic." This is not a form of discussion. This is you, asserting your opinion without evidence and demanding that material be removed because YOUDONTLIKEIT. That's not an acceptable form of discourse. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your own edit history says otherwise about what is true or not. You are currently engaged in several arguments with several individuals about this matter. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but your latest reply is completely unintelligible. Please rephrase. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was among those allegedly canvassed by FCSuper. It took me a while before I decided to take a look into the issue, but, looking at the article, I agree with FCSuper that at least half of the entries in that article are of only remote interest and therefore qualify as trivia that should be avoided. As for Viriditas's claim that FCSuper is ignoring the fact that his concerns have been answered, I must say that indeed Viriditas did provide answers, but those answers are utterly unconvincing (see this thread in general). I do support trimming the article by removing all the useless trivia (regardless of whether that trivia can be sourced or not), and the proposed merger seems sensible. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Please clarify. Fcsuper asked a question and I responded. Fcsuper then continued to ask the same question. Your observation, "Those answers are utterly unconvincing", is another nebulous assertion in the same class as Fcsuper. My answers specifically addressed the points raised in the questions and answered them directly. You will have to do better than IDONTLIKEIT. I'm glad that you and Ronz have a close and long working relationship with Fcusper,[140] and all three of you support each other unconditionally like brothers, but let's not support our friends to the detriment of encyclopedic integrity. Nepotism has no role to play here. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I rest my case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Continous deletions of new versions of Coat of Arms

Resolved

 – Content dispute.  Sandstein  22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good morning!

I'm putting User:Heralder coats of arms with an active user Style design. This style is becoming popular in English Wikipedia, and Heralder are doing Spanish arms in that way for English Wikipedia and other proyects. There aren't problems with the French arms of Sodacan even these works are used at the French Wikipedia version.

redacted article text - — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. Sorry for my English I'm learning it.--Tusk3 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It may prove to be worth noting that Tusk3 appeared around the time Xanderlip was put on notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tusk3 doesn't appear to be creating the images, the user Heralder seems to be the creator, and has been around for a while. Heralder's work doesn't have the license restrictions or the signature that X's work did. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tusk3, this is what we call a "content dispute" here, i.e., a dispute about what an article should contain. Administrators have no power to settle such disputes. Please take a look at WP:DR for more advice about how to solve such disagreements.  Sandstein  22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

IP trying to hack my account

Resolved

 – No problem here; although the IP could probably use another block. HalfShadow 04:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked my wiki email and saw this:

“ Someone from the IP address 76.125.242.77 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Access Denied" is "<redacted>". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org

”

It seems like that ip is mad at me for reverting a vandal edit it made. Is this something to worry about? Access Denied 04:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I hear, it's a not so uncommon occurance. Like the message says, it's safe to ignore...they can't get your password that way unless they have access to your email. I also made your quote a bit more user friendly, so to speak, with regards to formatting. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This happens all the time. Ignore it. --Jayron32 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That has happened to me about 10 times. There is nothing to worry about. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War

Could someone possibly see if they agree this edit needs reverting please? Per the edit notice, the article is under a 1RR restriction and I have already reverted what I believe to be an inappropriate edit (the changes to the lead speak for themselves hopefully), and would not wish to be blocked due to reverting an article I only have on my watchlist due to keeping an eye on fair use violations. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit as being (IMO) an extremely one-sided re-write of the article from a glaringly obvious POV. It might not last. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this thread, as the OP forgot to do so. David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am an associate lecturer and this edit is based upon my own research . None of the previous entries have had adequate academic content. The content in my entry does not come from psuedo- academic internet sites. My information comes form the most eminent scholars on the PLO such as Yezid Sayighs "Armed struggle and search for a state" and Rex Brynen's "Sanctuary and Survival". I have included SPECIFIC pages numbers for all this information- it is the people such as Fenian and Demiurge that do not make adequate use of the most seminal scholarship on this issue and thus should refrain from making such poor contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.242.178 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you also the user Ronda2001 ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Removed my now irrelevant question, seems this is already at AE some time ago) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday

Request for enforcement of WP:GS/BI restriction

Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and LemonMonday has been very active at WT:BISE. Despite this discussion regarding an article Westward Ho! at BISE, which resulted in me changing the article to use "United Kingdom" as the largest referenced area as per the references provided by numerous parties at BISE, LemonMonday immediately reverted the edit, and violated the terms of the topic's probation by reinserting "British Isles" without a reference. Subsequently, User:GoodDay reverted the change, only for LemonMonday to immediately revert again. Given that Cailil is now being dragged into mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/Admin Cailil: Definition of Civility, I thought it best to bring this latest disruption here for wider community involvement.

LemonMonday/MidnightBlueMan sock

A recent sock case from August 2010 resulted in technically unlikely. Comments from the Clerks and patrolling admins stated

• behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing (PeterSymonds (16:44, 27 August 2010)
• Technically Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren 18:22, 27 August 2010

The case was eventually marked as closed with the following reasons - I'm marking this for close. LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now. TNXMan 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Well, LM is back. I also agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Can someone please block as per WP:DUCK. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• HK you were asked to let this sockpuppetry issue go (see my talk-page). The CU evidence was proven 'unlikely'. I agree that LM's edit pattern is a match for MBM but the CU was closed with a negative result.
  You are in content disputes with LM. He is edit-warring and has been warned. If you don't both start de-escalating soon you will both be be blocked for disruption--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, for the record you stated I would leave this alone and It's to AGF on that matter regarding the Sockpuppetry case. And I responded by saying that I though it best if the case was reexamined. You did not ask me to "let it go" or "drop it". If LM is a sock of MBM, this should be recorded and he should be blocked, and the clerks (and you) agree that the behavioural evidence is strong/overwhelming.

I find it bizarre that you say I'm in a content dispute with LM. I'm not. I've deliberately not engaged with him on the advice of another admin (TFOWR) on earlier issues. I've reported incidents and behaviour.

I find it equally bizarre that you threaten me with a block for disruption if I don't de-escalate. Genuinely, this is unfair. --HighKing (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are in a dispute with LM at Westward Ho! - he reverted your position only a day and a bit ago[141][142] - correct?
Asking you to AGF is the same asking to let it go--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not in dispute with LM. Yes he did revert my edits, but the issue is that he did so in breach of BISE sanctions and WP policies. I reported it as such, and I've not engaged with him. And asking me to AGF is not the same as asking me to let it go. I still AGF, but I also believe it is worthwhile to ask for a review on whether he is a sock since the behavioural evidence is overwhelming. The SPI was closed because LM had disappeared. Since he has returned, it's reasonable to re-examine the SPI is it not? --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it's best to clear up any doubts about LemonMonday's status. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been cleared up! And I object in the strongest possible terms that this keeps being brought up. The intention is clear; to keep bringing it up until eventually someone is found who says "oh yes, DUCK applies, let's block him". LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

An SPI won't do any harm. The innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so how about an SPI on everyone involved in the BI debate, and at regular intervals, just to be sure. In fact, I'm sure someone could automate the whole thing so that all editors are constantly investigated for socking by a bot. LemonMonday Talk 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants to open an SPI on me? then fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How about not making pointy remarks LM. WP is no a battlefield. I have already warned HK to stop and to AGF. The matter is now here before the community and all involved will be dealt with--Cailil ^talk 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, please don't think I'm being uncivil, but at times you would test the resolve of a saint! What would you think about a criminal trial where the defendant was found not guilty, but the prosecution didn't like it so they brought another identical case; not guilty again. Not to be beaten they brought an identical case up yet again, and again and again and again, hoping that eventually they'd get a jury who came in with guilty. Well that's what we have here. I know this is not a trial situation, but I hope you see the analogy. (and Cailil, I just read your remarks but I post this anyway. I'll say no more on the matter). LemonMonday Talk 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident that should the SPI result in your being prooven not a sock? it'll be the last one posted for quite a long time. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not part of the justice system, nor is it subject to the Bill of Rights. It's a privately-owned website, and if they want to run an SPI against someone every day and twice on Sunday, they can do that if they want. And the innocent should have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday topic ban?

Whether or not LemonMonday is a sock (and a "provable" one through CU evidence) is almost unimportant, IMO, when one considers that he virtually defines what a single-purpose account is. From his very first edit[143] up until his mysterious, nearly year-long absence[144] only to "jump right back in"[145], this account seems concerned with only one narrow issue here at WP. There are barely 300 edits from LemonMonday. Why a topic ban "broadly construed" has not been implemented, when the battleground tactics and subsequent disruption are all that exist for this account, is odd. Get him out of the BISE Wars by topic banning him from it, IMHO. He is campaigning for his cause disruptively as a SPA, and should just move on and edit in other areas. At least one other area. If possible. Doc talk 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc I have to say I agree with you and I would be ready to impose such a sanction myself (as provided for within WP:GS/BI) at this point. I would also suggest an interaction ban between him and HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is huge. Is there any reason LemonMonday needs to participate in the venue covered by WP:GS/BI? As for the interaction ban, if LemonMonday is removed from editing that venue, I don't think the negative interractions would continue, so I'd support the topic ban only at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Doc's points - Yes, I've made about 300 edits. Yes, I edit primarily in one area. Yes, I left off editing for about a year. No, I am not running a campaign. On the basis of this you would have me topic banned? In response to Cailil - my only recent transgression has been to revert an edit on a single article. I acknowledged at the Talk page this this could have been handled better and explained why I'd done it. In response to Jehochman - yes WP is a big place, and you ask why I have to edit in my area of choice. That question could be put to any editor. You think if I'm removed from the topic the so-called negative interactions would not continue? I suggest you look at the history of the British Isles issue in more detail. The negative interactions have been going on for a long while, with or without my presence. Maybe everyone should consider what is really causing them. LemonMonday Talk 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course we know. Irish and British Nationalism. Why don't you all just go edit Antarctica instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Too cold. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In a recent RfAr (race and intelligence)[146] the Committee decided that:

Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

I told you your reverts were a serious matter, that they were a breach of the topic's probation. Furthermore I believe they could constitute wikihounding. You never made any edits to the Westward Ho! article prior to reverting HighKing. This is the same with British Isles naming dispute article where your first edit there is a revert of HK[147] and Vesperidae[148] and Hada plebeja[149] and Olethreutes arcuella[150] and Epinotia immundana[151] and Old-time music[152]. This info is publicly available in your contribs LM. This pattern of behaviour is not just a breach of the topic probation but of general behavioural policy. If HK's edits were problematic you were invited to show what, where and how on a number of occassions, as are/were others. Nobody has done so and in fact you've used the revert function inappropriately rather than do so--Cailil ^talk 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on those diffs, I agree that LemonMonday should be topic banned from this area. I am considering a three month ban, subject to making sure that complies with the arbitration remedy authorized. After that time they could come back and we'll see if they can be more productive and less prone to battle. Does any uninvolved editor disagree? Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My only objection to 3 months is the pattern of disappearence by this account. I would suggest this sanction be reviewed after 3 months of editing rather than 3 months on the clock. What do think?--Cailil ^talk 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on! Those diffs were from over a year ago, apart from one which was over two years ago. They were reverts. They weren't multiple revert edit warring and they were carried out at a time when there were no sanctions or other restrictions of any kind on the British Isles subject. Furthermore, in all but one case they were to correct an absolute error that had been introduced by the use of the term British Islands. That leaves just one revert, at Westward Ho!, which I've acknowledged was wrong and could have been handled better. I subsequently didn't self revert because the issue moved on in the discussion. I am not battling anything. See my latest contributions at BISE where I've engaged in meaningful discussions. LemonMonday Talk 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please LM, make a promise not to add/delete/replace British Isles on any article, category etc etc; until you get a consensus for it? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

HighKing hasn't edited any of those articles either other than in relation to British Isles naming matters either (apart from one minor edit on old time music).Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Umm LM that's what makes them worse. The British Isles revert and westward Ho! are current, the flora are a year old but you have no namespace (article) edits between October 09 and October 10. The only namespace edits you have from October 09 and October 10 are reverts of HK at articles you've never editted before. Again I refer to the ArbCom ruling from the 'Race and Intelligence' RfAr above. You cannot contradict your own actions LM and your actions are publicly available - there is a pattern of following HK around and reverting him - WP:BISE was created to prevent that. That you continued to do this a year after is the problem. This is not the first time that a topic ban on your account was discussed. One was considered here at ANI in August '10 but not implemented--Cailil ^talk 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Note LemonMonday's revert on Westward Ho! wasn't necessarily bad. He was actually following the terms of the closure, which was for the "largest area", British Isles > United Kingdom. He also added a source afterwards (RS or not). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE was not created to prevent people following HK around reverting him, it was created to come up with a Guideline on neutral usage of the term, so that there was some actual policy based reason for his systematic changes. So, where is the proposal? Without it, HighKing is in material breach of that arbitration finding imho. Just because he uses BISE now, instead of simply making the unilateral changes himself, doesn't affect that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We've tried to create guidelines on 2 or 3 occasions at BISE. All were stonewalled/disrupted by, what now has emerged, a bunch of socks. The strict civility policy has been great to date. Rather than driving editors away with targetted hate campaigns and a general lack of respect for others opinions, I suggest we'd be better served by focusing on removing the disruption that prevents progress. --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HighKing is where the "buck" always seems to stop with for some reason. Especially for the SPA accounts. Whatever HighKing's "agenda" may or may not be, he is clearly not a single-purpose account, and adds more than mostly disruptive shenanigans. Look at his history, even very recent history, compared to an account like LemonMonday. He's playing it more "fairly" than LM. This isn't guerrilla warfare. Edit a cheese[153] article for a change: it's less "controversial"... Doc talk 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would add that I believe I am being "targetted" in a campaign, and have been for a long while. What we need is more of the same in terms of strict enforcement of civility, which to date has been hugely positive. We also need to remove the socks. A sock farm was largely responsible for nearly all the disruption (MidnightBlueMan, Mister Flash) and removing it was also hugely positive and resulted in a lot of progress being made. It has recently stopped again. I have put forward a theory that LemonMonday is another sock based on the behavioural evidence. While the result of the CU was "Technically Unlikely", nobody can argue with the timings/contributions. Since the CU we've also found some socks/editors who have the ability to "hop around" on VirginMedia's ISP (and other ISP's that use VirginMedia) to make it look like they're in different geographical locations (e.g. TheMaidenCity). We know that MisterFlash used VirginMedia, it would be a good idea to check if this is another pattern that should be taken into account. --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Run the CU, we need to end any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to activity at WP:BISE

HighKing is an SPA. Just because he makes around 50 edits to cheese articles, during 2,000 edits in and around the BI issue, does not change that. I don't see a single confirmed sock, let alone suspected sock in the top 15 contributors to the latest proposed guideline to come out of BISE. It failed for the same reason as all prior proposals, simple lack of clue about NPOV. Socks will continue to appear for as long a BISE does not fulfill its stated aim, and instead carries on being a clearing house for HighKing's continued programme of systematic edits. HighKing has never been able to see why he is the common denominator here, but it's obvious to everybody else, even the people who by this stage can still even be bothered to engage with him over the daily trivia that he brings to BISE. And we can see from this Westward Ho! farce how effective it is at non-disruptively dealing with even that type of busy work. MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you on some sort of civility parole? --HighKing (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if you considered Micks comments and responded to them? I agree with Mick, BISE is the reason for the socks and Highking is the SPA that is responsible for the existence of BISE. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the drama/entertainment page. If you've concerns, open your own AN/I. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Not that a single part of that post was incivil. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not uncivil just wrong. The majority of cases in the last six months have been proposals for the inclusion of British Isles by the various Unionist SPAs such as LemonMonday, LevenBoy etc. BISE was set up to prevent edit warring over multiple articles and HighKing has used that process since. The subject has also been plagued by socks such as Irvine22 who have been sophisticated enough to work around CU checks--Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you even pretend that was remotely a fact, when anybody who goes and looks at the page, can see who has submitted the vast majority of requests, even if we are for some bizarre reason, pretending that only the last 6 months matters. Any 'unionist' requests, as you so incivily put it jesus christ, imagine how HighKing would flip his lid if someone characterised his BISE requests as 'Republican' have been more often than not, on pages HighKing 'corrected' first, well before BISE was created. Would you rather the socks just went and reverted directly, instead of doing what you are asserting is the 'correct' process and wasting their time with BISE? Damned if they do, damned if they don't with you it seems. Duplicitous socking has barely influenced any BISE discussions at all, and even when acting on their own, they are usually just ignored. They have not affected the discussions on individual BISE trivia, or discussion/drafting of the proposals it is supposedly creating, as the link above showed. Applying the same evidence based approach to BISE itself, you can see that the biggest single confirmed sock that ever editted the page has half as many edits as HighKing, and is only sixth in the all time list, behind even you. Then there are another four non-sock editors in the list, before the sockmaster, who has a grand total of nine edits to the page in that guise. That's some disruption eh? The real disruption like this ANI report comes from exactly the sort of thing HighKing did with the Westward No! 'resolution'. BISE was not set up to prevent edit warring, that is a ret-con justification of it from the Mfd. It is as much a myth as your 'evil socks are everywhere disrupting everything' drama-mongering. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If my memory is accurate, I was the first to support HK's creation of BISE. My understanding was/is it's function is to co-ordinate add/delete/replacing BI usage discussions, get a consensus for each case & thus avoid edit-wars on the articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The page was originally about 'special examples', keyword special - the idea was that after a few cases had been discussed, the consensus to create a guideline would be clear, and the guideline would be put out there for the community to approve. What it has become after that has failed time and agains, is just a routine clearing house for HighkKing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, it's time for somekinda review of BISE, as obviously everyone isn't in agreement about its functions. Indeed, it's reason for exsitance. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its the valueless to the educational content and the pointedness of the whole worthless issue that is disruptive. Its complete trivial nationalism.Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but it has restricted disruption by nationalists of various hues (British nationalists are a part of the issue) and Unionists. It was a response to a disruptive pattern of editing by both sides. Its noticeable that editors on the anti-nationalist side (such as yourself Off2riorob) always come with this mantra that getting rid of HighKing will solve all the problems when the facts say otherwise. I've seen the same tactic used as noise to defend not banned editors such as TritonRocker and Irvine22. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually find the issue so pitiful that I don't sit on either side of it, the whole pointy issue reminds me of a throwaway kindergarten project not an encyclopedia, its the worthless disruption that imo is detrimental to the project. Other editors may have added this or that, but User Highking is a single issue account in regards to the removal of the term British Isles from the whole project from totally obscure articles that he finds in a list of searching for the term British Isles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a CU on LemonMonday 'first. Then review the BISE after. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There was already one inconclusive, this is a fishing report in an attempt get the contributions reassessed to overturn the last verdict. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The next one might be conclusive. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, make a report in the correct place, coming here and suggesting after an inconclusive report, please block as a quacking duck is a back door attempt to override an actual investigation.Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Something's gotta happen soon. BTW, has anybody put out a missing editor's report for LM? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Guys the BISE thing is an issue and I actually agree with Mick & Rob to a point. There was a MOS issue at BISE and it's existence was one of the reasons in April '10 I was convinced not to topic ban HK. That plan did fail mainly because after a lot of prompting from me none of the participants would propose anything at WP:MOS. In short, yes WP:BISE needs a review. It existence is not a mandate for changing/adding/removing the term 'British Isles' on wikipedia. It is a board to discuss it's usage. It was created to facilitate discussion rather than edit warring.
  However, Doc, Jehochman and I have discussed a specific issue: LemonMonday's behaviour. If you want to review BISE do so start there on it's talk page. But don't turn this thread into another circus - far ttoo many enforcement threads have been disrupted (by both sides) over the last 2 years--Cailil ^talk 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, could I ask you to help with the BISE review by helping to structure the discussion? Perhaps there are specific issues that, as an uninvolved editor, are blindingly obvious to you that should be brought up? --HighKing (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW - I've begun a 'review' of BISE. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say I largely agree with Mick here. I've only been following the BISE business recently but it is pretty clear that there is an agenda to remove the term "British isles" by any superficially civil mean possible. It is bizarre that people who object to the removal of normal use of this geographical term should be described as "unionists". I dare say unionists object as well but on other occasions the arguments are just plain daft. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Same invitation to you btw - over here if you're interested. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that GoodDay. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fainites I understand your concern - but if people want action they need to substantiate ith - rather than make generalized remarks.
Thank you GD for opening that discussion.--Cailil ^talk 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problems at WP:BISE (British Isles renaming dispute) are not caused by a simple two way split as they are being presented by some. It is not as simple a matter as "British" versus "Irish". Defending the use of British Isles does not make one a "British Nationalist" versus "Irish Nationalists". There is no such thing as a "British Isles-ist". For the sake of foreign Wikipedians, "British Nationalists", as in the BNP are generally right wing or extreme right wing "English nationalists". I dont think they even bothered about the Irish.

You are absolutely right Fainites and I'd like to encourage users to just ignore this kind of stuff and move on back to editing. This is just a sideshow wasting time and energy. Sometime ago I realised theoretically that if an individual could not "win" at whatever it was they were attempting, then wasting other individuals' time, energy and goodwill running around would be a second best. It would keep them away from serious editing and wear out their patience etc. I am not accusing HighKing of this though. The problems at British Isles renaming dispute are not going to be solved easily. I'd like to encourage whoever it is that calls the shots around here to move British/Irish problems onto which ever forum can resolve them.

FYI, as I did not know I had to, I'd just like to notify "the community" that I have requested mediation with the admin Cailil over issues relating to the WP:BITE/WP:BISE which I consider to be very serious. Although it is a private matter, and I am not requesting others comments, I want to make it fully public in case I suffer any further ramifications or accusations for having or not having done so.

In response to SarekOfVulcan, the British already have. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"The community" acknowledges your brave disclosure concerning the serious issues concerning "the admin Cailil", I'm sure. It wouldn't be a BISE thread without all the players[154], now would it? Doc talk 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot script?

At Special:Contributions/24.29.92.238, it looks like an unauthorized bot script is running. Note that this address has been blocked twice (see User talk:24.29.92.238) for operation of unauthorized bot scripts. Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's User:HBC Archive Indexerbot logged out. Note that bots (even approved bots) are not permitted to edit while logged out. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked it, since the previous two, very recent blocks only temporarily stopped the bot, but didn't get any response or correction. I have no objection to anyone unblocking this account once it is clear that some editor behind this IP is again watching this. Fram (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Fram blocked the IP indef, I changed the settings so the bot can log in again (I left the indef). Maybe the bot-owner should be triggered to solve this problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:H has been long gone. Who operates it? Is it User:Krellis? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think so. It doesn't use the new API. I am guessing thats why its doing it. Might be time for someone to rewrite the bot. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

All things aside, it's really easy anymore to right in code to verify "am I logged in?" I imagine it probably only needs cosmetic changes anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.bjorn — Myspacing, harassment, refusal to get the point

Ian.bjorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – user blocked indefinitely

Okay, we've already given him about a million second chances. After a short blocklast month for myspacing and harassment, he has continued the exact same behaviors that got him blocked. He has also been spamming my wikiemail with random messages completely unrelated to wikipedia. He refuses to edit articles except when given a specific article to edit, after which he'll promptly go back to his usual myspaceyness. He also uses his talk page for things like trying to seek homework help, complaining about his personal life, making silly rants, and randomly attacking the editors who have been so patient with him. I've been very patient with this user, but he's starting to drive me over the edge, and I'm wondering if comment consensus is in favor of a block. Access Denied 05:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking as proposer and victim of his harassment. Access Denied 05:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Give him the boot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support blocking sadly. Seems like there are no intentions of wanting to actually edit Wikipedia. I was originally going to bring this user to AN/I, but Access denied beat me to it. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've looked at the user's talk page and I don't find his behavior acceptable. It doesn't seem he has learned since his previous block, so I definitely support another block. This user needs to get serious and I think people have been pretty generous in offering to help. He has gotten many chances and he blew it. Nations United (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support blocking The "I didn't hear that" attitude coupled with the dearth of productivity compels me to believe Ian.bjorn will not be cleaning up his act in the interest of the community. Goodvac (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Regretfully support. I dislike the very real possibility that this might drive off a contributor of his age given that they can normally be taught the ways of the wiki over time (as they grow and mature as a person), however, his behavior at present is showing that he would much rather communicate than contribute overall and he shows no signs of wanting to learn the ways of the wiki, regardless of the constant insistence by several editors and numerous second chances/warnings he has been given. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Even as someone uninvolved in this case I can safely say that this user has failed to get the message about their editing practices. As such: the message needs to be sent in a stronger form. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 11:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block - Too many chances have been given to him already. Derild4921☼ 12:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: first edit by user was 12 September 2010, but started regularly editing in early October. Few edits to mainspace, but from what I've seen the user is trying to help the encylopedia or at least not actively trying to harm it. At this time I think a long/indef block is unwarrented as other less drastic measures have not been tried. Perhaps we could restrict the users talk page access to their own and one mentor. That way if others don't want to deal with the myspacyness they don't have to, but will allow the user the opportunity to contribute positively. (Also noting the myspacyness of most of the sigs above.) -Atmoz (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with email disabled. Spamming a user with harassing emails itself is an indeffable offense. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to question this block. Without doubt, some sort of action needed to be taken, but indef is far too harsh. I do not belief Ian's actions at all fall under the "harassment" that deserves an indef. I would support Atmoz suggestion of a restriction from talk pages. I have been a mostly uninvolved watcher in this case, but think he still deserves a chance to learn. He's young, he has little focus, and seemingly little drive to work ( improve the 'pedia), but that does not warrant an indef block. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In a few months, a blocked user like this can quietly come back with another account for a fresh start and nobody will care in the least, if the edits help build the encyclopedia. It happens all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that fall under socking? That should not encouraged, even if it is common. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 19:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would care if they don't stir up worries. There is also WP:Standard offer. One way or another, indefinite is never forever (or even a year) for someone who finds a way they can peacefully help the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with Ian multiple times in the past, I just don't think he's competent enough to edit at this point. He's a young child with some medical conditions affecting his actions, and he's just not ready at this time. If he comes back later and is able to control himself, it's not big deal. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also dealt with Ian quite a bit. He seemed like he was playing games to me. He would ask how to write a perfect article and people would reply, I honestly don't think he really cared about how to write the article, I think he was just trying to get attention. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with multiple Ians in the past, there is still space for more AGF than you might think. Most kids that age are capable of genuinely believing they are about to write a featured article as their first Wikipedia article, just as some kids that age genuinely believe they are currently engaged in writing what will turn out to be a best-selling computer game (or dance mix, or classical opera, or novel). Just as some kids twice that age believe they can successfully run for admin after a only a few months here (as Ian also thought about). If it wasn't pretty common, we wouldn't already have WP:NOTNOW. Absence of wisdom or maturity is not a guarantee of absence of good faith. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the user has potential to be a positive contributor. Someone might want to suggest to the user the Simple English Wikipedia instead of this one. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Highly related matter

Resolved

 – Blanking most of the talk page and putting it on fullprot for six months. This should let him concentrate on simplewiki and nor be distracted here. Standard offer stands unless he is blocked on simple as well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

His current talk page access. Currently he's requesting to be harassed, and personally attacked.. Also, they appear to be trying to get attention.

Frankly, I have half a mind to blank their entire talk page except for the block notice, and stick an indef tag up at the top(leaving the mentor tag as well), with clear instructions that any further of the above will not be tolerated, and if it continues, their talk page access will be revoked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he's figuring it out. Would an admin please redel those? N419BH 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with N419. Regarding Daedalus' suggestion... personally I don't see the advantage in throwing further threats at the user thus providing more excuses for self-pity, upset, endless debates on the talk page, et cetera. The user is not making vexatious unblock requests (or any unblock requests, yet, although WP:BEANS is around the corner I'm sure), and has apparently accepted that their block will be very long or perhaps permanent... and therefore anyone unduly bothered by this need only un-watchlist the talk page and walk away. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend another wiki to him that would fit his age better. That's the problem we're running into. Do we have one somewhere that's aimed at younger users? N419BH 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page -Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(although that's not specifically aimed at younger users, but it's one of its purposes. I will also go find someone who frequents the place who might show him around there --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC) )

I left a note on his talk for bulbapedia and wikia. N419BH 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think we are giving this user more attention. Yes, the simple Wikipedia would probably be better for that user. I think the user would probably MYSPACE there too. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal account used by a POV-warrior

User:JCAla, who was blocked in September and October for edit-warring, is still disruptive, constantly removing tags[155], violating 3rrs, adding nonsense Youtube videos as sources[156], and turning Afghanistan related articles into his own personal anti-Pakistan [157] [158], anti-Arab, anti-Taliban blogs.[159] [160] With his edits, he's making one group in a civil war the bad guys and another the good guys, and he doesn't even agree with other neutral editors. [161] The behaviour of JCAla suggests that it is used as a vandal only spare account by another editor unless he sits watching the Afghanistan page 24-hours everyday.--Jrkso (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Indef block on user - review

I've just indef blocked BalancedAndFair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as it appears he came on Wikipedia with the sole intent of harassing a user - posting the user's real name all over with the sole intent of harassment, blatant attacks against this user, and edit warring. I request your review. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. The user acknowledged a warning [162] but persisted anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this matter closely and I endorse Magog's action. There are unclean hands elsewhere in this matter, but that does not excuse BalancedAndFair's harassment.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of revdel'ing the attempted outings. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder if it could be a sockpuppet. Probably not, but still. --Bsadowski1 11:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think a CU could be helpful here. Whoever this guy is, they managed to figure out how to access the block log in 15 minutes. T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me as well. That said, the editor exhibited a high level of cluefullness, telling me he was probably smart enough to hide his tracks, so I didn't bother. I also thought I would get one of those ugly "not for fishing you idiot" symbols if I asked - maybe CU's are a bit friendlier to these days to likely socks? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BalancedAndFair's edit history shows that it is likely that he edited before. Numerous edits within 12 hours including edit-warring on two articles, discussion on other editors' talk pages, knowledge of LAEC's edit history, use of "minor edit" box, use of editing jargon like "consensus" and "tag". Checkuser may not be helpful if the account is a sock of an editor who has not edited recently. If it is a sock, the LAEC should be able to suggest who it is. I think the block is good, and removal need only be considered if BalancedAndFair requests to be unblocked. TFD (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• BalancedAndFair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CiderMill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PRBlaster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RonaldusMagnus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Abbruscato (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Note that there is at least one point of overlap between the accounts (mainly [163] which show up between PRBlaster's and BalancedAndFair's edits), so this is not 100% abandoning an account and starting another one each and every time. –MuZemike 16:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

All accounts blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Using userpages as twitter/AIM

Mpnk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maikromero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
189.152.131.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(there have been a number of other IPs, but this is the most recent one)

All of the above seem to be using their userpages as a twitter-like service or sending messages back and forth by editing each others pages, nothing of which has anything to do with wikipedia. I would take it to Mfd, but to me it seems like more of a behavioral issue than a matter of deleting a page. Malikromero was warned about using wikipedia as myspace, deleted the warning, and carried on doing the exact same thing. Looking for others' opinions on what to do about a few users that have done nothing to improve wikipedia.--Terrillja _talk 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked both users, deleted and protected both user pages. Absolutely no editing involved here, just chat.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction: User:Maikromero actually has made some trivial edits.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba

Could someone investigate why this [164] routine reversion of an inconsistency in the article eventually lead to this [165] block threat? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you kept reverting instead of discussing after being reverted by multiple users. That is what is known as edit warring. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, you were on the edge of violating the three-revert rule; talk page discussion suggests that consensus is running against you and your view on the addition of French as an official language. Discussion and consensus are keys to including information; edit-warring is not. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the answer to whether French is an "official" language in Manitoba is not altogether clear. The article itself explains how it sort-of-is and sort-of-isn't. It's like the infobox entry would need an asterisk pointing to that section of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That would work, as would marking "French (de facto)" in the misinformation box. But one admin makes a consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You've had 5 different people disagree with you. And not a single one who agreed with you. Hardly a case of one admin makes a consensus. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this user seems to repeatedly engage in edit warring. If you go to his talk page history, there's loads and loads of people complaining about him.Rememberway (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to his own talk page User_talk:Wtshymanski#Grrr, Grr...go away "I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right)." The core principle of the wikipedia is civility; and he unashamedly isn't. Frankly I think he's laughing at you guys.Rememberway (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As in "I am 'Enery the Eighth, I am I am"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All the really uncivil editors put up such a notice on their talk pages. That's so you can tell if they are being uncivil. Otherwise you have to assume good faith, which wastes everyone's time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I am sure he is. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's only 1 bilingual province in Canada, it's New Brunswick. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New Brunswick is the only official bilingual province in Canada. Get over it. The Eskimo (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's go at it the other way. Where's the law (curently valid!) that says Manitoba's official language is English? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's something about an 1890s decision by the province to have only English as its official language for legal matters. Some court rulings in recent years have chipped away at that blanket, but French has not been accorded full legal equality with English in that province. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel question

Resolved

 – All copyvio'd text has been RevDel'd  7  00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A well-meaning but young editor started a new article by pasting in an entire song review from allmusic. [166] I removed it and re-wrote the article but I wasn't clear if that merited rev-del'ing the earlier revisions. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears to qualify for RD1 - hiding all versions up until the copyright text was removed.  7  00:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 7! 28bytes (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that you can also use the {{copyvio-revdel}} template to flag the article for RD1. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know about that template. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

External link vandalism by user:94.192.52.28

Resolved

 – warned, and all links removed  7  00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place, but user:94.192.52.28 has gone through changing links in articles. He does not change the description, so anyone clicking gets a surprise visit to a pay-for-porn site or a "purchase this domain" service. Will notify after posting this.Cracked acorns (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

They haven't edited for a few hours now, but I've given them one final warning and confirmed that there are no other links to the website that they were spamming. For future issues like this you may get quicker attention by reporting someone like this to WP:AIV after they have been sufficiently warned. Thanks.  7  00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 7. Cracked acorns (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to contest a speedy deletion

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to be that it was a hoax, and the correct venue is WP:DRV anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recently an administrator "Soap" speedy deleted this article called Tebson. I don't think the admin read the article. Then I got admonished not to remove the speedy delete tags. The thing is, the article was not spam nor was it vandalism. Can someone please take a second look at the article and tell me what exactly was wrong with the article? Thanks. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could you notify User:soap of this discussion?Cracked acorns (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Never mind, I went ahead and did it. Cracked acorns (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• This was deleted as a blatant hoax, not as spam or vandalism. Looking at the article, it seems very dubious - searches for the subject come up with nothing and the books referenced don't seem to exist based on a quick search. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Camw (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have read the article. Meanwhile, what was wrong with the article was (1) "Tebson" produces zero Google hits to support its existence as a type of hamster, and (2) none of the offline sources you cite appear to produce Google hits, and despite their recentcy, are not supported by ISBNs. Accordingly, in that absence of any supporting information, it's all to easy to assume that this is "something made up in school one day", and until you can provide verifiable sources, I think it must stay deleted. I am happy to copy this article into your userspace so you may try to achieve that, but it should not be in the mainspace as it stands. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I have to say, Olivia Stratton is mighty attractive, and is a major in gastronomy, but there is no way she wrote a book in 1983. Blatant hoax indeed. Resolute 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • That's not the best of sources for Miss World 2003#Contestants. Do you have a better one? Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The admin that speedily deleted this article made the right decision. The user that started this needs to get off their soapbox and find sources so the article will not be speedied next time instead of trying to reverse what is clearly the correct decision. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like they've been blocked for personal attacks... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I tagged the article originally, after a failed Google search for more on the subject. Tomas Gilbfarb is not (AFAIK) the creator of the article, and likely only found it by following my recent contributions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Per his suspicious unblock request, in which he specifically mentions that he is not the creator of the article, I have reason to believe that he is the user who created the article. ([167]) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Barrie Police Service

User:Jedidiah Leland has been editing this article and I'm extremely concerned. The editor has been adding edits such as this, this and this and I feel that the edits are not written from a neutral point of view and are also given undue weight in the article.

I have no knowledge of the subject of the article and no interest in it. I came across this edit on the articles talk page when I was using Huggle and decided to step in and intervene to try and stop what appeared to be an edit war breaking out and also because I felt it unfair that the user 'named and shamed' IP User:66.209.53.162 who's only made a few edits (that appear to be good faith) to the article on the talk page. Both myself and administrator User:HJ Mitchell have attempted to explain to Jedidiah about neutral points of view and to assume good faith to other editors both on the talk page of the article and on the users talk page, but Jedidiah is insistent that the edit remains in the article. So it is for this reason that I am now requesting the intervention of administrators. --5 albert square (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.  7  00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been done. - JuneGloom Schmooze 00:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apologies about that but I'm having problems with my internet browser tonight and it crashed as soon as I saved this so it did take a few minutes to make the editor and IP aware! I have now notified the editor and the IP concerned --5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) I have warned the user for 3RR and given them specific examples of what they are doing wrong. Some of what is written there could be reworded remain as sourced, npov content. However some of it is clearly speculation, original research, or synthesis, and consitutes misleading use of citations/refs where the refs don't support the comments asserted. I'll watch the article and editor as well.  7  00:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that the other party in the edit-warring, 66.209.53.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is in fact the Barrie Police Service, according to WHOIS. I suggest keeping an eye on both. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced and simplified the material somewhat and removed the possible BLP vio but it still needs some work.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also placed a conflict of interest notice on the IPs talk page and said that WHOIS has traced the IP back to Barrie Police Services. I would still request though that admin keep an eye on the two editors and the page meantime please. --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a user page

Resolved

 – Deleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To Whoever This May Concern;

I made a user page located here that I've redirected but I noticed it doesn't get rid of the page completed. Can you tell me how to delete this page or if you can delete it that would be great?

Thank You, Whenaxis

Deleted. In the future, you can add {{userreq}} to a page in your userspace that you want deleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick actions...and I will use the {{userreq}} next time, if needed. Whenaxis (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Outing, canvassing by IP editor 76.161.33.242

76.161.33.242 (talk · contribs) An IP editor has posted several talk page posts that appear to be an attempt at outing. Edits include misleading edit summaries and modifying archived sockpuppet discussions. Other recent edits include talk page edits that could be construed as harassment:

• [168]
• [169]
• [170]
• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
• [174]

Some background can be found from the discussion and sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley.

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for spamming. Nakon 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked longer because of being a web proxy (see this for more info). --Bsadowski1 11:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Nakon 04:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Republic of China

Possible page move vandalism: an editor has just moved Republic of China to The R.O.C. (music artist), and overwritten the redirect with a duplicate of the article about the (apparently low-notability) artist. Can an admin please delete the new redirect and move the original article back to Republic of China, to preserve its edit history? Editor's talk page suggests a history of vandalism. Thanks for the help, Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Skrapz2xw (talk · contribs) should probably be given the boot for this mess he's made, considering the community has been through this before.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks; if it were a one-off event, perhaps not, but the user repeatedly deleted and moved a high-profile page despite warnings to the contrary, and their only other edits this year involved posting abusive text and a false death notice at Tila Tequila. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we beg for something stronger? The death penalty is out, but some are unfit to edit the Wiki per WP:Competence. This user is one of those that is already taking up too much time and oxygen of actual contributors.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This really should have been an indef, and I'm fairly surprised it wasn't. Page-move vandalism, death hoaxes, promotion... I can't find where this account has done anything useful over a four year period. Courcelles 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy solution to one problem: I just requested indefinite move protection for Republic of China. I think the protection makes sense. It's pending at WP:RPP. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So why not block him indef anyway? He is of no use to the project, even if he was probably making a mistake and did not know how to edit the redirect at The R.O.C.. I doubt we should teach him how to do this, anyway, because the community's already dealt with the subject before. And I'm fairly certain Republic of China has been indefinitely move protected as of what happened last night.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I move-protected it last night during the move vandalism. As for the block, I've no issue with the change; I did the shorter one simply because I'd not had the chance to check out the account's edits from two years ago to see if there was anything good there. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indef'd them. I can't see any compelling reason not to, there's a reasonable consensus here and they don't seem to have done anything useful. Looks like he should have been blocked a long time ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The user has some significantly lengthy gaps in its editing history, which raises some obvious questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Small Soldiers

IPs have been repeatedly section blanking and gutting the article over the last four days. Please semi-protect and block 98.245.156.169 & 207.224.122.207. Exxolon (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected by Stephen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In the future, please make protection requests at the Requests for page protection page. Nakon 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image without rationale being forced into an article

Can I have some help? I've hit 3RR, and people have started shouting about 1RR anyway (despite the lack of talk page notice- do I have to memorise every AC case ever?). The image lacks a rationale for that use- no amount of sophisty can get around that, but several editors have felt the need to add it back, assuring me that it's being discussed somewhere. I clearly forgot that if I start a discussion about something, I can ignore policy. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed here so let the discussion take its course. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. WP:NFCC#10c; the fact you're discussing it somewhere does not suddenly mean that the policy does not exist, and the fact you clearly have next to no understanding of the policy shows that you should not be taking part in that discussion. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we certain that the image cannot be sourced elsewhere? Given the circumstances around its taking, I'd not be surprise to find it had been released into the public domain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The image seems to be used for its shock value. If the article says "plastic bullets" can kill, and that fact is sourced, a photo of a victim isn't needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And one of the most high profile victims of their use is.......insert image. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. Wikipedia has strict policies about images. Specifically, how does a picture of a victim add to the statement that plastic bullets can kill... other than for shock value? Which is fine for the book, but not appropriate for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter how high-profile it is, this is a very basic and common misuse of non-free images. There are many album covers that are just pictures of the band, but you can't use said album cover in the band article to show what they look like; it can only be used in the album article. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear NFCC violations are explicitly exempt from 3RR. And 10c is very black and white. At the same time, however, NFCC#7 should be temporarily suspended if the image is under discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia removed every image used for 'shock value' there would be quite a few empty pages. I think we need to discuss two different things here, and not conflate them: (a) is the image usage inappropriate because it appears to be non-free, and (b) is the image usage inappropriate because of what it portrays. Actually, I say 'discuss here', but since these topics already seem to be under discussion in the appropriate places, I'd query whether we need to discuss it here at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm strongly against "shock value" being used as a criteria for deletion. The question that should be asked is "is the use of this specific image relevant to the article?" (weak NFCC#8). From there, guidance is clear that if the answer is yes, then, given the image passing the rest of the NFCC, then it should be used; if not then it shouldn't. Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I just question whether it serves any purpose beside shock value, i.e. as a POV-hammering point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Article protected for 24 hours. Seriously, non-free content should be clarified prior to being added, not added and then clarified. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right. The dilemma here is that Domer uploaded it over 3 years ago, and it was mostly under the radar until recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• And that's all quite fine, too, but once the status is disputed, the file stays out of the article until the matter is cleared. Tag-team edit warring it back in is probably the worst way of solving the matter. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe if J had explained his rational without just pointing to a link and threatening blocks this could have been avoided, I asked him to clarify a confusing copyright issue and got another block threat. Great bit of admin skills by him I thought Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct still waiting for his reply all I got was a link to a page. Mo ainm~Talk 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Must agree with Mo ainm on J Milburn handling of the whole situation. He said the issue was black and white when clear very few really are. If it was B&W we wouldn't still be discussing it. Bjmullan (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having suggested that I have the same image in another book (the quality is very poor though), since the issue was that it was taken from a book cover, J has clearly indicated that even this would not be acceptable.The point that was made here is very good and should be considered. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue, would the individual victims of plastic bullets be considered notable for our purposes? Judging by this article there seems to be an intent to create such articles for all victims, based on questionable sources like indymedia and the campaigning website "Relatives for justice." It would save a lot of subsequent hassle at AFDs if we could have independent input on that now. Given that over 3,000 people in total were killed during the Northern Ireland Troubles articles on all the victims seems like overkill. Valenciano (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article and the nature of her death is cited in 41 book and notable publications not to mention being raised at a Congressional Hearing in the United Stated. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw those as I did a search before adding the notability tag. Many of them would fail WP:RS like the World Marxist one for example and the rest simply say that she was killed by a plastic bullet and don't seem to go further than that. The Congressional Hearing is clearly on the issue of Human Rights in general, not on this incident. So the question I'm asking is, is being killed by a plastic bullet in a seemingly isolated incident during the Northern Ireland troubles, where over 3,000 other people were killed, sufficient for an article? An answer would help both of us. If the answer is yes, then it'll save me wasting my time in AFDs. If the answer is no, it'll save you wasting your time creating the others, (which judging by the red links, you seem intent on creating?) Valenciano (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How many would fail WP:RS? I take it that you have read some of these books, if not, how can you comment on the content? Please read the Congressional Hearing again, since John Downes was killed by a plastic bullet, and his wife was talking about their use and abuse. Please read up on the number of children killed with plastic bullets, hardly an "isolated incident" that is what makes them notable. Hope that helps answer your questions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Carol Ann Kelly, and the others killed in similar circumstances, should probably only be a redirect to United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Sadly, the young lady is not notable, only her death is. As with the case of other young people in a similar situation (e.g. Lesley Ann Downey, Holly Wells) we do not have biographies of them, but mention them in the context of the notable event(s) that surrounded, or was precipitated by, their death. Rockpocket 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my question. Such tragic incidents happen all around the world where every year there are hundreds of people killed by state forces. So even if there are, for arguments sake, 20 books which have little more than "X was controversially killed by state forces," that's insufficient for an article to be created. The plastic bullet controversy is notable, but are the individuals killed notable in their own right? I would like input on that before I go to the AFD stage. Valenciano (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If the image in non-free? delete it. If it's free? keep it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The number of people in this discussion who clearly simply do not understand what I was talking about (Mo ainm, Bjmullan, Domer48...) is upsetting. When I say that an image does not have a rationale, and point to WP:NFCC#10c, is this confusing? Not so far as I can see. Yes, this is black and white, no, this is not particularly confusing and no, sourcing it to elsewhere (I don't care where it is sourced to right now...) will not solve anything. If I seem to have been a little short, perhaps it's because, y'know, I'm saying something alarmingly simple and people don't fricking get it. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is the case that a "number of people" don't understand what your talking about, maybe the problem is with you. Your tone and manner has already be noted above. Now you have been asked a number of times to chill a little and relax a bit, the sky is not falling down. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, typically the problem is with editors disagreeing with the policy and hence making up their own arguments in favor of keeping a policy-violating image. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have been watching this from the side, I'll note on this as uninvolved. I get now the feeling there are two different threads going on here:

Thread 1: there is an image, which is non-free for the use on Plastic bullet. Simple, that is the case, that is how it is. There is a discussion going on whether it can be used, but as long as that is not concluding, even if there is a concern still there that it may not be, then that image is NOT to be included on the page Plastic bullet. Editors are free to remove it as long and as often as they like, but re-insertions of editors that should know that the image is still under discussion (either by being part of the discussion, or by having been reverted before) are simply under 1RR (or even 0RR) and such edits can (and maybe should) result in immediate blocks .. if the non free use of an image is disputed then the image is NOT going to be on the page for which the dispute goes. Black and white. If the image is of a book cover, then the only place it can be used is on the page which has as subject the book, nowhere else. Basically, using that image is a copyright violation, as would any reproduction (e.g. of an image inside the book) without consent of the copyright holders be. Only in very few cases it falls under the fair use/non-free use criteria, so knowingly using that image somewhere else is simply a copyright violation. No discussion possible. Find either a free replacement, or don't display. Can someone lift the protection, and apply immediate blocks to editors knowingly violating the non-free use?

Thread 2: Sourcing the article. Please find enough reliable sources for the information. There may be 41 reports, but that is not the issue. There is enough rubbish out there that some searches yield thousands of results, still nothing is of a type that would make the subject notable. An article can contain numerous 'sources', but if none, or only very, very few (1 or 2) are reliable sources, or even, just make a cursory not about the subject, then that does not make the subject notable. It just goes down to a little list in e.g. Plastic bullet, with names of people which have been killed by plastic bullets, with those 1 or 2 reliable sources attached. Other sources are simply useless. We are not a vehicle for propaganda. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Your points of fact are on the mark. The protection expires in about 3 hours anyway, so that part will take care of itself. The argument that might be made against blocking is, "What is the policy?", i.e. what specific rule is being violated? (Other then edit-warring, if it gets to that point.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The applicable policy under which blocks would be applied would be WP:C. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob questionable action...

Resolved

 – An arbcom candidate is being badgered. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

this revert, along with their colorful editing history and block log has made me think that Off2riorob might need some powers removed (rollback at the very least) to try and rain in their temper... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Barts1a, thanks for bringing this to admin attention. If you look at WP:USER, removal of comments from talk page by the user just means they've read it. I do not think it abusive to use rollback for that purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this more simple harassment, I don't know this user and he comes trolling his negative opinion on my talkpage, I have a right to delete it on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Barts, I appreciate that it is not nice to have your actions labelled as trolling, but as you are a volunteer at the elections, it might be best if you left it up to other editors to give campaign advice to the candidates. Skomorokh 12:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A volunteer in the elections, even worse. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Huh? Off2 has an absolute right to remove comments from his UT page. This looks more like a specific form of electioneering on your part than anything else, and as a volunteer, you must be aware that any such acts on your part make your impartiality questionable. And that it is you who might well be the object of complaint, with "powers removed." Collect (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) .

I am aware of this... but the "trolling" comment above is not what I would expect an ArbCom member to do... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest he is overly involved to be a volunteer assistant and that he needs a good whack on the head with the WP:boomerang for this bad faith report. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s editing history is interesting. What's the procedure for de-volunteering a volunteer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume the community thinks it's not a problem... There have been plenty of opportunities for pointing out my editing history earlier (I practically gift-wrapped it and shoved it right into their hands when I volunteered!). Nobody seems to have done so until now. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is by no means safe to assume that it isn't a problem. Your recent behaviour has shown clear signs of partiality, and it would therefore be wholly inappropriate for you to continue to be involved in any capacity in the administration of the election. David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What does an election volunteer do, anyway? He's not a scrutineer, those are drawn from admins on other projects not active on en.wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

At any rate: I have de-volunteered as an election coord. I don't want the vocal minority to kick up too must dust. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your willingness to serve, and I hope you find an area where you can be of similar use to the wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by anonymous user

This seems to be a return of a previous vandal under a new IP. User:174.27.246.236 has been inserting unsupported (and untrue) claims that the Starwood Festival has significant participation by Satanists. The same user has been inserting unsupported material in Kelly Ripa and Illuminates of Thanateros. The pattern is reminicent of User:67.177.27.74, whose similar edits were criticized last year, and the now-blocked User:RasputinJSvengali. I suspect these three are one and the same. Rosencomet (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months, since this account has been only active since early October and Whois says it is a direct allocation, per WP:DUCK; sock of indef blocked editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy action. I only wish I had spoken up sooner. Rosencomet (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Need uninvolved Admin to review DRV close please

I appear to have closed DRV4 having expressed opinions in DRVs 1,2 & 3 . I honestly didn't remember that when I closed it and I suspect that most of the DRV regulars have taken positions on this in previous discussions. If someone who has genuinely had no dealings with this could review/redo the close of DRV 4, I'd be much obliged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I have read DRV#4 as no consensus to overturn and have re-closed as such. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - closure rationale explained on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 26. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Scythian77

Resolved

 – blocked 48 hours Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Scythian77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing, as well as in personal offences. I´ve been discussing with him on the Talk:Iran–Iraq War page over an issue. Despite the issue still being on discussion, he simply keeps editing again and again, as can be seen in these diffs:

• [175]
• [176]
• [177]
• [178]
• [179]

Also, as can be seen on those diffs he keeps making personal offences, calling me:

• "RV'd possibly racist agenda driven edits by Uirauna"
• "Please do not start an edit war based on your racist agenda"
• "Removing edits by racist agenda driven editor Uirauna"

He´s been previously warned:

• [180]
• [181]
• [182]

But has kept the same behaviour. Also, regarding the discussion on the Talk:Iran–Iraq_War#RfC:_Belligerents, he fails to engage in discussion and reach a consensus even though all comments from a RfC agree on the same point. I´ve also suggested we enter a formal mediation process to resolve the issue, but he simply ignores and keeps making changes. He´s also been previously reported [183] but no action was taken. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he's spamming for something called People's Mujahedin of Iran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The allegations of racism are unacceptable and, having looked through them, absurd. Scythian77 has been notified of this discussion. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there's no response, as indeed there wasn't last time. However, I would propose a block despite the fact that Scythian has not edited at all since this complaint was made. He's been warned before quite recently for similar behaviour. He has presumably now gone quiet in the hope nothing will happen again. It is not fair on the editors trying to discuss issues and pursue appropriate dis[ute resolution to have to put up with this combination of stonewalling, edit-warring and abuse. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering it's been OVER 48 hours since he last edited, that ain't much of a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's his first block. We'll see what he does when he comes back. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank God there was someone finally who had the guts to do something. MIaceK (woof!) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Account problems

I've been registered as Kanzer for a long time, but gave my account little use. Lately, I've felt the will to help improve Wikipedia but I cannot access to my account. The login page says the password is incorrect and I won't recieve the new-password e-mail when I ask for it. It also appears as my userpage no longer exists. I do not want to lose that account name, I would greatly thank any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.254.205 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be the wrong username, as it appears the account has made no edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... however, 2 edits had been made in Commons, but the files had subsequently been deleted. David Biddulph (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you've forgotten your password and cannot access the email account you used when you registered, there is no way to get you access to your account again. TNXMan 17:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I uploaded those images long ago but I still knew nothing of proper copyright information for Commons. I am very sorry to learn that I cannot take my account back, but thank you all for your kindness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.254.205 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, by making a new one in http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and merging it in Special:MergeAccount I managed to get back my Meta and Commons accounts, which were not responding to the password before. Still, my two main accounts in both 'en' and 'es' Wikipedias are still not working. The unified login will not recognize the password. Is there any way, now that I've succesfully retrieved my Commons account, to recover those two? Thanks in advance for any help. --83.56.254.205 (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify: I can acces that e-mail, the problem is I'm not recieving response from these two particular accounts.--83.56.254.205 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably better off just creating a new account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IPwhowasKanzer, wikipedia's records show that the email registered to the account is not valid. This could be something as simple as a typing error, but it does mean that you won't be able to get a new password. Also, you are appearing to the mediawiki interface as having created separate accounts at all four sites, not as having a unified logon. Your best bet is to create a new account and then WP:USURP Kanzer if you still want to use that name. Alternatively, create a new account anywhere and make that into a unified account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ekram Ahmed Lenin

Can you please retrieve this page of "Ekram Ahmed Lenin" from deletion ? I don't get full time to contribute here besides my jobs but I try to contribute. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User:Ragib is not perfect administrator for Bangladesh because peoples here work as administrator who delete the articles without proper justification and even don't know Bengali related proof. Please don't give anyone Indian Bengali person as administrator for Bangladesh related Article. I would suggest anyone administrator from Bangladesh. If he required any proof, i would supply. The writer ""Ekram Ahmed Lenin"" has written seven books in Bangladesh and I am trying to contribute his article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia admin team may ask me for resources for verification or give me scope to bring those proof they required with considerable time.The proof of Web printed media is not strong in bangladesh. Not anyone can based on it. The person who is writing 7 books is definitely a notable person for Bangladesh. We should keep those writers biography in wiki. Bangladeshi any person who is administrator of Wikipedia can help it for proper justification. I want to deliver him all those books he has written then if he/she is not agreed to publish it, I would not ask for it. Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkshahin (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Long story short --- fan or relative posts a vanity biography of self-published author, article gets tagged for notability, after a few days, article goes to AFD, still no references from reliable sources, and then article gets deleted. Diehard fan or relative of subject then recreates article with no changes, spams multiple user pages, and posts the above rant. Of course, as the nominator of the AFD, I haven't deleted it the first time, rather User:PhilKnight did it.

For the record, the article was tagged, prodded, and then AFD'd. --Ragib (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood your procedure but tell me how to retrieve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkshahin (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It could be userfied for you, as long as it is suitable for userfication (i.e. not a copyvio, or in breach of WP:BLP by being defamatory and unsourced etc). Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want the article to be userfied, the process for overturning the deletion is called Wikipedia:Deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

pls see the address in url and verify it from Bangla Academy either he is false writer or not:

1. Amrao pari 2. Black Daimond 3. Jollad 4. Nanarokom Golpo 5. Shundorbon Ovijan If Bangla Academy, Bangladesh make it false notable; I would nothing to say. Mrkshahin (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mrkshahin, please state whether or not you would like the deleted article userifed (copied to a sub-page of your user page) so that you can work on it to bring it up to a suitable standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you wish it to be userfied and it is suitable for userfication, then an admin will do that for you. Mjroots (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy forum-shopping Batman! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks by The C of E

The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring and accusing me and an IP editor of vandalism for removing a prod template. First accusation of vandalism towards IP editor, edit warring, another accusation of disruptive vandalism aimed at myself, and edit warring too obviously. O Fenian (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to check something to see if it's right or not according to policy. If you remove a proposed deletion template when the issues mentioned in them have not been fixed, is this against policy? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And O Fenian, if you want to fix the issues in there yourself go right ahead but please do not remove the prod template untill then. And removing a template added by another editor is not right. Me disrutive? I think not. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion implies that no-one would object to the deletion of the article. If someone removes it, then that is clearly an objection, so {{prod}} cannot be used on that article. Fix it yourself, or raise an AfD. pablo 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. AFD it is. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the guidelines regarding PROD template, I should strongly suggest that you do not make non policy compliant comments to ip's - and especially to accounts with whom you may be regarded as having idealogical issues (relating to the choices of usernames). A quick review of WP:NOTVAND would not go amiss, either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator needed

Hi, I need an administrator to delete revisions starting from January 30 2009 up to now, on this article as they all include a copyright violation of http://www.canadacom.forces.gc.ca/site/bgr-con-eng.asp. I am fixing the article so no need for a copyvio template, but still need the deletion of the material still present in the history. Thanks - CETTALK 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Canada grants the right to use their material in whole or in part for non-commercial use. (1) It looks to me like all that was missing was the attribution. Is it really necessary to delete all previous revisions? (The question is not rhetorical nor is it meant to be argumentative; I really don't know the answer but would like to understand WP policy.) Msnicki (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does and this is the rationale I use for uploading badges on french wiki (which is a lot tougher on fair use), but wikipedia articles accepts only text licensed in CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL as far as I know. Basically as I understand it you can't reproduce material on wikipedia that does not have the same or a "lower" license because then Wiki releases it's text under this license (hope it's not too confusing and that I get it right). I guess CC-BY-SA 3.0 material is commercially reusable while the Canadian website content is not so therefore it is a problem. - CETTALK 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. That was very helpful. Thank you very much for explaining. Msnicki (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Msnicki, about that. However, as CET said, the CC-BY-SA does not allow for "non-commercial only" usage (hence why there also is a CC-NC-SA, which the WMF chose not to use, and there have been reasons from the Wikimedia community as a whole not to use it for reasons regarding freedom of usage; however, you'll find more of those discussions on Meta or on Commons). –MuZemike 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Well spotted. The same person has also added non-free content to Wikipedia in Canadian Operational Support Command, which I am about to revert and revision delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and I'll pass by Canadian Operational Support Command too (for rewrite and what not) if it needs cleanup after copyvio removed. CETTALK 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another logged out bot

There's another IP-editing from a logged out bot such as this. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be HBC Archive Indexerbot, which has been doing this a lot lately. Here's a procedural question: If a bot issue surfaces on ANI, does one place an ANI notice on a bot's talk page, or on its (presumably human) owner's page? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot's talk page redirects to the owner's talk page, so that would be the place to put it (which I have done). I have temporarily blocked the IP, but there seems to be larger issue here because the bot has been repeatedly having this problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The owner of the bot should be aware of this. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Was that administrator right to speedy delete an article?

Resolved

 – Third AFD overlooked. Closure and deletion reverted, and AFD history box added to AFD. Sorry. Rd232 ^talk 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In March of 2010 I wrote an article List of Jewish Nobel laureates. The article was nominated on deletion and kept. Yesterday it was nominated for deletion once again. Today rd232 (talk · contribs) speedy deleted it. Was this the right thing to do?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is not here. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate response to what is a legitimate question. Speedy deletion is meant for articles which are obviously deletable, and any article which has survived an AfD cannot be considered to be in that class. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted article to comment on whether rd232's speedy deletion would have been appropriate had it been a new article, but under the circumstances, the action taken seems clearly wrong. The article should be restored, and the second AfD allowed to continue to completion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent AfD was the third, not the second. This was the second, at which the result was delete. CIreland (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you are mistaking This was the second in 2010 and the article was kept. What you are referring to was in 2007.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, my error - I looked at the month but not the year. CIreland (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Then, maybe you could restore the article and let AFD to end up normally?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is again at AfD, under yet another name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, so the old title should be a redirect if it's desirable at all. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that, when I look at the title of that article, I think of the "light book" Famous Jewish Sports Legends from Airplane!? –MuZemike 01:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• You should read the AFD discussion. "Per Richard Feynman" is not a rationale that one often comes across.

  Would that all of the people there were devoting as much attention to List of Jewish heavy metal musicians (AfD discussion) — to the article itself as much as to the deletion discussion.

  Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Mbz1 hatted this discussion because xe didn't like the fact (being the article recreator) that the exposure seemingly led to several additional Delete !votes. I've undone that hatting as inappropriate, but if someone uninvolved wants to hat, no problem. After all ANI is a neutral venue and there's no reason to think the exposure should bias the AFD in any particular direction (perhaps the opposite, in terms of bringing a wider community view than those with a particular interest in the topic). Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What User:Mbz1 neglects to say is that he/she recreated an article that had been previously deleted via AfD without going through deletion review. Since the article shouldn't have been recreated, the subsequent AfD is completely moot. IMO, speedy deletion was the correct course of action. Yworo (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I recreated nothing. I wrote a new article from the scratch. I failed to say nothing. I linked to the first deletion request from 2007--Mbz1 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to create a substantially different list based on the same specific criteria. The former article has already been compared with the current one and they have substantially the same content. There is no way the two articles could not, being based on the same intersection of categories. Yworo (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And this post should not influence AFD by the users who normally do not vote on such requests. It should be nabbed.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You can stick a nab template in the AFD where it belongs if you really want to remind people of WP:NOTAVOTE. Rd232 ^talk 02:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And you would be edit warring to hat this if the !votes were Keeps? I doubt it. This venue is neutral, and you are not the person to decide that your article's AFD should not be exposed to its audience. Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that lack of consensus defaults to "Keep", I am surprised the list's creator is not eager to see the widest possible input from uninvolved editors.betsythedevine (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outing threats?

I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look at User talk:Mkativerata#Eastside Sun deletion where an IP is appearing to make threats of trying to discern and publish the off-wiki identities various editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved, you mean? :) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry! --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See also similar comments on this issue at User talk:Barek#How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note for the IP, containing both advice (about how to seek DRV) and a warning (about a long-term block if there are any more threats). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are threatening to out them on Wikipedia. They are threatening to out them in their newspaper. I don't think we have any control over an independent publication's investigative journalism! Yworo (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is something that is best ignored so as not to give the "newspaper" the publicity it so obviously craves? What are we supposed to do – ban a couple of IP addresses and have the whole thing escalate? Physchim62 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

People make threats to go to the papers a lot. Try being in IRC #wikipedia-en-help for a week and you'll have seen a ton of threats to go to the papers/ threats to sue the WMF Foundation for such stuff. None of them have ever followed through. 99.9999997% of these threats are probably empty threats. Best advice would be to ignore. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue here are the multiple paths that the barrage of IPs have used in various attempts to manipulate Wikipedia, game the system, threaten editors with off-wiki stalking and harrassment, make unsubstantiated accusations against editors with whom they opposed, and generally disrupt Wikipedia processes. Some examples of issues:

• After the AfD, harrassing other editors (note, admins can view the deleted and RevDel contributions) here, here, here
• Soapboxing about the AfD at Kirkland, Washington here, here, here
• Claim of off-wiki canvassing to game the AfD discussion here
• Suggestion and threat of off-wiki stalking/harrassment in attempt to influence or intimidate editors here
• Unsubstantiated accusations against editors with whom they were opposed here, here, here
• As well as generic vandalism here, here
• This is ongoing ... while typing this, one of the myriad IPs blanked the AfD here

This isn't an issue to simply ignore ... but also not one to escalate by giving the IPs blocks that are not well-founded in policy. The solution is simply to request additional eyes on the article, AfD, and the user pages of those that were singled out in the anon's threat of off-wiki stalking/harrassment. Revert any vandalism, warn, and to apply existing Wikipedia block policies as required if/when warranted by block policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's up to the Wikipedia community, not the companies themselves, as to what needs to ultimately happen. If they cannot act in a non-disruptive manner and email the Wikimedia Foundation at info@wikimedia.org for their complaints, then we have no choice but to semi-protect all articles involved. They do not own the Kirkland, Washington page (as do nobody else) as well as any related article, and they should be cut down for any further attempts to do so as they are beginning to show a blatant and wanton disregard to how Wikipedia works. –MuZemike 09:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Already started; the AFD has been semi-protected 1 year for vandalism. I will escalate to full-protection if needed. –MuZemike 09:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother of The Party needs some time out

Removing fairly placed notices placed on an AIV report has made me think this user might needs to be temporarily blocked to calm down and think. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I deserve to defend myself before ANY decision is made. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of you need to settle it down, have a cup of WP:TEA, have a smoke, whatever. This is something you two should be able to work out peacefully; I suggest backing away from both keyboards for at least 8 hours for a start. –MuZemike 09:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will work this out peacefully if he does. The ball is in his court. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very mature stance - it takes 2 to tango, as they say. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Only speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Big Brother of The Party (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Brucejenner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Batterylow40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "This vandal is a threat to our children"? Sounds like we've got another potential incarnation of the banned user Brucejenner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Although this diff[184] more closely resembles GeorgeMaxmilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) BasebullBugs; i would personaly recommend get a check user before making that determination, as per WP:AGF User:Smith Jones 14:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Look through his contribs before you talk about "good faith". And I have not made any "determination", I'm merely commenting on similar behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's Brucejenner. I'm getting my right-wing trolls mixed up. There's another one that's always yelling "think of the children", but the name is not coming to mind just now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It might be We233ws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was thinking of, but that's one of many, so never mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sunset and Sunrise articles

Resolved

 – CU confirms sockpuppetry, blocks imposed

A new edit warring episode over the scientific explanation of the sunset and sunrise coloring has started, involving the following users:

The Good Doctor Fry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wanbli-g53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
189.148.60.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first user was blocked recently for the same reason and I suspect the others to be his/her sockpuppet. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fightin' from sun-up to sun-down...HalfShadow 18:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alvesgaspar makes a mistake when he claims that: "A new edit warring episode over the scientific explanation of the sunset and sunrise coloring" . Alvegaspar has been deleting 2 drawings that I would like to reference in a paper, and those drawings only show pictures of exactly what the other experts have written in the text.

- How can Alvegaspar's supposed edit war be about "scientific explanations", when he only deletes diagrams, and no one has criticized the science in the diagrams, and the diagrams show exactly what is written in the text?

- I think Alvesgaspar is using the shield of accusing me of being in a scientific edit war, to hide his non-scientific deletions, when I only want to have the drawings in the article so I can use them and reference them in a paper. Alvegaspar has only been deleting useful things, without explaining any good reason for his deletions.

Are his deleting things over and over somehow a "edit warring episode over the scientific explanation of the sunset and sunrise coloring" ?

I just joined Wikipedia because a friend said it was a good way to find quick good quality information for our papers, and Wikipedia references are accepted for our papers. Should I be attacked and accused by Alvesgaspar for wanting some diagrams to be published in a Wiki article?

I have read the different scientific arguments from over a week ago, and Alvesgaspar's so-called "new edit warring" ended last week, and the experts agreed on the current scientific explanations in the article, and the 2 drawings seem to show the same things that they agreed on = a war? Thank you. Wanbli-g53 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Wanbli-g53

If Wikipedia references are accepted for your papers then you should leave your current school and find a better one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alvesgaspar is proposing that an edit war over scientific issues exists, where the supposed war ended a week ago. In 18 pages of dialogue and discourse, Alvesgaspar has made no scientific contributions to the development of the article. Alvesgaspar has only sought to control the style of the article, by repeatedly deleting content that fits the scientific articles cited and fits the consensus of the scientific comments from the last 3 years. Alvesgaspar has contributed the following 3 non-scientific comments, which seem to be the basis for his 13 deletions, and no written contributions to the text or substance of the sunrise/sunset article:

• • " I don't think the articles on Sunset or Sunrise are the right place for explaining what scattering is. Please try Raleigh scattering. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC) "

• • " Please go ahead! The length and complexity of the 'colors' section are scaring and inappropriate for this kind of article, which is supposed to address the general reader. IMO it reflects more the erudit conflicts around the theme, among knowlegeable Wikipedia editors, than a genuine intention of being didactic. The recent attempt of user The Good Doctor Fry to force a diagram into the text is another symptom of the same disease. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC) "

• • " please stop the nonsese " 00:51, 25 November 2010 Alvesgaspar (talk | contribs) (13,684 bytes) (please stop the nonsese) (undo)

• If there is an edit war going on, then Alvesgaspar's 13 basically unsubstantiated, only style-related deletions seem to show who is actually creating and having a war. Several posters have requested that Alvesgaspar and GianniG46 give justifications for their repeated multiple deletions of content, content that has been supported by reliable references and agreed to by the scientists in the Discussion sections. GianniG46's response was to label a diagram as: "unreadable" and "clutter", and making seemingly disparaging remarks about my "fans":

• • " Doctor Fry, please stop insisting with these unreadable diagrams. Your fans need them? Well, they can find them here and here, with no need of cluttering the article.--GianniG46 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC), and neither one have offered . "

• Neither GianniG46 nor Alvesgaspar have offered any content to the article, and their activities have been pretty solely just deleting the scientific content of other people, and devolving to name calling ("sock-puppet"), and labeling valid confirmed scientific facts and theories as "nonsense", and calling unique accurate diagrams as "...unreadble ... clutter...".

• I find it ironic that Alvesgaspar accuses 2 other Wiki contributors of "edit warring", where he/she is the one who initiated a war over diagrams, and it is Alvesgaspar who continues to simply delete things (13 times) that 4 other people have requested (including requests from the past 3 years), and it is Alvesgaspar who offers no explanations, nor proposes improvements, nor offers solutions, nor offers suggestions, nor cites references, and his/her only contributions seems to be repeatedly deleting diagrams* and name-calling. *(Diagrams that fit the cited references and consensus opinion, and that show colored representations to demonstrate the relatively sophisticated and very complex spectroscopy behind Sunset/Sunrise colors. Note: Mie theory is very complicated, and is not easily explained with text, so, diagrams are necessary to show the outcomes/results of multiple successive Rayleigh Scatterings, followed by Mie Scattering.)

• I hope this ends Alvesgaspar supposed "edit warring", and returns the Sunrise and Sunset articles to useful scientific explanations of the pretty colors that arise from relatively complex physical phenomenae - as the facts & history show that: the person complaining about a supposed problem, seems to be the source of the problem?

• Or, maybe I misunderstand, as I am not a Wiki-sophisticate - just a goofy scientist, and I welcome instructions and guidance on how to do things better in the cooperative world of Wikipedia. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

I have initiated WP:Sockpuppet investigations/The Good Doctor Fry. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CU has now confirmed the identity of the accounts. Wanbli-g53 blocked indef; The Good Doctor Fry blocked for 3 days. This action places The Good Doctor Fry on zero tolerance status -- any further tendentious editing will lead to blocks. Looie496 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

user unfairly blocked?

A situation has arisen that I am not sure of a user has been blocked Iloveredhair‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring [[185][when he only actually seems to have ever made one post (plus possibly repeating the comment on a now deleted talk page)[[186]]. This seems excessive (especially as the user has also been blocked for editing their own talk page. Both users have been informed [[187]][[188]]Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be an ignoramus as well as a spammer. Is facebook really a reliable source for anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He may be an ignoramus, but did he in fact edit war? That is my question. Also he appears tp be a new user (his account is about a month old) so he may just lack experiance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He was never blocked for edit warring. The block log says he was blocked for vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit you can see is a continuation of deleted contributions - taking an edit war onto an existing page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So there is in fact more activity I cannot see.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's unfortunate that his fake talk page was deleted (by another admin), as it might clarify matters a bit. However, I would trust the admins' judgment in this case. And the block is only for 55 hours, so the user has some time to decide if he's serious about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin said here [[189]] that the user was in fact blocked for edit warring (although here [[190]] they says its for vandalism. It also does not explain why they have been blocked from editing their own talk page. I see no evidence that they vandalised that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user for vandalism yesterday. The post to the deleted talk page was the same as the others. Today, my recall was a bit hazy as to the back and forth on sundry pages, it wasn't edit warring as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was amused at his argument that "lesbians don't have sex". It was the Bill-and-Monica argument, which the average citizen wouldn't buy. The article is also nicely illustrated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was funny once and reverted it, but then he posted it 2x more. When I blocked him, I told him this wasn't a comedy blog and then he posted it again on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia never ceases to surprise me. An instruction manual on how two women have sexual relations - with diagrams, yet. Do we have a similar article on male-on-male sex in the interest of, uh, balance?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That article has a sad history as I recall, I mostly watch it these days because it's a waving red flag for pranksters. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Methinks I should add it to my own watchlist, for educational purposes. It occurs to me that the oral-sex part could easily educate straight men as well as lesbians, although a lot of this kind of educational stuff strikes me as having a target audience that couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Now I remember, he was also editing as User_talk:81.174.206.69, so yes, there was edit warring when he jumped to the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Iloveredhair‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.174.206.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's surprising that 81 wasn't blocked also, as it's fairly clear it's the same guy. Unless the user block took down the IP with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK the user did post the same comment multipel time (well about three). I still see no justification for blocking thier abiltiy to post on thier own talk page. But it would seem that the user deserved the wider block for childish actions. I do find it odd that the IP was not also bloacked.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Four Five times, once twice as IP, thrice as Ilh (on three pages). I locked him out of his talk page because after he was blocked, he posted it again there the fourth fifth time. It looked like trollish behaviour to me, still does. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are only preventative. I watchlisted the IP and planned on blocking that too if it began editing during the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

...and, of course, the underlying ip would have been autoblocked for the initial 24 hours of the account block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that also crossed my mind, along with the notion that the user's IP might not be static, and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Intersecting contribs of Slatersteven and Iloveredhair‎. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point being?Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Only showing the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What background that out of about 15 or so pages the user has edited I have also edited 4. Perhaps you could explain the significanse of that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we both know, you know a lot more about that than me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As I am not telepathic I do not know what you know. So I will ask you again what you mean by that comment. I would also point out that you should AGF and that is some one says that don't know what you are tlaking about you should explain it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the third most active editor by total edit count to the BNP article, and your account is likely to be close to the top of any comparison list - for example that between us including a certain User:Gwen Gale - that has contributed there. It suggests that you are likely to be interested in any editor who makes more than just passing vandalism (or counter vandalism) edits to that article, and may be willing to extend AGF on that account beyond that which may be merited. That does not make it wrong, but then neither does having a different opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I would still like to know what Gwen meant. the innuendos nature of her comment caused me to want to know what she was implying (and i have to say that if it was this simple why not just say it rather then play games). Her tone (and choice of words) implied that it was something I would know about, and that it was something with which I was intimately familiar. Her non reply also tells me (but then I might be wrong) that she indeed did not intend the comment to be taken as a comment about over indulgence but was an about implied impropriaty.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a lot more neutral about all of this than you may think. It does seem as though you're trying now to do anything you can to catch me in some kind of a slip. That's called baiting. It happens a lot here though, so I don't mind. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to bait you , just asking what you meant by your comment about my intersection with Red. I did not ask you to post the intersection comment, not did I ask you to be evasive or vague as to what you meant. But I assume wilol will not say what you meant so I will aslo provide some background. If you care to check you will see that my interaction with Red has not been amicable. In fact I have been either in direct conflcit or at best neutral (except in this matter), untill such a time as consensus was against me. So the Background is that I have been in conflcit wiht htis user and still feel this was heavy handed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Needed for Columbus Article

Origin theories of Christopher Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears user Davide41 is uninterested in presenting any other evidence contrary to his points of view related to the origins of Columbus. I attempted to clarify that there is a controversy and added a few sources to the article that show this. Origin theories of Christopher Columbus However this was quickly reverted and several other attempts to keep an unbiased article have been reverted. It seems to me that in an article titled "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" that we actually present the various sources that claim those theories instead of weeding down each theory to one sentence. Maybe another editor can intervene.CuriousColonal (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Project:Third opinion and Project:Requests for comments are across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin Scott-mac allegedly unilaterally deleting articles using inapplicable G10 CSD

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

---

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

I am concerned that this editor is, it seems, making a practice of deleting articles using CSD-G10 even though the articles had sources and thus G10 plainly does not apply (see here). After several episodes in which the community has decided that out-of-process deletions of this sort are unacceptable, it is disturbing to see an admin persist in this sort of practice and then mistakenly assert that it is proper. For avoidance of doubt: it is one thing to delete unsourced statements, it is another thing altogether to delete entire articles invoking G10 when G10 is clearly inapplicable. If one wants such articles deleted, then this should take place via the usual processes that require input from other editors/admins -- at the very least, nominate for speedy deletion, so that someone else reviews it. This gets to AN/I now because it is clear from the discussion on his talk page that he intends to carry on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It seems you've just stopped by this admin's talk page, found a discussion from a few days ago that you think is "disturbing" and decided to bring the by now stale issue to ANI. According to his deletion log, Scott hasn't deleted anything in over 48 hours and the most recent articles he deleted solely under G10 (apart from being from weeks ago) were perfectly legitimate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in question is on-going, and the most recent deletion manifestly did not meet G10, as one can see in the userfied version here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

comment - Well, there was quite a very descent discussion happening on the talkpage there but your contribution to that discussion was nothing at all, you are a passer by that has simply added nothing apart from this unnecessary escalated ANI report which has basically ended the useful discussion that was happening there without any input from you at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think Scott would be well advised to stick to the letter of G10 and use Prod for the rest. His actions are motivated by a desire to ensure that we eventually fix the problem of unsourced biographies rather than effectively grandfathering in tens of thousands of them, which is a sound idea, he just needs to do it in a way less likely to cause drama. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• The view of Nomoskedasticity that "the articles had sources and thus G10 plainly does not apply" is not correct. If it is a page designed to disparage the subject, it is deletable, sources or not. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I fail to see how this is an "incident" requiring urgent admin attention. Nomoskedasticity, whom I've disagreed with over unrreleted matters, saw something on my talk page he'd had no involvement with, and rather than join the discussion, brought it here to cause trouble/drama. Let's be clear, I am not involved in deleting BLPs simply for being unsourced. I think we should, but we don't. I regularly delete negative bios with poor sourcing - although I've not even done that much recently. This was a discussion over Swami X, a BLP that narrowly survived AFD 4 years ago (and probably wold not today). The AFD noted poor sourcing at the time (youtube and wikimaps mainly) - but nothing was done for 4 years. UncleG found the article and brought it to BLPNB[191]. After a discussion there, I deleted it with the proviso that I'd undelete it on demand if someone was willing to make it BLP compliant wrt sourcing (probably should have cited IAR rather than G10 - but whatever). No-one there objected. Willbeback then asked for my permission to userfy it and fix it up. I agreed. He then expressed concerns over the deletion, which we were discussing. I'm not sure how this is "disturbing". Anyone who thinks the article is worth sorting is absolutely welcome to sort it - but people seem to want to have a bureaucratic debate rather than do that. Nomoskedasticity, if you find this problematic - then go fix the article.--Scott Mac 19:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given previous contention over unilateral G10s, might it not be a good idea for admins to stick to a two-person rule for G10 such deletions: one admin tags, a second admin does the actual deletion? That should cut down on the drama without significantly increasing potential harm, right? Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say since this was openly discussed on the BLPNB it hardly makes this unilateral.--Scott Mac 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What I find disturbing about this is the notion that you say you intend to carry on -- as I note in my first post here. Sure, this one wasn't unilateral, but the next one is likely to be. I also dispute your assertion about my intentions, which hardly conforms to WP:AGF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you have any useful input here? As I pointed out to you above (had you bothered to read my post, you would have seen it), Scott hasn't deleted anything under any criterion in over 48 hours, so there's no incident here and nothing to be discussed, except the ongoing discussion on Scott Mac's talk page (where it should be) over a questionable deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I saw your post and responded to it. What I want to know -- the reason for coming here -- is whether it is going to be considered acceptable to delete articles using G10 when they are not unsourced. Others here seem to accept the notion that it's not proper. You yourself rejected such a nomination only a few days ago. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Have a careful look at G10. It says "These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The key words are include and or. G10 isn't limited to unsourced articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
            • At best, the structure of that sentence is ambiguous: does "and unsourced" modify only "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone" or does it modify the entire predicate (including libel and legal threats)? You might have an opinion on that, but the sentence is structurally ambiguous as to those two options. In this case it hardly matters, given that there was no libel or legal threats. If it's merely a matter of "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone", then it must also be unsourced to qualify under G10. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
              • You have to read the first sentence if it helps to resolve the ambiguity: "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." It says nothing about sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
          • (ec) I probably did. I also delete articles under G10 when I come across those that meet the criterion. G10 applies to either pages created solely to disparage their subject (usually along the lines of such-and-such is an arsehole or similar, but the criterion can be broadly interpreted) or unsourced BLPs that make negative claims about the subject. The questionable deletion of one article is not an ANI issue and should be discussed on the deleting admin's talk page or DRV, not ANI. You're talking as if you've uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate G10 and delete articles en masse, but there is no such conspiracy. We're talking about the deletion of a single article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Thread has been opened again by user Nomo , again without any input, user should watch out for the boomerang. I also see his actions as simple WP:TROLL nothing more and nothing less, worthless disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Polly Phoenix and the BLP Amanda de Cadenet

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

In examining the history of the article on Amanda de Cadenet, a photographer and former actress/television presenter, I have noticed that there has been a series of edits made by the editor Polly Phoenix dating back to June 2009 that seems problematic. Highlights include:

• 04:52, 13 June 2009: Calls de Cadenet a "bitch and a professional groupie"
• 07:50, 20 August 2009: Claims that "To be famous, she dated and sleep with many men rich and famous".
• 07:50, 20 August 2009: Places de Cadenet in Category:Groupies.
• 08:59, 27 October 2009: Removes Category:Living people.
• 29 November 2009: Adds an error to the article by moving back de Cadenet's birth by 2 years, as well as reintroducing Category:Groupies and blanking the external links section.
• 13:41, 2 July 2010: Blanking sourced info & the references section, and moving back de Cadenet's birth by 10 years this time.
• 11:38, 6 July 2010: Aging de Cadanet by 10 years again, and removing valid categories (including Category:Living people)
• 05:44, 9 September 2010: Blanking valid categories.
• 05:05, 28 October 2010: Again, messing with the year of birth.
• 23:13, 11 November 2010: Claims de Cadanet is a "groupie ... only known for dating and marrying rock musicians".
• 12:11, 18 November 2010: Tampering with the year of birth again, citing a source which does not, in fact, back up the claim (in case I haven't mentioned it, de Cadanet was born in 1972, not 1970 nor 1962).

While I am not certain that Polly Phoenix is a vandalism-only account (I haven't reviewed her edits to other articles), it appears she is under the impression that her apparent dislike of de Cadanet may be expressed by making unconstructive edits to a Wikipedia article. The editor received a final warning on this nearly a year ago[192], some time after her one and only block; yet her later edits appear to have fallen under the radar -- reverted, yes, but not reported (as far as I can tell). I am concerned that she will repeat this behaviour in the future, having gotten away with it so far. --Erik Lönnrot (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• There are, I observe, also:
  • 2009-10-27 08:15:12 — de-linking this person from the television series xe is purported to have presented
  • 2010-09-18T07:18:39 — removing this person from the school that xe is purported to be an alumnus of
• There are BLP concerns with that article in general. I note that someone claiming to be the subject has provided a plausible explanation for the whole started-at-15/started-at-18 disjunction, which no-one seems to have researched further or taken up on the talk page. I have a mind to tap Off2riorob on the shoulder. ☺ In the meantime it does seem that Polly Phoenix (talk · contribs) is abusing Wikipedia for some form of vendetta. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have indef-blocked Polly Phoenix for persistent BLP violations after previous block and final warning, notified her of this discussion, and told her that I will copy here anything she has to say. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)