• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Letting an editor get away with this would send entirely the wrong message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Strongly. She has been beyond blatant. She has lied and contradicted her former self in a self destructive manner. Although all ISP's can't be confirmed, I counted 26 socks on the Margaret Clark article alone and I believe socked as lately as the first week in June. This may not be the appropriate forum,but as a" Newbie" I was bitten almost to death by SRQ. She has no respect for anyone here in the Wiki Community. This has gone on far too long considering the extensive "evidence." It is unfortunate that an editor as talented and prolific as she was, has lowered herself to this level. I firmly believe we have no choice but to extend her banned/block to "indefinite." DocOfSoc (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm sorry, but socking to evade a ban is an enormous no-no. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I wish this would count as a vote. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus^Contribs 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Wikipedia is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do remember you taking ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would greatly appreciate if you would withdraw your unseemly arbitrary comment of, "other than the usual suspects MikeAllen [...]". Thank you. Mike Allen 01:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Professor is absolutely correct. Just about every one of the many disputes WHL ends up in can be traced back to her habit of claiming ownership over articles, reverting edits she doesn't like as "against consensus", and being rude to the editors who made the edits.—Chowbok ☠ 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have assembled some diffs that support my contention that Jack Merridew wikistalks me. I think it is better link than posted here as it will overwhelm this page. I might note that the page itself was nominated for deletion in less than 24 hours after I began assembling evidence by Chowbok, who also has a bad habit of following me around, but tacks on the overt action of posting on talk pages overt personal attacks about it. The link to the evidence I've assembled so far is at User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff. The deletion page, which has overall support to keep for this issue is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff which also has some support for my contention that Chowbok, who nominated it for deletion, who incidentally is the only one saying delete, has a personal vendetta against me. As for the diffs I've assembled, they cover in most part and especially on the articles, about a six week period. There are still 3 months worth of diffs that I haven't gotten assembled yet, but they basically reflect the identical stalking, harassment and attempts to intimidate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not with consensus

I do want to note right now that Jack Merridew keeps reverting the filmography at Scarlett Johansson from using the template that DOES have consensus for use, to a sortable table, saying the "color" doesn't have consensus. In fact, however, the template does have it. I put the templates back in tonight and within two minutes he reverted with no explanation. He has done this repeatedly to this article. The template has consensus for use and this is quite typical of Jack's conduct toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack changes the template to what he believes is consensus, and he's "jumping the gun", but you change an article to what you think is consensus, and that's okay? I believe, it would be best if any of these types of edits were withheld until after the discussion is concluded. That way, we'll hopefully avoid any further edit warring or disputes or personal attacks or any such things.  Chickenmonkey  08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, JackMerridew should not be changing anything right now. And WHL is correct, the consensus is there to keep it. What JackMerridew perceives to be consensus seems to be the problem here. And I was not aware that JackMerridew has been previously banned for wikistalking. Administrators should take note of this previous behavior. Any editor here who feels they are currently, or have been recently, stalked by JackMerridew, please post diffs for Admins to see.Malke2010 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for clarity, the table was not employing the template until Wildhartlivie added it, while the discussion is still going on. Hopefully, after the page is unprotected (if that occurs before this discussion ends), it will be left, as is, until the discussion ends. There's no deadline for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make such an edit that will clearly be challenged and result in a needless edit war. It just makes sense: nobody should add the template anywhere during discussion and nobody should remove the template anywhere during discussion. That way, hopefully, personal attacks and some wikistress can be avoided.  Chickenmonkey  19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. Jack knows full well that there is consensus for the use of that template. Also, he is the one who first added the template [4]. Then a couple weeks later, he goes on his "make tables sortable" tear here. I objected then, [5]. Jack proceeded to revert each time the template was returned, at one point calling me a disruptive editor and saying don't be disruptive. His buddy Chowbok jumped in to revert someone else here, in support of Jack, something he often does. There is no consensus for use of a sortable table and to remove the template. Jack knows that. And remembering the non-consensus supported "Tables by Jack" only came up because I was asked above to prove that he wikistalks me. That he reverted my edit within 30 minutes is even more indication of stalking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this issue, on that article, occurred already is further reason to avoid making that edit until after the discussion has ended. Also, honestly, I saw the edit, too, and I was going to revert it in favor of waiting for the discussion to end (just as was done when Jack edited the template).  Chickenmonkey  01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack didn't say he changed it because of a consensus. Please go read what he said. Then Chowbok who's not been in on any of the discussion that I'm aware of changed it back to what Jack wanted because Jack wanted it. Their only reasons are that the sortable is better which is their POV. It doens't matter the article has been protected to their version so they should be happy. As for me, I don't understand why I should have to discuss my reasoning and they can just go and do whatever they want to without waiting for a consensus. It makes no sense to me thus I'm done for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables, and like everything not to her liking, the thread has been tied in knots by her and her fellow club members. My view is that something useful, like sorting, is moar important than their blue. George Cukor#Filmography seems to have survived as sortable, for now... Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor your personal attack. There are editors who agree with WHL just as there appears to be an editor agreeing with you which got the article protected. We are not club members. We are members of a wiki-project that you are also a member of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JM, I shouldn't have to point out to you that it's trivial to make the template version sortable (I just did it there and it took me three seconds). Disliking the colour is all well and good, but let's not go misleading people as to what this debate is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that will need to be reverted ASAP, I believe. Most of the filmography tables use rowspans on the years and the sorting goes quite amok on those. I suppose it could be made optional somehow, like it seems you've done with the colour, and that could be useful. Making the colour and option is interesting, but we'll need agreement on the usage of that... Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it was all reverted out, both on non-consensus grounds and that it broke stuff. I'll check back later. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Dude, you've created the lamest edit war.Malke2010 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it began about 9 months before I ever edited any of this stuff. You prolly need to read the RFC. Anyone who thinks this is just about 'blue' is missing most of this. It's about a clash between the technical realities of large scale software development and anyone can edit. Most editors are incompetent^{#1, not #2} to opine on technical concerns. See also: WP:RANDY. Jack Merridew 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the same basic malarkey that Jack spouted a long time ago when I asked him to explain what didn't work with the header being used. He told me essentially that I was too stupid to understand it, yet he explained it to a man. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone either block these IPs or initiate a rangeblock if appropriate? A few anon IPs from India keep spamming their website all over the wiki, wiping out inline references and external links in the process [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I put a request in at the spam blacklist but there is a huge backlog going to May 25. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind, looks like someone at the blacklist page is taking care of it after all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The same IP range, plus some throwaway accounts, are now spamming another URL, perhaps a mirror of the same domain. [14], [15]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have been protected, so it shouldn't be a problem now. Netalarm^talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? MER-C 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and semi-protected it, MER-C. Sarah 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted and semi-protected Kalasalingam University and Tipper Gore and blocked the latest IP. We really need to get these links onto the blacklist as they're obviously not going to stop of their own volition. Sarah 04:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Add the following to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (copy and paste):

\bkhatana\.net\b
\bnitcc\.co\.in\b

(Don't ask about an RFA nom, I have exams.) MER-C 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[16] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return. If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC): John made this edit.
• 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC): Nev1 accused John of "puerile heckling" in this edit.
• Discussion ensued on User talk:Nev1#.22Puerile_Heckling.22.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the noticeboard for things which require immediate administrative attention, not the noticeboard to alert everyone that two editors got into a silly little fight over nothing. Incidentally, {{UV}} needs curly brackets rather than square ones: all you've done is linked to the UV article twice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Storm reached rim of teacup around 01:05, 9 June 2010. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs)

I've just reblocked the above user for continued violations of WP:BATTLE, disruptive editing, inappropriate canvassing as well as a personal attack here on one of the users he opened a battleground with. My action and intent were focussed on Talk:Trojan War, and it is only after I blocked that I took the time to read his submission at WP:WQA that appears to be about me (without him having notified me).

I affirm that my block was issued in good faith and in ignorance of his claims against me, but as he started action against me, I request a community review of the block, as leaving it standing unreviewed under these circumstances would not be proper. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more diffs supporting the month-long block. I'm entirely willing to assume your good faith here, but reading the past couple of days worth of diffs, I'm not seeing grounds for a one-month block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling... Note that the length is due to repeated previous blocks for the same offenses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved at the dispute at Talk:Trojan War. I don't think that Valkyrie's participation has been all that constructive, but I'm surprised to see a block. I see violations of WP:BATTLE, perhaps of WP:CANVAS. The personal attack listed here is small potatoes. Valkyrie has previous blocks, and in general seems excessively combative and unwilling to let matters drop...but I'm having trouble seeing how this justifies a block, let alone a month-long one. I would recommend unblocking, with the hope that Valkyrie understands certain elements of his editing are unhelpful. Perhaps a time-limited topic ban from Trojan War should be considered, but uninvolved editors should comment on whether that's necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs:

• Opening a new battleground straight off his previous 2-week block for similar offenses.WP:ABF on the rest of the editors
• [17] Another battleground at Talk:Kesha
• disruptive removal of several other users' comments
• [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Hostile and antagonizing replies to reasonable objections
• [23] [24] [25] (after one of the contributors previously roughly agreeing with him moved to a compromise) [26] Inappropriate canvassing and further violations of WP:BATTLE
• PA on one of the editors in the opposing camp, the final straw.

While none of these taken individually may appear particularly damning, this is a long-standing pattern of disruption.

If you go back to his contrib history beyond his previous block, you will notice that this user always uses similar tactics: picking up a (seemingly) minor issue on which there was a previously standing consensus, aggressively arguing while assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, canvassing others with biased statements, refusal to hear or acknowledge arguments, misstating other editor's positions, claiming consensus where there is none, but beyond that, every single time, it's not about doing what's good for whatever article he's fighting on, it's about winning. When he doesn't get his way, he eventually resorts to PAs.

After a block expires he moves on to other articles and resumes the same style of disruption with other editors. As there is a consistent refusal to get the point, a month-long block after multiple previous blocks for similar reasons appeared appropriate (and in-line with a prior warning, see lower part of his talk page here if you still have the patience). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last link was the most-useful one, actually. I'd recommend letting someone else block next time, but I think this one was indeed justifiable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't see that it's his problem. The points he brings up aren't all that outrageous, but it's his continued aggressive behavior and his seeking of arguments that's really getting old and disruptive. I'm going to mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved now. Netalarm^talk 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional diffs I'm less surprised by this block, but I have to say that I see other editors getting away with this kind of behavior all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute an additional complication. A glance at the user's talk archive history and a more careful look at the user's talk history will show a pruning of warn notices, blocks and comments related to controversy. While I'm all for users managing their own talk space as they see fit, the actions here demonstrate a clear intent to mislead. Because of the continual gaming the system, I've exhausted good faith with this user and have ignored him as best as possible. I am surprised it took this long before the block length was extended to a month (5 previous blocks). Other users might be annoying, but that truth doesn't excuse this user's long history of disruptive behavior. I'd be hard pressed to find diffs where this user made positive contributions of any variety. Based on history, this user has demonstrated he or she is here for some reason other than creating an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been having some trouble with a trolling IP for a few weeks now who was clearly a sock of somebody. Finally got aggravated enough to to open an SPI earlier today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/173.52.182.160. Before i did so, i stupidly forgot to check the IP's global contributions, which i've just done. Here's a case of Malcolm editing logged out as the IP and correcting it.[27]. Malcolm is currently indef blocked, and has a long history of similar behavior under the username. Given his pursuit of me, i would have thought we had some history; but can't remember if I'd ever encountered him before. At any rate, this is a duck, and CU now seems unnecessary. It's a pain that so much sleuthing has to be done to confirm the obvious.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two members of arbcom who I gave my IP numbers (they change from time to time) and who saw no reason to intervene. Anyone who looks at my edit history will see I did nothing that was not useful to WP. Bali ultimate's complaints are base on problems he caused himself, and have nothing to do with my contributions. Ciao. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed block evasion. Thanks. Would love to know the names of the arbcom members who are enabling you though, Malcolm, before you go. Care to share?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little more info. Here's the indef/ban discussion for Malcolm [28] which also says that Malcolm was, in turn, a sock of indef-blocked User:Kwork.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask at the arbcom noticeboard? There is nothing unusual in my editing. Many blocked users make useful contributions, and as I have said there is nothing in my IP edit history that has not been useful to WP. Bali ultimate's only basis for complaint about me is that I got in the way of his editing goals. Bella ciao, I must go and have other things to do. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason a block should not be forthcoming? ClovisPt (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block means block, yes this too should be blocked and the edits reverted per policy. If the editor wants to return, do it the right way and go to your account, put up the template and state your case. Why block or ban an editor if they only come back reincarnated as IP's or another account? This is not acceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TnXman blocked the IP for a week; however since it is so obviously a block evading sock and has been since at least the middle of April, on the basis that it's static I've extended the block to a year. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only for background from a month back: User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA whose aim to promote the Movimento Libertario and its founders Giorgio Fidenato and Leonardo Facco on Wikipedia brooks no opposition -- certainly not Wikipedia's pesky copyright policy, anyway: the editor has uploaded File:Giorgio Fidenato.jpg and File:Leonardo Facco.JPG three (woops, four) times, despite multiple warnings on his talk page about the copyright problem. After they were initially deleted for lack of permission from the websites and Flickr account he'd snatched them from, he recreated the files, this time claiming they were his own work (somewhat implausibly, since he sourced them to third parties the first time he uploaded them).

He has since uploaded the copyvios File:First sowing GMO maize in Italy.jpg and File:Movimento Libertario rally in Pordenone.jpg, which, barring some intervention, will no doubt likewise keep reappearing as many times as they are speedied.

And just why, exactly, is EN hosting a bloated article manifesto about an Italian political movement and a pair of coatrack bios, authored by an editor affiliated with the organization, when the subjects aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for Italian Wikipedia? Yeah, not sure either. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers' by Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry Rrburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have just questions on the legality of Article-entry at Wikipedia English, now I do not think that you are within the project or Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Liberalism to judge with the necessary knowledge and skills content of this page. In addition, the page has already been approved as a permanent discussion above. What happened in Wikipedia Italian is regrettable, unfortunately for political and ideological reasons tied to the users of the Italian version of our page and its content was deemed inconsistent with the present zeitgeist among users. L736E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I remember how his approached in the past is not an authoritative source nor fair to have an objective version of events. I want also note that the presence of links to bibliographic reported refer to content on newspaper websites and third and authoritative information sites, outside the site of the Movimento Libertario. So I think your arguments are very disrespectful of myself and realized the purpose of the ML page. Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have deliberately violated the copyright because these images don't have any copyright itself. I also followed the instructions for compiling the most appropriate license for the photos, considering the examples already on Wikipedia without objection. ByeLib3rtarian (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images which appear on the Movimento Libertario website are copyrighted. They are not in the public domain nor are they released under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. (See for example, the bottom of this page which states Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved) Copyrighted images such as these can only be used if they meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. They do not. (See #12 of unaccepatble image uses). The only other method for allowing the use of pictures is for the copyright holder to give an official release for licensing by the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Unless that permission is obtained at the Wikimedia Foundation WP:OTRS office from the original copyright owner, the images must be removed from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images have been deleted. I suspect from your note above, at your talk page and on the image's talk pages that you are profoundly misunderstanding the copyright law that governs the Wikimedia Foundation, User talk:Lib3rtarian. As our copyright policy points out, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Even if you find an image on a site that does not indicate it is copyrighted, as User:CactusWriter rightly points out these are, you would not be able to import them without verifying that they are free, not simply widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion about other issues. Given plausible misunderstanding of copyright policy and law, I have issued a clear warning. I believe if this contributor persists in uploading images without verifying that they are usable, a block will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the website "2009 Copyright Rights" text refers to the kind of web structure of the site but not in particular to the articles or images contents, so that the articles and image in particulars are freely copyable on blogs and other sites (example http://liberalismoonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/giorgio-fidenato-contra-el-estado-italiano/ and this this site http://www.pnveneto.org/2010/01/pordenone-una-fredda-mattina-d-inverno-riscaldati-dalla-liberta-per-giorgio-fidenato/ is of another political party very close to the Movimento Libertario but the presence of this images don't create problems to the Movimento Libertario, the same images there are here in this blogs http://lasentinelladellalaicita.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/la-rivolta-di-atlante/ and in this http://www.buraku.org/2009/11/19/tuti-i-schei-in-busta-paga/ Where is the problem if the Movimento Libertario don't protest (and it doesn't protest for the use of the image in the correct context like this)?. Then if the problem is their bureaucratic permission, tell you to me that address the Movimento Libertario should send official email to Wikipedia English to request permission to usage the image so I can notify to them the next day. However, the contents of the article is also in line with the criteria of Wikipedia Project Libertarianism (I forwarded the application), so I hope that there are no other issues at least on the content of the article. Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]That the images are being similarly misused by other websites and blogs is not a rationale for compounding that error by uploading them to Wikipedia. Since they have been published elsewhere, they are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is proof to the contrary. You adduced no such proof nor attempted to. Instead, you then falsely claimed to be the creator of the works (after they had been deleted for lack of permission from the copyright-holder). Did you suddenly remember that you had created them yourself just before you uploaded them the second time, but the first time you thought they were by someone else?

Additionally, the claim that the article was deleted ("censored") for ideological reasons, which you have made repeatedly and which earned you a block for a personal attack on Italian Wikipedia, is false, self-aggrandizing and self-serving: the article was deleted because you could not produce adequate evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that the subject merited a standalone article (Hint: two guys and a website don't meet the threshold). Please see leave off the fantasies of persecution and see the General notability guideline and Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post by CacturWriter included a link to what is needed to get the needed permissions for the images. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given his recent note at his talk page, I suspect granting him the benefit of the doubt was an error on my part. He says, "I uploaded the same image multiple times just because I have tried several times between the different Commons Licenses available at the time of the upload in an attempt to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia." The first time he uploaded File:Leonardo Facco.JPG, he placed "Oriana.italy" ([29])in the "author" field and listed its source as [30]. The second time he uploaded it, he kept "Oriana.italy" as the "author" field, but listed its source as "own work." The third time he uploaded it, he sourced it as "I (Lib3rtarian (talk)) created this work entirely by myself" and listed under author "Lib3rtarian". This does not seem like he was attempting to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like deliberate copyright fraud. The first two times it was deleted (on Wikipedia; it's also been deleted twice on Commons), he was told how to verify permission, if he was in position. (He was told that in conjunction with other images, as well.) He's been given several block advisories in the past. Given what looks like deliberate efforts to obscure the authorship of that photograph and what seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge the issue, is a block at this time appropriate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is interested in getting as much information about this topic onto Wikipedia as he possibly can and is not terribly fussy about how that gets accomplished or very concerned about whether the additions conform to WP policies and guidelines. That said, I have encountered editors in the past who genuinely appear to think that the "work" of uploading a file makes it their "own work." A little implausible here, perhaps, but there may additionally be a language problem that might justify extending benefit of doubt -- if you're feeling especially charitable. There'd certainly be no excuse next time. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that his response below and the one I've quoted at his talk page make a good case that it was not ignorance that led to his repeated violations of our copyright policy (in spite of clear warnings, including two explicit block advisories from March). It seems evident that he chose to ignore them because he does not take them seriously. I have blocked for 31 hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images are useless public walk around the installation procedures images in Wikipedia are not the least understandable, in addition to being inflexible, I do not understand where is the problem in reference to a widespread image in the public domain. I noted then as Oriana.Italy or other alleged owners of the image on Flickr or other holders are not at all certain of the picture, nothing precludes their use (and thus an alleged harm to the copyright) on these platforms or improper transfer unsanctioned . Also repeat the question as surreal as Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato and the ML do not pose copyright issues ever to their pictures by their respective board on Wikipedia. Also do not understand why Rrburke continue to defend the shameful censorship suffered by myself and the Wikipedia page ML Italy, he doesn't not know that history, nor can know how to block user has deliberately prevented the update and after comparison being teased by people clearly definable certainly not liberals and libertarians and the inability to implement a serious debate has quietly allowed. Rrburke not know how to repeat the question of which interest is to deliberately (perhaps to please a few friends of Wikipedia Italy) I repeat my opinion as user is equal to that of the Wikipedia censors Italy, which have seen a movement-political party of their ideological rating as a "gang of dangerous criminals". I assume that Rrburke not even know the criteria and rationale to justify its hasty exit cancellation. Try reading the ML article heading and the various links to references / sources and see how the ML is not a combination of only 2 people but a real political organization in the Italian Territory with links to a culture (libertarianism) present in many countries (example Switzerland). The ML is a real movement-parties not a fake or not existing as others parties-movements that doesn't exist in the elections and in the society (but they are presents in Wikipedia Italy only because they have got a relation with some politicians or special interests in Italian politics and economic reality), news and newspaper and many websites in the references show what I write here about the ML. I know better than Rrburke the political reality and the italian libertarianism, I live in Italy and I khow also as Italian Wikipedia works than its English counterpart. So stop talking about a scam copyright since the ML never made complaints directly to the question in Italy and in this question in particular, I also received further informed consent of Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato in putting their pictures on Wikipedia. Moreover you who accused me of colluding with the two characters, when I could just be a person informed about the facts. I think that level of interest between the owner and Oriana.Italy The two main characters there is a great difference. I say give me a contact email and inform the owners of the images sent all the material for the consent. Do not create hype, since I have not stolen any plan on the H-bomb... Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lib3rtarian's responses to comments here and on his talk page, as well as in his unblock request, seem to indicate that he is unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia's copyright policy. If he refuses to operate within our rules, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, at least until we have a reasonable belief that he understands the rules and is willing to abide by them. He's talking about obtaining permission for the images, which is good but there's still the underlying issue regarding his broad approach to copyright matters. We need to protect the project and I think it's completely unacceptable to allow him to resume editing as long as he's still refusing to accept that he cannot just copy material from elsewhere and post it here and then claim it's okay because the copyright owner hasn't complained. His comments about "proper usage" and such also seem to suggest that he doesn't understand that we don't do permissions that limit usage only to Wikipedia and once images and other material are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons under free licenses, they can be reused by *anyone* for *any* purpose and that includes way that he might not consider "proper usage". Sarah 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The responses by User:Lib3rtarian indicate that they are not simply someone who "does not get it" -- rather this is someone who understands Wikipedia policy but refuses to accept it. The example given by Moonriddengirl shows Lib3rtarian has actively attempted to subvert copyright policy through deception. If Lib3rtarian cannot be trusted to edit within the rules, than they will be need to be indefinitely blocked. At this time, I have seen no response from Lib3rtarian which instills my trust. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, me either. I will not myself extend his block, but I wouldn't think it inappropriate if somebody else did pending some plausible indication that he will abide by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor appears to be attempting to evade his block by editing anonymously as User:109.113.45.247. I opened an SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps: withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above discussion and the comments on Lib3rtarian's talk page, I have upgraded his block to indefinite. I don't have a problem with giving him another chance, but I don't believe that he should be unblocked until we have a reasonable belief that he's taking the copyright policies seriously. At present, with his various comments dismissing the policy, claiming that the organisation didn't complain so what does it matter etc, I have absolutely no faith that if unblocked he wouldn't simply dismiss this whole conversation and just resume editing as before. So to protect the project, I think he needs to remain blocked until we get a credible undertaking to abide by our policies. Sarah 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention that I find the discussion on User talk:Inniverse disturbing. Inniverse was blocked as a sockpuppet by User:Kww on what seemed to be quite circumstantial evidence.

While I've had minor altercations with contributions and found him annoying as an extreme inclusionist, I felt that his edits weren't deliberately disruptive and didn't rise to the level of needing a block, so I rose to his defense. As did a few other editors.

I am disturbed by the block admin Kww's blatant disregard for assuming good faith:

• Kww implies that a new account can get into trouble if extensive Wikipedia experience is demonstrated from the start, and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that a new account showing experience and knowledge of policies must have had prior accounts in the past (rather than anonymous edits, or gaining experience through studying policies), and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that stale checkuser evidence revealing a geolocation similarity is enough to equate a nondisruptive account with a previously blocked sock.
• Kww asks questions of Inniverse in a "witch hunt" fashion such that, if Inniverse is indeed innocent, no acceptable answer is possible.
• Kww has created a Catch-22 situation where if Inniverse wants to make constructive edits as a registered user, he has no choice but to create another account -- and then be blocked because the Inniverse account has been branded a sock.

Inniverse may or may not be a sock of an old blocked account. At this point, I don't think that's relevant. There is insufficient evidence, only a circumstantial "possible" returned by checkuser. The point is, blocking this editor doesn't have the desired effect of preventing abuse, and Kww has demonstrated a "guilty until proven innocent" position that creates a difficult situation for the accused. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the situation. However, a checkuser "possible" plus behavioral similarities are usually quite sufficient to justify a block under normal admin response standards. See among other things WP:DUCK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More often than not, an account that comes out the door know how our system works (especially the use of tags and such, though I merely use this as an example) tends to be a sock. I myself have never witnesses an 'experienced' new account that wasn't a sock. HalfShadow 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page, you'll see at least one other user contending that Inniverse's behavior is not similar to the behavior of the previously blocked sock. I just think this editor hasn't gotten a fair shake. My account "came out the door" with similar experience, although I concentrated more on article content than Wikipedia maintenance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not for me to say, really. I have no actual interest in the subject, I'm just explaining the admin reasoning. George'll find out what's what, I'm sure. HalfShadow 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take some time - there were 18 named accounts and dozens and dozens of IPs involved here, so doing an in depth user history comparison is not a simple task.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion by more than one admin. WP:AGF should trump WP:DUCK in most cases. What's the harm in letting a user edit until he/she misbehaves? At worst, the user turns out to be a sock and we block him/her and are done with it. Please, let's try not to alienate newbies because they are too knowledgeable. FunBob1986 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Agreed. The assumption here is that an editor who shows editing experience is a sock, and the fact is there are so many IP editors who make the jump to registering that it effectively becomes an overapplication of Occam's razor. I've looked over the page, but as I am not familiar what-so-ever with the alleged sockmaster, I can't review the block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: most sockpuppets are blocked on nothing but circumstantial evidence. The whole system is set up around admins evaluating behavioural evidence, not checkuser evidence.

Second, the question is not that the editor is experienced. There are numerous new editors that show signs of having experience that crop up every day, and I don't run around on a blocking spree dealing with that. However, when a new editor shows up that has signs of experience and matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, I tend to take action. When a new editor shows up that has signs of experience, matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, and geolocates to the same medium-sized city as the indefinitely blocked user, it's highly likely that I will block him. Inniverse stands accused of being a sock of Azviz. Azviz had numerous socks:

• Beltline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thiruman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rterrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cochranerossst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfnetwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wordssuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Esasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unionsoap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14Ave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iwelak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Look at those contributions: Beltline (talk · contribs) spent most of his brief editing career screwing around with prod tags. Rterrace (talk · contribs) was obsessed with prod tags. Alfnetwork (talk · contribs) removed a prod tag as his second edit. Varbas (talk · contribs) deprodded numerous articles. Wordssuch (talk · contribs) deprodded for a hobby. Primarily AFDs and prod tags for Untick (talk · contribs). Inniverse has spent his editing career doing deprods and AFDs. The parallel is obvious. I can only assume that people that are saying "doesn't look like Azviz to me" aren't looking at Azviz's socks.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policies and guidelines are being violated by deprodding? None that I know of.

So if an unrelated and innocent editor comes along with inclusionist tendencies that spur him to deprod articles, he gets blocked on suspicion that he's the same as a stale sock account? What recourse would such an editor have?

It is quite conceivable that there are many editors on Wikipedia, who don't even know one another, with similar editing patterns. If you're an inclusionist extremist, the most obvious activity you'd undertake is deprodding. That doesn't make someone a sock. It does absolutely no good to ask what prior accounts Inniverse had, if he had none. You're basically saying that an innocent editor will be blocked on an automatic assumption of bad faith, when the edits are not disruptive, only annoying.

I also find it incredible that Wikipedia doesn't at least record the most recent IP address used for each account. Valuable information that could prevent arguments like this could easily be avoided if checkuser worked properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, all IP information would be retained forever, and never discarded. What you are really objecting to is the whole sockpuppet detection/block process. It's primarily done on behavioural matching. Go look over WP:SPI, and see how many cases are processed on less evidence than this one. Having any checkuser information at all is the exception, not the rule. You treat "geolocates to the same city" as if it's a trivial point and it's not: I don't know exactly how many editors there are in Calgary, but there aren't thousands of them. The chances of such a good behavioural match and location match being pure coincidence are very small. The evidence in this block is stronger than it is in most. Misbehaviour from the blocked account is not required for a sock block, only matching behaviour. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt isn't required either, only evidence sufficient to convince one admin to block and all other admins that that block was not made improperly, even if the other admin would not have made the block on his own. There's certainly enough evidence here to clear that hurdle.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hesitant to weigh in because an AN/I can eat one's wiki-life for several days (grin), but I do not think Kww was too quick to act, nor was there an AGF problem. The current talk page doesn't tell the whole tale. The initial Inniverse as a possible sockpuppet review was here, redirected from my original post and was thoroughly considered (Including here) before anyone acted. The evidence is very strong that this user was a pro. I filed the initial request for a sockpuppet investigation and here is why: This user threw up some red flags for me when I went to the user's talk page to comment on a minor matter. (How the talk page appeared when I first saw it before my comment I noticed that Inniverse already had a pile of warnings on an account that was very very new, but for issues requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia. I checked contribs and noticed massive numbers of edits on each of the few days the account existed. I'm not an admin, but felt someone who was should take a peek. Usually when you see behavior that includes immediate proper use of syntax and templates, massive numbers of policy-style edits yet few article content contributions (most truly new wikipedians start by making article edits that are somewhat clumsy but improve with experience), plus dozens of daily edits and multiple talk page complaints on a brand new account, it's clear that someone with wikipedia experience is behind it. (talk page as it appeared immediately before the block) Then pleas of innocence combined with tenditious arguments are classic behaviors of people who make choices to be difficult on Wiki. Here, I respectfully beg to differ with those who say this user's behavior was not disruptive. Inniverse was already upsetting a fair number of other people. But the bottom line is if sockpuppetry itself is the first problem. And here, I think we have a sock. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Inniverse on this discussion, copied from his talk page

The only account I have used are Julpet and this one. I have made other edits without logging in. Nobody has ever asked me the question: "What previous account did you have that caused you to gain considerable expertise in deletion related policies?". I was under the impression that I had annoyed other editors because I did not know what I was doing in relation to deletion discussions - but you are accusing me of being too knowledgeable? Excuse me, but that makes no sense. My talk page received several comments from users who were telling me to read the policy on deletion nominations and discussions to learn more about what I was trying to do. Earlier on this page it was pointed out by another editor that I was "almost certainly not Azviz, simply because [Inniverse] demonstrated an extremely superficial understanding of policy"[31] I thought it was my ignorance that you were upset about. Now you say my editing is too advanced? I was confused when I was accused by the admin who claimed that I made infoboxes on my first day editing as Inniverse. Take another look. It was a cut and paste. My first edits made were to try to perform a move by cutting and pasting the entire article into a new article name. I now realize that I should use a "move" to do this. I am just learning my way around Wikipedia - reading policy, cutting and pasting, and learning as I go. I am not guilty of what I have been accused of. Inniverse (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that the alternate explanation for the move behaviour is that the tag has moved, and is no longer displayed for accounts that are not yet confirmed.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some edits that you made as an IP? - Mgcsinc (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not point you to my IP edits as I have reasonable concerns for my privacy. Further, I now feel that whatever explanations I give will not satisfy those who have already made up their minds and decided upon their position. I am gratified to see that some editors have taken note that my account has been superficially judged by other editors who have jumped at conclusions and have slapped labels on me. I find it ironic the the blocking admin who is accusing me of having too much knowledge made this [32] comment to another editor with his 2nd ever edit (his first edit was to create his user's page). Conflicts are better resolved through discussion and finding a mutually agreeable solution. I will try to limit my involvement in this discussion. I hope and trust that common sense, fairness and the spirit and words of Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Assume good faith are fully considered. I believe that I have the skills to be a good editor and I have respect for Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. I ask that you allow me to contribute to the project. Inniverse (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Will someone be kind enough to add Mgcsinc's question and my response to the on-going discussion.) Inniverse (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should note this anonymous edit from nearly a month earlier. Think that anonymous editor signed his edit KWW by coincidence?—Kww(talk) 04:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing KWW of any wrong doing. I am just trying to make the point that even new editors can have legitimate editing experience. That KWW edited as an IP prior to creating his account supports my argument. Inniverse (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not know whether or not this user is a sockpuppet; though this is a difficult sort of judgment to make, I think Kww is possibly right because the answers above do seem evasive. However, it is not ideal that Kww should be the one who made this block, because the basis of the block was behavioral evidence that the user was unreasonably opposing deletions, and Kww will surely not take it amiss if I say he is known as a relatively deletionist editor. Suppose a new editor came along, and engaged in very frequent consistent deletion nominations, while showing a considerable knowledge of the deletion process to the extent it might possibly be sockpuppettry, but there was no confirming checkuser. If I blocked that editor on the basis of the behavioral evidence, though I might be judging the situation perfectly accurately, I would be doing wrong, because I am about as inclusionist as Kww is the opposite. If I encountered such a situation, I should have either bring it here or to another admin board, or requested that an admin who I knew had a different orientation in this respect evaluate the matter. Had I done the block myself , I would expect to be expect--certainly if I did it with the experience I have now-- to be reprimanded. In fact, as a new admin, I made a block where I came a little too close to the line of blocking potential opponents, and though the block was upheld, I was indeed advised to unblock, and I did so, and learned from it & I hope have never repeated it. It is no reflection on Kww, likewise a new administrator, that he should do the same sort of thing I did, and i expect he too will learn that the only safe way of using the buttons is to avoid anything that might be seen as favoring ones one's own inclinations, even when fully objectively justified. It's frustrating, because he and I must wait for others to take action when we know we could do it fairly, but if anyone might think it unfair, we do better to put up with the frustration-- if only so that the people who should be blocked get blocked without such a question arising. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That could be true, though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and he blocked the user as a sock because he matched patterns that Kww was familiar with. As an aside, I'm pretty bloody sick of the battleground mentality between inclusionists and deletionists. As an outside observer who doesn't self classify into either camp, I wouldn't have made a "Kww's a dirty deletionist so of course he would notice an editor hindering his deletionist pogrom" connection (extreme hyperbole added for comedic effect, I know you didn't phrase it as such). Syrthiss (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I was asked by e-mail to take a look. I think any examination of my block log will show that if I have any pogroms, it's against socks, not articles.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that was my point. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Let us not pretending individuals do not have individual views about Wikipedia and that they can possibly influence our decisions without our being aware of it. This can be so invidious that the only protection against acting unfairly is to never act in a way that can possibly be perceived as unfair. As I said, with my relatively little experience of these investigation I think Kww was correct about the socking, and I accept his expertise in this area. That isn't the point. No admin should ever take action against someone whom he has a RW or WP ideological difference with, or where he might be perceived to have such a difference. I think I'm less an inclusionist that people sometimes think, but it's the way I'm perceived that matters. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slow edit war on Talk:Barack Obama based on an an anonymous user's comments (my reversion re-including them) being repeatedly removed by talk-page regulars who saw the comments as a form of trolling or disruption. However, I disagreed, and actually replied to the user pointing out that he did have a point where Obama's statement contradict the article, reality, and/or both. The discussion is currently live at Talk:Barack Obama#Proposal to update FAQ1, but there's still a dispute on whether the comments should be removed or kept; I believe they should be kept, as they do not violate any of our rules and they're actually productive (if a little incivil); however, other users don't think so. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious and clear case of disruption by the anon ip.(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) And that is not even all the mass postings by the anon ip. The ip was blocked, and just ip hopped over and over. The talk page was protected, the disruptive portion of the posts removed, but the editor who started this thread reverted two other regular editors to re-include the uncivil attacks and disruptive posts. Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was severely bitten by DD2K and others. He had a legitimate point and I can understand his frustration.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling question 1's answer "a lie" is not really the ideal way to discuss the subject rationally. And I'd like to know where he gets the notion that a 4th grader knows what kind of school he's in. I barely remember anything from 4th grade, and I do have a good memory. The real problem, though, is that this is just another trolling attempt to "prove" that Obama is a Muslim, and that is what probably accounts for most of the IP's general demeanor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can honestly say you don't remember what SCHOOL you attended in 4th grade? You really think any reasonable person is going to buy that? Please... Remembering specific curriculum is one thing, remembering where you attended is completely different. I remember perfectly well that in 4th grade I was attending a parochial lutheran grade school. By golly I even remember my teachers name. *rollseyes*

I do remember the school's name, and where it was in relation to my parents' house, as we walked to and from. I knew its name but was not cognizant of it being a public school, it was just "school". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was engaged by Sceptre and William S. Saturn, and settled down somewhat (full disclosure, I blocked one of the editor's IPs, who had adopted an aggressive attitude from the beginning of his edits, declaring Q1 of the FAQ to be, variously, BS and "lies" and editors to be "lefties."). Since there was a productive discussion going on despite the name-calling, I declined to block further IP incarnations or to protect the page. I don't think the rationale for removal of the IP's comments is particularly valuable. The comments are peevish, but repeated removal makes it all hard to follow and seems to me to have lost its point. The reverts are now between established editors and seem to me to be a waste of time. The page has since been protected. Let the comments stand. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem now is User:The Chicken costs $1 who is trolling the talk page and filing bogus reports at AIV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edits themselves are clearly inappropriate for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which are WP:SOCK and WP:DENY. The editor was advancing the fringe theory about Obama being Muslim, while accusing Wikipedia and its editors of being a liberal conspiracy - sound familiar? It is within the reasonable discretion of editors on the page to remove threads of this ilk, particularly after the anon was blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent them from making good on their threat to continue IP socking. Whether they should have been removed is a different question, one that is up to the editors there to decide. Generally the preference except in obvious cases of vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, etc., has been to leave a polite response that assumes good faith and responds to anything worth addressing, on the first go round at least, and then quickly archive the matter. Edit warring, on the other hand is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I note that the usually calm and wise administrator Nihonjoe has joined the fray, edit warring to restore The Chicken is $1's thread and issuing a block threat over it,[33]. If we're going to deny trolls their due, then as experienced productive editors we should not let ourselves be ruffled. The IP troll was simply being disruptive, but in the process raised one aspect to a fringe theory that the FAQ did not currently address. Dollar-chicken raises a seemingly earnest reliable source question that we can certainly deal with in a matter-of-fact way. Even if he were trolling, there's no reason to take the bait. - Wikidemon (talk)

The only thing I did was restore comments removed and refactored by William S. Saturn. The comments weren't trolling, and should not have been removed. He removed them, at least in part, because some misapplied {{hat}} tags were hiding a discussion in the section below it. If he had simply changed the second {{hat}} to {{hab}} instead of removing an entire section, then there wouldn't have been a problem. You can see an entire discussion about it here. Also, since you are discussing my actions here, you are required to let me know, which unfortunately hasn't happened yet. I review this page regularly, though, so at least I noticed it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were on top of this based on your donning the administrators' mantle immediately below a notice that the matter had been referred to AN/I.[34] Please forgive me if I assumed too much. I considered a template to you, the IP editor, et al, but demurred in light of WP:BEANS and WP:DTTR. I recognize that you were attempting to restore order to a page that seemed to be chaotic. However, please do take a little more time to assess what's going on before taking sides and issuing demands. You restored some comments that had been deleted as trolling (an opinion that I, like you, do not share, although I do think it's quite possible that the editor who made them is a sock). I guess that's fine - reverting rather than WP:BRD to restore a disputed comment. But you said in your edit summary, "do not remove other's comments", a position that if interpreted broadly has been rejected for good reason on the Obama talk page. Inasmuch as there was no clear consensus, much less behavioral policy, backing up that edit, your doing it again and then threatening a block your new edit warring opponent over the matter, seems to be beyond the role of an administrator. I haven't followed all the side discussions on your talk page about the wikiformat mix-up, but whatever was going on a more cordial discussion among the established editors outside of the range of any IP SPAs would set things straight much faster than block threats and AN/I reports. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that fact that William S. Saturn came in with guns blazing rather than asking me why I had restored the comments, or explaining that they had been hiding the discussion below the section, I'm not sure how a confrontation could have been avoided. He immediately accused me of impropriety and demanded that I apologize to him. The ONLY thing I did was restore the comments (twice), fix the template issue, and let him know that continuing to remove the other editor's comments would be considered disruptive and would result in being blocked. The comments were not obvious trolling and should not have been removed. Period. There is no obvious connection between The Chicken is $1 and the obviously-trolling IP, so there was no reason to remove The Chicken is $1's edits. Whether The Chicken is $1 is a sock or not is a discussion for another time and place as there is no evidence of that here. There is very clear consensus to not remove edits which are not blatantly trolling or an attack of some sort, and there is very clear consensus regarding blocking those who persist in removing other's comments when they are not obviously trolling or making an attack. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that 99%. WSS should not have removed the comments or come in with guns blazing. Plus I did miss some of the sideline talks. WSS did make the connection between the IP and the $1 chicken, as simultaneous problems on the page. I think the Obama page people could use a little more discipline and order in dealing with the occasional glitch on the talk page, so my only issue is that the revert / block threat seemed hasty. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may have been a little bit hasty, though it wasn't issued until the second time. I specifically didn't do it on the first time. I do agree about the Obama page people in generally. People tend to get way too worked up on that page (you should have seen the fun surrounding the Obama disambiguation page a couple years ago!). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have some experience getting worked up, so when I urge people not to do so, it's a "please don't do what I did" kind of thing. If WSS is reading this, can we agree to call it a day? We can work this out back on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree to call it a day on this issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

break

anyone care to take a swing at dealing with the below? It's a block-evading IP hopper so I don't think there's any point engaging. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go touting you're "fringe theory" nonsense again. The answer to Q1 states:"Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10"; nevertheless HIS BOOK SAYS HE DID. Exactly where is the fringe theory?? And WHERE was I accusing Obama of CURRENTLY being a Muslim? When you incessantly delete posts without even verifying that the information IS INDEED ACCURATE, how would you expect me not to call you a lefty loony? They're the only ones refusing to admit Obama's past. So yes, I posted it over and over again until someone else less biased than you saw it and said - "Hey, the guy's got a point..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.235.176 (talk • contribs)

Not worth a response. Exhibit C for why this discussion should remain on the Obama talk page - IP socking. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boo hoo. You have no response. Quit throwing little child like temper tantrums and deleting information that you "don't like", and you won't have these issues. You can't adequately rebuttal the information provided, so you resort to deletion and whining to admins. Sally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.199.144 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the South Atlantic League have to do with this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize here at AN/I for mischaracterizing User:Verbal as a fool. I intended to do it on yesterday's thread, but it has been auto archived. Verbal is clearly of average intelligence.

Background

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note... Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(red added)

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (red added)

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself."

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion."

Since my words were not a threat, and no one but a fool would construe them as such, what was I meant to make of this?

"A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation."

"Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?"

While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation.

At AN/I I briefly outlined events leading up to the templating and followed with a statement (beginning with "I object to being called misleading...") telling the admins that Verbal's behavior demonstrates that he is a fool and, as they had now rebuked me and accused me of intimidation, their behavior warrants an apology to me.

An admin then blocked me. Another admin then called me an egotistical fool.

Remedy

It needs to be pointed out to Verbal that low level insults, like implying another editor is deceptive, are personal attacks far more toxic than "Fuck off, troll". He needs to know that smearing talk pages with that kind of devious insult drives away many more good editors than frank rudeness. Actually, I think he knows. The community needs to acknowledge it, and tell him that we don't approve.

The admin who rebuked me on my talk page for using the word "libel" needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who accused me of "implying intimidation" on my talk page needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who called me an egotistical fool needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admins who watched the farce and did not ask me to clarify my meaning need to be aware of what the guidelines actually say.

The Template Verbal slapped on my talk page must only be used for people who can reasonably be seen to be making or hinting at a legal threat. Never for people who just use the word "libel". Perhaps a new template could be made that explains how, in the past, editors have waved the word about in order to intimidate others; that is, perhaps a genuine attempt could be made at "education". Anthony (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I suggest this is closed as it was dealt with the other day. I certainly don't feel a need to go over it again. It's far to big a report for ANI. Also, it's my bedtime. Also, and lastly, to stop him getting in more trouble. Verbal chat 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for what I said yesterday; that was why I refactored because I knew the language I used could have been better. –MuZemike 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Apology and what that entails. That was what I was getting at yesterday. –MuZemike 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Anthony fails to understand is that legal threats and incivility and all that sort of thing are against the rules because of the intimidation factor. And unfortunately Anthony continues to try to intimidate, although it's fairly clear that it's not working. Verbal might have engaged in a bit of intimidation himself. Both editors just need to figure out a way to either get along or leave each other alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthonyhcole blocked for 72 hours

Blocked 72 hours for "Verbal is clearly of average intelligence."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this sort of logic ("no one but a fool would have taken my previous remark as an insult/a threat/incivil/disruptive") is not only self-defeating, but painfully obviously not a good idea to post here, of all places. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, 72 hours is completely disproportionate for that. Anthony is clearly upset still about yesterday's block and this is just crashing down with a sledgehammer. I propose an unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Spartaz, I don't think that was blockworthy myself. Incidentally, Anthony messaged me to come here, but why? Was this the thread where I asked "is libel a verb?". Don't see what I could do here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not blockworthy on its own, but reading the above diatribe, I'd actually leave the block be. That's just a rant disguised as an apology. You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes". Leave him blocked until he can produce a retraction that doesn't sound like he's got his thumb on his nose and is waggling his fingers in the air. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm supposed to be intimidated into apologizing for saying he was trying to intimidate other users. Yeah. Not happening. The fact of the matter is that he is ranting about users trying to keep him from getting blocked before he was blocked. My only interaction with him was trying to get him to calm down. It kind of seems like the user is intentionally not getting it. --Smashville^talk 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Anthony called Verbal a fool again in his unblock request, which he received for calling Verbal a fool after being warned by two different admins. Then, he comes here and goes "I'm sorry, he's not a fool, he's clearly of average intelligence." Then, after I blocked him for that, he goes "gee, I thought I was being generous". If he had restricted his commentary to calling me corrupt, incompetent, whatever, big deal -- I got plenty of that in my Admin Review without blocking anyone. It's his unrelenting insults to Verbal that got him the block, and I don't see any reason to undo it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGFing, I unblocked. Telling someone that they are "of average intelligence" isn't a personal attack. Just because it's not a compliment doesn't make it an attack. --Smashville^talk 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock This is a peurile block that smacks of vindictiveness, especially as it's made by Sarek - very poor indeed.  Giacomo  21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. For what it's worth, I think this block is entirely justified. Anthony should have seen it coming... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that this block will be overturned as quickly as it would be if the offending remark had been made by an editor with the credentials of say, User:GiacomoReturned, for example. Leaky Caldron 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent... lazy... ignorant... fools... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked. Clearly the ANI thread here was extremely ill-advised but there was nothing blockable to it. Yes, it was a demand for an apology when there wasn't really one warranted...and yes, he has had some fairly intimidating behavior...but is this anything more than a still fairly new new user that needs someone to explain to him, "Hey. Don't do that"? As for venting after he was blocked...I can understand that. All users involved are advised to simply drop it and move on. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek that was over the top, saying someone is of average intellegence is niether a compliment nor an insult, it means they're normal which is hardly blockable. Sometimes users may say someone is of average intellegence to point out that they should have forseen something, but didn't. In this case it was a good faith way of saying that Verbal isnt a fool. Personally what I see is a disgruntled editor who has some reason to be trying to seek an apology, though I personally think requesting it on on AN/I in the manner he did was poor judgement as it would have been better when done on talkpage or via email. Sarek, ease of the block button in future, if your too quick to push it next time you might just block yourself or worse Jimbo!   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block, oppose the unblock Sarek was absolutely correct. In the context of what had previously happened, Anthony's comment was clearly a backhanded slap at Verbal. I'm not sure why people aren't seeing that, but it's perfectly clear to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I see it. How is "clearly of average intelligence" not some kind of implied insult? Rehevkor ✉ 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, no doubt. Perhaps folks are drunk on AGF or something. No editor should be speculating on the intelligence of another editor. We can judge competency, because we see the results, but to speculate about the intelligence (or other personal qualities) of the person making the edits crosses a line, whether it's expressed as "You're a dunce" or "You're clearly of average intelligence." (Besides, "fool" vs. "average intelligence" is a false dichotomy: highly intelligent people can still be foolish.) Anthony seems to have gotten away with his behavior this time, since people seem to have accepted his (to my perception) highly implausible explanation; I only hope that he doesn't take it as license to misbehave again. We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. It's absurd that Anthony is being blocked repeatedly just for pointing out Verbal's behavioural problems which nobody is doing anything about. He has not been doing so very nicely, but Verbal's attacks against editors he doesn't respect are often a lot less nice and he generally gets away with it. Nothing in Verbal's comportment on Wikipedia suggests that he should be offended by the insinuation that he is not of significantly higher than average intelligence. Hans Adler 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes".

BeyondMyKen, Verbal is certainly of average intelligence. He may be of above average intelligence, but I haven't seen that demonstrated. Don't attribute meanings to my words that they don't carry, please. Anthony (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock Calling someone average is hardly a blockable insult. That Verbal would choose to interpret what anthonyhcole said as a legal threat would seem to support less generous characterizations. Unomi (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be magnanimous. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock per Hans Adler. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting contribution history from this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has interesting contributions eh? Seeing as your giving out free contribution assesments, would you like to tell me what you think of mine and every other person here or would you rathor just run along now and do something useful?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock, Smashville. I have to disagree, though. I think more than one public apology is warranted. This was not a trivial or vexatious thread. Anthony (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree that a public apology is warranted. By you, not by Verbal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Verbal stuffs up, says an editor is "misleading" (Instead of double checking his facts) and Verbal is the one who's owed an apology? All I can say is keep going Verbal   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mistake in my editing, and merely asked for Anthony to be given a warning that his behaviour might get him in trouble if it persisted. Whereas, in return, I have been accused of "libel" (incorrectly), being a "fool" (repeatedly), of "average intelligence", being a "hypocrite", of "smearing", and "misleading", amongst other things, in this very report. And none of these stand up. Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened to a different forum, without seeking editors permission, and I objected. It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others (WP:TALK etc). Having the edits called misleading is not something to get so worked up about, and I would have explained if asked. In response I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word (although most of has moved, as NYB pointed out in the last thread. At no point have I hounded Anthony, or pressed for action beyond a warning. I find some of the comments by people above a bit surprising in light of what actually happened, and people seem to have made assumptions and jumped to conclusions. I hope Anthony can move on and stop with the low level attacks. Lastly, note again, I'm not calling for any further action. Verbal chat 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is long past its sell-by date. I've marked it as resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You picked it at the first ANI with this, SlimVirgin: "The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there."

• The NLT template, sensibly, links to WP:NLT.
• Here is where it went wrong. Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats was trimmed to a few sentences and the full section was moved to WP:Harassment on 22 Nov 2009,.
• The NLT template linked me to this Perceived legal threats section of NLT,

  It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation.

  and I concluded, reasonably, that it didn't apply to me. In context, it was obvious I wasn't threatening legal action. Obvious. This is when I began doubting Verbal's sanity. This is when I called him a fool, and reiterated that he had libeled me, and he took me to ANI.
• Had the NLT template linked to the full version of "Perceived legal threats", which explains that it is best to avoid using the word on Wikipedia even in a non-threatening way, I would have respected that and understood the actions of the admins, all of whom were assuming I had read the full version when they rebuked me for using the term again after being templated. They thought I was a recalcitrant ass, and treated me as such, I thought they were arrogant fools and dealt with them accordingly.
• For now, while the NLT template links to WP:NLT, I have restored the old Perceived legal threats section.

As for Verbal's disingenuous self-exculpation, I can't let that go. This is just for the record and I don't expect anyone to read it. This editor, Verbal, relies on you not following dif's. If you follow the dif's, there is only one conclusion you can draw,

• V: Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened. False. I collapsed it, I didn't move it. [35]
• V: to a different forum, without seeking editors permission. False. Copied, not moved [36] and I introduced the insert with "This has been happening at Talk:Acupuncture. It is not appropriate there. It may be appropriate here. If not, just delete it" - that's called asking permission.
• V: I objected. The section was collapsed by another editor almost immediately after V's undo of mine and has stayed that way. He was just harassing me.
• V: It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. False. Not misleading because of the abovementioned introduction, because I put it in a blockquote; and, as for timing, all comments retained their date stamp.
• V: It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others. False. My collapse on the Acupuncture Talk page and insertion on the COI page happened within 10 seconds. I had them loaded on 2 browser tabs and launched them virtually simultaneously. Verbal's revert with the edit summary "it wasn't copied there" happened 10 minutes later. [37]
• V: I would have explained if asked. I asked.
• V: I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word Very false indeed. It does now, because I restored it. The version you linked me to is on the left of this dif.

Also

• When he opened the ANI thread he called my use of the word "libel" a threat. Unambiguously. Twice in the first paragraph. It was not a threat. Never looked like one.
• In his second comment at ANI he said I was "making unfounded accusations of a legal nature." This, too, is an untruth. Anthony (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony, please drop this. You're wrong and it's boring. You're not doing yourself any favours by going on like this. Please heed the warnings you've been given (or not, your choice) and move on. Verbal chat 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wrong in my review when I said remove I meant collapse. This was another problem, with two copies of the same conversation now floating around. Thanks for that correction. Verbal chat 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? Follow the dif's for a portrait of Verbal. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. And if it helps, I'm sorry. Verbal chat 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of Sarek's blocks (each for incivility) were entirely justified, and not out of proportion. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I made several edits on various pages changing the term "Palestine", linked to Palestine, a geographic region comprising Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. The articles had lists, for example, of the countries in Western Asia. So the list comprised of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc... This doesn't make sense, because Palestine includes Israel, making the list superfluous and misleading. I changed the instances of Palestine to Palestinian territories. Today, Nomoskedelasticity has evidently gone through my contribution history, and systematically reverted every single change I made, with edit summaries such as "one person's "accuracy" is another's "inaccuracy" -- any particular reason you'll insist that yours should prevail?". This, even though I have repeatedly explained to him the reasoning for my change. In response to my most recent explanation, he sarcastically responded here, completely ignoring the issue and instead choosing to insinuate that I am just an ignorant Israeli who refuses to accept the "truth". Here are the diffs of all the reverts he has made, rendering the articles potentially confusing to readers. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. [44]I don't want to edit war with him. I'm tired of this. I just want this encyclopedia to be accurate and informative to readers, rather than mislead people and use superfluous terminology. Help would be appreciated. Breein1007 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein1007 has a troubled recent history with blocks for POV warring -- this will help others understand the real problem here. He clearly prefers a world without Palestine -- he's entitled to his feelings, but I don't think this justifies cloaking this kind of change in the language of "accuracy" (as per his edit summaries). What's particularly telling about this issue is that he has failed to convince other editors at template talk Asia that there should be a systematic change along these lines. Anyway I can't imagine the reason for bringing this to AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein - Are you accusing Nomo of WP:HOUNDING? If not, this notification seems a little pointless. NickCT (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the content issue, I have a slight inclination that Nomoskedasticity is probably more in the right. However, this does meet the textbook definition of a WP:HOUNDING campaign. I see edits made by Breein1007 in May and earlier being reverted here. Going through someone's contributions history from several months before and making reverts like this is unambiguously hounding, unless there's a content violation of some sort.

A content disagreement is not a content violation.

Nomo - at the very least, please stop this at once while it's discussed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to refrain from continuing for now. I'm doubtful about the idea that WP:HOUNDING applies -- that one specifies "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." The reason for my edits is not that, rather a genuine disagreement that Breein1007's edits along those lines are appropriate (particularly with the justification of "accuracy"); I only reverted edits of the type specified, there is not a more general campaign here against his edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I did attempt to raise this issue on his talk page, here -- my inquiry was overlooked, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a solution. Of course he stopped; he already reverted all my edits. What am I supposed to do, have a discussion with myself? He completely ignored the justification I provided more than once, and rudely, in bad faith, assumed that I'm just some typical Israeli who doesn't want Palestine to exist. I have news for you, the typical Israeli does want Palestine to exist, and supports the creation of a Palestinian state. I am among those typical Israelis. The same cannot be said for the majority of Palestinians, according to polls. But that's a different story. This case is not solved. The wording is misleading and superfluous, and so far nobody has addressed those concerns that I made perfectly clear. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is just going to get archived with no resolution? Telling a user to stop hounding after he has already reverted all my edits is not a solution to the problem. He refuses to discuss, ignored my explanation more than once, and now I'm faced with two options: continue the edit war and revert all his reverts, or give up and let the misleading text remain since nobody is discussing the issue. Lovely. Breein1007 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Refuses to discuss" is a bit rich, given that it was my post to your talk page that went ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. For what it's worth, going through your diffs, I tend to side with one or the other of you in several places. Palestine is very clearly not, per the technical definition, an independent country or nation. I agree that it is inappropriate to include Palestine among a list of "nations" in the area -- it's very definitely not a nation. However, there's a least one list among the diffs that refers to "countries or lands" in the area, and here I think one ought to include Palestine as a plainly notable "land" in the region. But, again, strongly agree that it's not a nation -- that's not really a point of view. Anywhere where lists are explicitly of "nations" or "countries" in the region, Palestine ought not to be included.

All that said, and that was a mouthful, this is a content dispute, and not necessarily an ANI matter unless it really begins to spiral out of control which, based on at least a cursory review of your respective contributions, it really hasn't become. Try and work it out on talk pages. Frankly, I'll gladly contribute there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]