I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He performed a shitload of page moves, too. I undid one, but because he edited the pages afterwards, the easy revert links aren't showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are the same man! Please merge! TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been going through using a "rollback all" script. I'm doing anout 30 at a time so FireFox doesn't crash. Access Denied (400: Bad Request) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take care with that, see below.

  Thank you; he was creating massive amounts of one-sentence, unreferenced stubs on Portuguese towns a few days ago, and I had to break out an atlas to verify these places even existed. Although mass-creation of these isn't in and of itself a problem, doing it with no references was very disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Wikipedia. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm judging based on the incredibly loud quacking I'm hearing, now that I compare TigreTiger's and Schwyz's contributions. If you don't understand why I say what I'm saying, I'd have to seriously question your competence level. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, should the master account Schwyz, be blocked? He claims to have left the project, but I see on his block log he was already blocked once, for sockpuppeteering, back in August. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not. Only one person decided that User:TakakaCounty = User:Schwyz. But even if run by the same person, Schwyz was abandoned before. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but again, his main account's block expired a week later. Typically a sockmaster would be blocked indefinitely, regardless of his claim that he has "retired". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Where was the abuse BY User:Schwyz? TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Now blocked indef. He hadn't edited since 30 August, but Bugs is right that the sockmaster account should be blocked until the user addresses the socking issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  He did not edit since 13 August, see [[1]] - and he was never blocked during his active time. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from TTsecondary

Just properly catching up on this after being on holiday for a bit. I was wondering whether, given the extra inconvenience in undoing moves, it was worth setting up an edit filter to catch users (ignoring say bots and admins) doing a lot of moves in a short space of time as there are relatively few circumstances where this would be appropriate behaviour. Obviously it would have to be set to log only but if we kept an eye on it we may be able to catch people being disruptive like this (or this user returning) before they disrupt too much. Dpmuk (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention that. Mr. Schwyz inspired me to create this tool, which does just that. Primitive, but does the job. --JaGa^talk 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that will do it instead, cheers. Really should get more involved in doing stuff like that myself. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to this user a few times. The user seems either very incompetent or is just putting that on to look like a newcomer. Has there been a checkuser investigation? Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using JaGa's tool I think I've found another one, although this one is much more suspect - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow s/he has a whole sock drawer. Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The socks were  Confirmed. Inka888^ContribsTalk 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose ends

Why does the master still have autoreviewer access? Shouldn't all userrights be revoked from the socks?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the master is indeffed, does it make a difference? I genuinely don't know, just wondering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Tiraios-of-Characene sock has just been blocked, I've rolled back and deleted a bunch of his stuff, but the damage is massive, dating back months. Anyone with Twinkle want to take a whack at this? BTW, s/he was online while I was working, reverting my message on the talk page as "vandalism." Apparently, this person is simply not getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Point of clarifiaction; while in the process of patrolling all of TigreTiger's "pages" (in the loosest sense of the term), I almost missed a couple attack pages created by other people, not TigreTiger. Sorry if that caused confusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, lest anyone be left wondering, I joined in March; I'm most certainly not an admin, just a New Page Patroller, which is how I inadvertantly got tangled in this mess. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in the future, these are some of the worst messes to be tangled in, as they just keep coming back in a never-ending harassment pattern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if it's particularly hard to spot; I just didn't know to look for it. Now I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be proud of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves. First there was a page move dispute. This should have be handled diplomatically and politely. Instead, we have a mad customer who creates socks. We then pat ourselves on the back for finding the socks. This is the Wikipedia way; don't like them, accuse them of sockpuppetry.

We still have a mad editor. This has been handled in the classic Wikipedia way but not the best way. The best way might have be an ombudsman to explain the correct way to page move and block if necessary. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the user edit-warred and was blocked to stop the move-war. People did try to explain, but the user became irate and started socking instead. That's not something Wikipedia can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually it is and it has been, if you know what I mean... HalfShadow 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your first edit was October 20th, and none of your edits involved any contact with Schwyz and his myriad socks, how did you come across this? I'm not assuming anything but good faith, I just don't know how you happened upon this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [3] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [4] (20 October) and [5] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[20] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [21][22] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[23]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[24] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [25] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[26] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[27] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[28]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [53] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[54]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[55][56]

Communicat is often less than civil.[57] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [58] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[59], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[60] and three days after I reported it here.[61] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [62] and [63]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [64] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.

Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.

Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.

Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.

As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[65][66][67][68][69] Nick-D, [70][71][72] Edward321, [73] and Habap.[74][75][76]

Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321)[77] Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[78] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[79] Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum ^@) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and dramaticly changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This post was archived, but I've relisted it in the hope that an uninvolved admin will look into the matter. The RFArb is not at all likely to be accepted and Communicat's disruptive conduct there illustrates this ongoing problem rather well. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for Nick-D's filing of this notice, and the support given it by some commentators, may be summed up in just one sentence: They want to get rid of me so that they can continue allowing their personal political prejudices to get in the way of historical accuracy and objectivity, through practising a form of censorship by POV-bias and flagrant violations of NPOV.

Arbcom, contrary to Nick-D's false innuendo above, has not noted any disruptive behaviour on my part. Nick-D remains a named party in my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration. Communicat (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom was rejecting the consideration 5:1 last I looked last night, and several members responded positively to my suggestion that we can handle it within the community.

I would like to request that all parties avoid further nastyness and retract any outstanding, such as your last above Communicat, that we can hold a constructive discussion on this starting now. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended. It was a statement of fact, and it can be proved by me if or when arbom condones the opening of an evidence page.

As for community involvement: You know perfectly well that you yourself intervened some time ago, and absolutely nothing constructive came of it. If anything, you had the unintended effect of pouring petrol on the flames. Revived "community involvement" as mooted by you would IMO be pointless and irrevelant at this stage, because unless things change for the better in terms of POV bias and stricter adherence to NPOV policy, I want nothing further to do with that particular World War II overview article.

In the meantime, I suggest basic etiquette and procedure prevail by not prejudging the outcome of Arbcom's pending decision. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbcom choses to take up the case they can do so. They have indicated that they want the community to handle it, though that's not final yet.

You don't get to pick and chose among uninvolved administrators, if you create an issue that rises to our collective attention. If others want to get involved as well, that's fine and normal. But you've got my attention and are going to have to deal with and live with it.

Your reaction here seems to be on the border of intentionally burning all bridges with the rest of the community rather than giving us a chance to discuss this in an organized fashion. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia as a whole is not just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia we all edit together. Even if you walk away from those particular pages, issues have been raised that call into question your interest in working with others constructively. You have also raised issues of systematic bias that need to be reviewed, but whether you can work constructively with other Wikipedians on these or other topics in the future are obvious and evident parts of the discussion that is to follow.

If you want to burn those bridges, you can walk away from the project entirely now at any time. You don't get to burn them and just change articles, because if there's a systematic behavioral problem on your side it's going to happen again at those new articles.

I urge you to step back from the precipice and to cooperate in constructive discussions on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH Thanks for acknowledging that there may be issues of systematic bias at milhist project that need to be reviewed. We seem to be making some headway. But as for constructive discussion at milhist project, that may be another story. IMO, the people there seem never able to agree on anything among themselves, and that inability has been a longstanding characteristic of their talk page since longggg before I showed up there a few months ago.

Consider for instance the protracted dispute about the start date of WW2. which dispute commenced a long time before the advent of my arrival. The dispute was eventually referred to mediation, where the argument then dragged on for so long that the mediator eventually walked away. The argument, unresolved at mediation, still surfaces from time to time. I’m not saying the same people are necessarily involved, but it’s certainly the the case that the same ethos prevails to this day.

Separately, you have stated above and in messages to my talk page, that I must "retract" my "personal attacks" both here and in my Arbcom application. Forgive my confusion, but it's not clear which specific words you are demanding that I retract. I have made no "personal attacks" that I am aware of.

Are you saying that I am not allowed to reply bluntly but accurately to serious allegations brought against me? Are you saying I have no right of reply, or to defend myself against such allegations? Are you saying that I am not allowed to state my grievances when applying for arbitration? If so, then what you are saying is unacceptable. Nor do I believe you have any authority to demand that I retract anything submitted to Arbcom.

Speaking of retraction: I note that you yourself have not as yet retracted your incorrect and prejudicial assertion that I was previously the subject of ANI notices. I also note your reference to the possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on my part, while at the same time you’ve not suggested any possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on the side of the filing party and/or his active supporters.

This indicates bias and prejudgment on your part since, as yet, there has been no firm ruling by Arbcom nor by any other impartial entity authorised to pass judgment in respect of the facts and matters currently at issue, nor are you entirely familiar with all the evidence relative to those facts and matters. This apparent lack of impartiality, together with your failure to retract an incorrect and prejudicial statement, does not make it easy for me to assume good faith on your part. But I'll try, anyway. Communicat (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a fairly typical response by Communicat: allegations of widespread "bias" on the part of just about everyone else, continued assertions that he or she is entirely right despite the comments of other editors and ignoring a blunt warning about their conduct. I think it illustrates rather neatly the problems here. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to this being handled as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth trying. No objections on my part. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is fairly straightforward user conduct matter and can be handled by an uninvolved admin, but would have no objections to a FfC/U as suggested. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH, you've not stated any terms of reference concerning your proposal. Only if you state specific terms of reference shall I be prepared to consider seriously the question of whether or not I should accept or reject your proposal. If I am asked what I think the specific terms of reference should be, I would support an Rfc that confines itself essentially to a review of alleged systematic bias at milhist project, which is at the heart of this matter. Communicat (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, having now noticed that "User conduct" seems in fact to be the term of reference, then a lack of context and impartiality is clear right at the outset. Viz., no reference to "Users' conduct" (plural). Presumably you want my alleged conduct, and my conduct alone, to come under scrutiny, and on those grounds I will not support the proposal, which is clearly biased from the start. Communicat (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will likely look at the conduct of all users involved. You need to make claims of conspiracies by milhist editors elsewhere, with proof, if you believe it to be true. It may be worth bearing in mind that it has been rejected by administrators and arbitrators at all venues you have claimed it so far. (Hohum ^@) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is being written, but not done yet. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Communicat. It is not yet complete or filed. If people want to comment, the talk page has a pre-filing discussion subsection created.

I am attempting to capture both claimed issues from both sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.

I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should just point out here that I haven't deleted the explicit photograph at any stage. SAT85 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, those in favour of explicit photographs have been edit-warring them in, sans consensus, for several months. SAT85 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Outside Observation

My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:

Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm naked right now. That was too much information, wasn't it? HalfShadow 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these objections to deletion (or replacement with a diagram) have been discussed on the Talk:Man page. This is not about hypersensitivity or prudishness--it is about achieving an emphasis in the lead image that reflects the typically clothed state of men, and about the sort of standards expected of an encyclopaedia (hence see this policy). Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that sentence was a bit ambiguous--in the article. If it was in society as a whole I wouldn't bother with getting the image removed or replaced. SAT85 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lazy to check the history but the article currently includes multiple images most men with clothes on. I presume it has always done that. I agree it would be silly to fill the article with pictures of nude men and nothing else but I see nothing wrong with include one or more appropriate images of what a man looks like without clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are three such images in the article already; this dispute is about the gratuitous photograph, and in particular its prominence at the top left of the collage. SAT85 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute here. This is really all about the penis, isn't it? Let's call a spade a spade, and discuss if the model had underpants on, would we be losing something important to describe Man? It seems like everything else is just dancing around the fact that we are talking about penises. The Eskimo (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we are. Nobody would suggest that cat not have a picture of a cat, or that chimpanzee shouldn't have a picture of an engine (and they're naked all the time, genitals hanging out and everything). Ergo, man has a picture of a man, without clothing, to illustrate what a man looks like. I find it tedious in the extreme, and depressingly predictable, that the people most concerned with AHMAHGAWD TEH CHILLUNS invariably see sex everywhere. Gives a clue to what's going on in their heads. The rational rest of the world sees a naked human being. Ho hum. Yawn. The regressive paleocons see OH NO A NAKED SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. I see absolutely no reason why we should even pretend to entertain the notion that they have a valid viewpoint. Wikipedia is not fucking censored. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, isn't there always Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the 3 above users have stated, agree. Especially Roux comments. Heiro 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used for encyclopedic purposes only--as all Wikipedia images should (i.e. used in accordance with Wikipedia policy), then its use in the article is justified. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I hate situations like this: some guy visits one of those articles mentioned above (for example, boy) not expecting that there will be a nude picture (something other than an obvious anatomical diagram) there. He later takes his computer to another country and finds out they can search your hard drive as you enter. If he hasn't cleared his cache and otherwise scrubbed the image from his computer, he may now be in a legal mess over what may otherwise be an "innocent" image. Kcowolf (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best reason ever for censorship. The secret police in another country might not understand why I have a picture on my computer. Heiro 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to say, some of us have reasons other than "Protect the children!" to prefer removing the image. Obviously consensus is against my opinion, and I respect that. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest reducing protection level

All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [80] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation, SAT85 has been well-behaved in mainspace -- he hasn't removed the photograph [81]. Since there's no reason to let multi-sock disruption lock everyone except admins out of editing, I suggest lowering the protection level to semi, and adding level two pending changes protection. Any almost-new accounts that suddenly appear to remove the image should be blocked per WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. The consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image and not allow it to be censored, and the Talk discussion seems to be moving on to how best to present the collage. The only really disruption (other than endless arguing on the Talk page) is indeed from SPAs and socks who unilaterally delete the image. I don't believe they will accede to the community consensus here and won't go away. So yes, I think level 2 PC would be the best longer term approach here. I also think it would be good for one of the admins here to summarize the developing consensus, in the Talk page ANI section, at a suitable point, so if the argument carries on, we can point to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Zebedee said, Heiro 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that SAT85 is behaving in a serious way of tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It would be more helpful if you addressed the substance of the dispute instead of engaging in this sort of commentary. It seems to me that your first reaction to the image was the correct one, when you said, "I am not offended at all by the human body but I have to say that the image looks out of place in that collage. What is the need for it there? There is a statue down in the article. I just don't think the image is needed in the collage unless someone has a reason I missed in the above comments." Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We can not forget Help:Options to not see an image. Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then its use in the article is justified, and thus, just becuase some people do not want to see it, does not mean that it should be removed from the article. Just choose the options necessary so that only you can not see the image, other people can still see it if they want to. I do agree with the proposed protection level changes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the protecting administrator, Bongworrior, refuses to reduce the protection level in the manner for which there is a clear consensus here, because he believes that it would be unfair to to the abusive sockpuppeteer creating an endless supply of accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti) to remove the image. I encourage editors to participate directly in the discussion on his user talk page to help clear this matter up. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the protection should be lowered to PC, but I also see a possible benefit in leaving as it is for a little while longer - I've commented at Bongwarrior's Talk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban?

SAT85 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in tedious editing at Talk:Man with a month of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CPUSH. Frankly after multiple editors in ANI and there have communicated with him. Its a rather large farce to engage in any more Dialogue. I honestly almost could mistake this for deliberate trolling at the rate its going.

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wonder if, to avoid the impression of bias, you might also want to consider David Oakes, Boing! Said Zebedee, and others who have not only been doggedly engaged on the Talk:Man page longer than I have, but have been edit-warring over the photo as well (though I personally think that banning any editor here would be a silly case of censorship--and I have no issue with either of them besides a disagreement over content). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the operator of some (now blocked) abusive sockpuppet accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti), and almost certainly the IPs as well, is not considered to be edit warring. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that sock puppet accounts have only been used recently, by a user exasperated at being banned for removing the controversial photo. If you follow the history back, I think you'll see that it has indeed been repeatedly edit-warred back in without consensus. SAT85 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ony if by "edit-warred back in without consensus" you mean that respected editors have repeatedly reversed the disruptive actions of We233ws (who was actually banned, for amongst other things, abusive sockpuppetry), his army of IP socks, and a one edit single purpose account (the situation since September 28 of this year [82].) This deplorable behaviour certainly detracts from any claim that there's a legitimate editorial dispute here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We233ws was just one of many users involved. Moreover, calling supporters of the explicit photo "respected editors" (when they were edit-warring--do have a look at the history) and then lashing a disillusioned user for "deplorable behaviour" suggests a fairly substantial bias on your part. I would once again respectfully encourage you to focus on policy and rationale--"ganging up" with six or seven supporters and attempting to muscle through is a poor way to approach genuine content disputes. SAT85 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, the suggestion that consensus is "ganging up" and "muscling through" when things don't go your way does, I think, say a lot here. Anyway, I have not been active in the discussion longer than SAT85 - I joined in the argument quite late to try to help it towards resolution. I have not been in breach of 3RR, and reverting the anti-consensus removal by a sockmaster and his socks in tandem with other editors seems like legitimate anti-vandal action to me. I have not refused to stop repeating the same arguments over and over again when there is clearly a consensus against me. Further, I have been happy to bring the issue here for help in resolution, to listen to the opinions offered by the people here who have been trying to help (and who have my thanks), and to shut my mouth for a bit and not approach it by trying to drown out everyone else. I have also made it clear that I am happy to abide by consensus whichever way it goes, and if the community decides to remove the image that's fine with me. All I want to do is get this argument stopped so people can move on constructively. I see nothing whatsoever in that which would call for a topic ban on me, but anyone is, of course, welcome to propose one and see how it goes. (As an involved party, I will not !vote on this proposal) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had forgotten that you (unlike David Oakes) joined this discussion at the RfC. I actually joined quite late in the piece as well--a little after you (see the RfC). And by "ganging up" I am not referring to a genuine consensus--the consensus over time has been to remove the photo. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it at all concern you that a number of respected editors not only disagree with your claim that "the consensus over time has been to remove the photo", but are actually supporting topic banning you for endlessly and falsely asserting it? The human body has been considered an expression of beauty and the subject of art for millennia, such as this classical sculpture, and File:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. Is a photograph really more "indecent" than a statue or full color painting? If you disagree with WP:NOT#CENSORED, then the Citizendium and Conservapedia, both of which have "family friendly" policies prohibiting photographic nudity, may prove to be more hospitable editing environments. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't concern me in the least, or particularly surprise me--I have obviously stepped on some ideological toes. It is not clear to me why you think that I have been "endlessly and falsely repeating" the claim that the weight of opinion over time has been against the picture. As I recall I've made the observation once or twice, and if you consult the archives, you will see that it's true. For the rest, see the Talk:man page. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, my mistake, SAT85 and I did both start contributing at about the same time (Oct 2 and Sep 28 respectively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "Wikipedia is not censored" line has been repeated a lot more than the reasons for deletion (all quite straightforward, in my view). I accept that the recent consensus of six or seven chaps from AN/i--together with attempts to censor the rest of us--is making further efforts to improve the page pretty futile at this stage (though it does seem to be now generally recognised that the collage should represent men in natural costumes). Alas for policy, readership and professionalism. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, if a bit tedious at times, and I have found you cordial to deal with. Cheerio for now, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as someone who keeps trying to get User:SAT85 to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While, in his defence, he hasn't edit warred the image out of the article itself, the excessive and repetitious argumentation of a lost cause is disruptive. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Once an editor gets on the moebius strip and won't get off, some action is needed to derail it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This has gone way past any honest attempt to support a minority view into talk page disruption. If SAT85 won't drop the stick, it's time to take it away from him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - and would support the same in the future for any editor attempting to censor the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if ya wanna get a guy to be more cooperative, a topic ban will help. GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban from the Man and Talk:Man pages. There's only so many times you can tell a person something. If they don't want to hear it, they won't, and it's time to cut them loose. -Atmoz (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There needs to be something in place to prevent further disruption. I would suggest a 1 year topic ban. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - It might be useful if those expressing an opinion here also indicate whether they support nude photography in the non-anatomical page in question. This should help to clarify the extent to which partisanship is involved. SAT85 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:IDHT ; Disruption Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What's the scope of the proposed topic ban? I hope it's not "man"...see WP:TBAN. T. Canens (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops yes that would be bad. Scope SAT85 (talk · contribs) is restricted from all articles involving media with nudity or from adding such media to ones where there is none. there that covers pointy additions as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support SAT85 has just lost credibility in my eyes by connecting the non-sexualised picture of an adult male with child pornography. A stupid and inflammatory contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding on the other page, Hilo. I was not connecting the two, just trying to offer an example of something we all consider to be inappropriate on Wikipedia; the point was that WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. If you browse back through the Talk page, you'll see that others discussed child pornography before I did. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Is strange that only with man and never with woman, so for prevent he continue doing it (though I do not think so) he cannot contribute positively with only one pic. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whack a puppet?

One just popped up on Talk:Man the number of SPA on this topic is quite annoying. sock or meat? dont know dont care The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I'm sure many of you know, or at least, those of you who participated in the indef-block discussion, this user has a very large competence problem, which is in the area of their understanding of English and Grammar.

They have been recently blocked indefintiely, until such time that they can show a dramatic change in their understanding of English.

Although many editors have offered their good faith to this user, it seems it has gone unwarranted. That it has been wasted. They were in fact just waiting for a 'newbie' administrator to come by and unblock them.

Per the above diff, and their persistent denial that they need to take a year-long break from wikipedia, I am requesting that their talk page and email privileges be revoked; from the above diff, it is in my honest opinion that they cannot be trusted with either. I do not think it would be wise to give them access to their email, when in the above diff, they stated they were waiting to trick a new administrator into unblocking them.

This request is not to last as long as the block; it is not to last forever. Only a year from the day their block was issued.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be reluctant to shut out a good-faith editor from the project even on grounds of competence, without offering mentorship first, specifically from an experienced Greek/English bilingual editor prepared to take the time. I'm not impressed by the appeal to a "newbie Admin", but cultural values differ between countries where corruption is the norm, and those where it isn't. Absent anyone wishing to take this editor on as a protege, on balance a year's block might be enough to get this editor up to speed. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be easy to see in the fog of verbiage on that page, but it's been established that Pumpie is also incompetent in Greek. It has yet to be established what his native language actually is (or whether he understands the term). This alone gives mentorship a slim chance of success, and there are also issues of willingness. FWIW; I really hoped we could help him to improve, but he's just in complete denial/incomprehension. Back to claiming his genius will overcome all, talking about social class, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a totally stupid question, but as you say the fog of verbiage over there defies comprehension and sapped my will to live... anyway. Has anyone asked, directly, what language Pumpie speaks? Has Pumpie ever edited from an IP which geolocates somewhere a reasonable guess of a primary language could be ascertained? → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least 3 times recently. He first said he would answer later, then he replied that Greek was his native and English his speaking language. Unfortunately apparently his grasp of Greek is also non-native. He's been here since at least 2004; early on, he edited a lot as an IP. There's a statement on the talkpage from someone saying that back then his IP geolocated to Canada. Since then, things he has said imply Greece, but he has also been referring to plans to travel to the US and to a knowledge of every street in Picardy. In short: another citizen of the world, native language unknown. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this previous discussion from October 28 which may answer some of your questions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Pumpie including why the block was restored. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this editor incompetent, he/she has repeatedly made promises and then broken them. This editor really just needs to go away for at least a few months. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what of my proposal then? Revoke talk and email access for a year from the day the block was issued. Since they still believe they are going to be unblocked, and since they will try tricking others(newbie admins) in order to achieve that end, I do not believe they can be trusted with either, and the only way to drive through the point that they cannot come back(until the other conditions noted in the original indef block thread are met) is through those restrictions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My non admin opinion is to aqree with your proposal. Heiro 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Pumpie claims a knowledge of every street in Picardy, then I'd hazard a guess that he may understand French. Maybe a French-speaking editor could leave a message in French on Pumpie's talk page and see if there is a response (this being per IAR re English language on En-Wiki). Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if they just post more of the same?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us can vouch for Pumpie's poor knowledge of French, and he admits himself that he understands it (and German) less well. He's been leaving out non-repetitive passages in his translations of French stations because he knows he can't render them. This is why I and others have breached etiquette and asked him what his native language is. He has not demonstrated competence in any. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not demand we ferret out a language in which a user is competent when the user himself is unwilling or unable to declare it. Either his English, French, and Greek are all roundly abyssmal and the user simply cannot comprehend the request to name his native language (unlikely), or he is playing us. Either way, there is simply no justification for additional effort being expended here. Absent any compelling argument to the contrary, I suggest we simply block indef, revoke talk page access, and give him the "standard offer", though obviously contingent on competent communications rather than adequate behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpie is already blocked indef. My proposal was to revoke talk and email access for a year from the day they were blocked indef, per the single diff linked in this report, showing that Pumpie was going to try and trick a newbie admin into unblocking him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I feel WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal included revoking email access, again per the diff above, we can't trust him with either. This would only last a year from the day of the block, though.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across Pumpie some considerable time ago. I would imagine the questions about his native language are related to encouraging him to contribute to that languages projects. If my recollection is correct, one of Pumpie's goals was to "know every language in the world", which I respect, even if it seems a little tricky sans transhumanism of some kind. I too had difficulty of some of his edits, the best thing would be to find some substantial WP project or task to which he could contribute his energy without causing problems. Any suggestions? Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Commons with photography? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked with talk page and email disabled, for the reasons given above. If someone wants to advise Pumpie about constructive contributions elsewhere that would be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... one question. Pumpie has over 45,000 edits since 2003-09-17. This hasn't seemed to be a problem until recently (first block was 2010-10-13). Has anyone done any research into (a) this being intent instead of incompetence? (reminds me of another editor in that respect... "Bad edits..." blocked not too long before this started... but anyway...) or (b) that the account has been compromised? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about A, but I'm pretty sure it isn't B.. although his last contribution to his talk page has sewn doubt into my being.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: 45 of edits since 2003 isn't really a lot, is it? I ask, becuase if there was a substantive gap, wherein the user left as a constructive editor, and came back a nonconstructive one, maybe we are seeing an account being hijacked (of course, blocking works for both instances), Secondly, I would submit that if the user is using broken English, his comment about waiting for a newbie admin might not have been him trying to pull a fast one. He might have just been asking for an uninvolved admin (ie., a new one to his situation, without preconceptions). I've seen that asked for before in proper English without anything sinister implied. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm sure you guys have this all figured out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the first block isn't really relevant in this case. Just look at this from way back in 2004 [83]. The same problem of mass translations from and to languages that aren't sufficiently understood, and the exact same reaction from Pumpie when challenged about it, even using the same grammatical constructs ("I will..."). Seems pretty clear it's not a compromised account. It's also beyond my imagination why someone would intentionally play stupid for seven years (but I guess it's possible.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire everyone's work to assume good faith but is there a point at which it becomes reasonable to wonder whether we're dealing with another Borat Sagdiyev? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Pumpie's last post to his own talk page is interesting. He states "I am a first generation foreign born Greek" which is at least a partial answer to the question he's been asked repeatedly for months now. If his parents mainly speak Greek, he's mainly learned English from TV programs as he suggests, and (speculating slightly) in some parts of the country that his IP suggests he's in, he would also be forced to learn French in school - then he may be something approaching tri-lingual resulting in his not having a sufficient grasp of any of the three languages. That could also give him distorted ideas of his own linguistic abilities and how translation should be handled (and thus the problems with German, Portugese, etc). If true then we should still be AGF but when it comes down to it, we just aren't able to communicate effectively with him so what's been done is the correct course of action --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds the idea of someone lacking a first language, or full competence in any language, to be heartrendingly sad? ClovisPt (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it sad if it were true. I find it vastly difficult to believe that it is the case; I grew up in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in North America (if not the world), and went to school with a lot of kids whose parents were immigrants and spoke only X, then had to come to school and speak English. Not to mention mandatory French classes! I find it extremely, extremely difficult to believe that Pumpie grew up without learning a primary language. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent trolling is sad in a whole other way. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the impression I was at odds with the block. I'm not, and I think it well warranted. Was more than anything, simply curious as to how much "leg work" others put into looking into this considering the 45K edits, and if no one had, I was going to, simply to satisfy my curiosity - or if others had, it would save me the looking into... just seemed strange if it's been going on for so many edits, but that's been covered above (and my curiousity satisfied, thanks). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpie's been noticed in the past. Have a read of his Talk page where other Wikipedians were complaining about his translations, & if you have a taste for schadenfreude have a look at his unsuccessful RfA -- allegedly his 9th attempt! I figure he went a way for a while between 2005 (when contributors of his quality were ignored, not banned) & 2009 (when they were blocked & eventually banned). -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we not suggested to him that he go over to simple: if we are so concerned about his fluency?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it has been. The problem is that this user insists on editing here, regardless of their poor grasp of language. This is likely going to be another indef block on a user who just doesn't get it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afer this sockpuppet investigations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive) it was discovered that the users involved were co-workers and not socks. However, they are admitedly members of the current reincarnation of The Irving Literary Society and I believe play some sort of leadership/promotional role for that organization. As a result, these editors sole interest in editing wikipedia is to promote their orgnaization and its members. This COI is having a dramatic effect at several AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). It was my undersatnding that they were warned by an admin about editing in this area after the close of the sock investigation. Users involved include User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, User:Coldplay3332, and User:Tea36. 4meter4 (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were warnings. This, for example. David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unfortunately their editing pattern has not changed and they are not being upfront about their COI in the relevent AFDs. I think it is time that some blocks be administered.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the AfDs and related articles and I concur with 4meter4's version of events completely. There is an unpleasant whiff of coordinated activity. The articles being discussed must be judged on their own merits, but this sort of process abuse must be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; this runs counter to and is a perversion of collaborative editing. I don't know if a block is necessary, but counseling definitely is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the harder issue to understand is the line between coordination, and articulating one's views. The review did not find us to be co-workers; we are in different parts of the country, and those with conflicts have disclosed. The individual positions are pretty standard. What I find difficult is the "gaming" that goes one -- filing complaints against people to intimidate them. There are really only two final positions to take, 'Keep' or 'Delete'. You don't have to be in a conspiracy to line up one way or another, right? Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we have a group of editors who mostly edit within a very specific group articles around a topic (Cornell's Irving Society and related people) which some of the editors have an admitted conflict of interest. All of the editors blatantly ignore wikipedia policy in the pursuit of a particular common agenda (ie promoting Irving and its members). All of this shows COI and SPA. Because of the use of numbers in vote stacking and tag teaming, it is difficult if not impossible for neutral editors who want to follow wikipedia guidelines (like WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research) to get any valuable editing done.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Help me understand why you consider me a conspirator, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment above pretty much explains it. As for evidence, your editing histories speak for themselves. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:Vote stacking, and WP:Tag teaming for relevent policies.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Please review WP:COWORKER, which says that since you share the same IP address you should act as if you are only one person entitled to one vote at AfD, etc. Voceditenore and I have no editing in common until the restoration of the deleted Irving article in October 2010. All of our communication has been on-wiki, and we have voted in the opposite direction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). Perhaps all of your coworkers should nominate just one Wikipedia spokesman and take special measures to refrain from editing on the subject of Irving and its purported alumni. Alternatively, once you see that any coworker has edited, avoid creating the impression that you can be considered as someone different in that discussion. However, the lack of improvement in behavior since the blocks were lifted is unfortunate and requires further action from an administrator. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coldplay3332 It's fine for editors to articulate their views on user and article talk pages and at AfDs and to inform each other what's going on elsewhere in Wikipedia. But in an AfD, they should always make their potential conflict of interest clear in that AfD, not somewhere else (or nowhere). In this, this, and this AfD, four members of this group (not, I emphasise, you) all !voted "keep", yet none of them disclosed any of this, including the articles' creator. All of them were advised by an administrator when they were unblocked either to be upfront about their affiliation and/or potential conflict of interest, or if not, to avoid editing in the same areas. Perhaps, you (and they) thought participating in the same AfDs didn't count as editing in the same areas. But, I'm afraid it does. Voceditenore (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I was writing my response above, I see you were !voting "keep" in those three AfDs too [84], [85], [86], despite the advice the administrator had given you here. Ah well... Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that after these users were blocked, User:IndtAithir was created, and he has self-indentified as someone who "wants to work for" Daniel P. Meyer. (He could mean that he works for Meyer and is pleased, or that he does not yet work for Meyer but aspires to do so, or something else.) This account bears watching as well. Racepacket (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Of note. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This moved off of 4meter4's talk page rather quickly, didn't it; his discussions with Racepacket about bringing the Cornell Board of Trustees into this discussion? Was that to intimidate the Cornell students participating? Never good to have evidence of similar behavior to the allegations you are making on the record; psychologists call this projection. The others probably understood the coaching the way I did, for future endeavors. To not finish my participation in these 4 proceedings would be to back down to bullying; that rewards belligerent behavior. Cmagha (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmagha, this whole issue might go away quietly if regular editors became convinced that you and your colleagues were willing to follow Wikipedia policy. Indignation about the people who are pointing out the problems to you is not helping your cause. When people remind you to follow policy, that is not 'bullying.' If it turns out that there is no other way to address this problem, I think that a topic ban for several editors might be considered in a future thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time I made those comments Cmagha, you and your compadres were blocked indefinitely as socks and I had no reason to believe you or they would be back on wikipedia. I never made any comments to you or the other editors in an attempt to try and influence your votes or other actions undoly. Having created hundreds of articles at wikipedia (possibly over a thousand now), in an array of areas I think I have safely established that my interests here are not personal but merely in wanting to establish what is best for the encyclopedia. I have never attended Cornell and am not close to anyone who has. I merely want to maintain wikipedia's credibility and veracity.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for topic ban

Unfortunately this group has repeatedly ignored requests to follow wikipedia guidelines and, as exampled above, has often resorted to personal attacks and speculations on the motives of others to dismiss any comments or objections they don't like. I haven't seen any willingness to work collaboratively or any acknowledgement of wiki's policies beyond attempts at wiki-lawyering to avoid them. This is not a new problem, but something that has been going on for months. Plenty of opportunities over the last year have been given to these editors without any positive results. This is not a wait and see moment, but a last straw moment. I think a topic ban would be an excellent solution. All of these editors should be banned from editing or participating in talk page discussions at The Irving Literary Society, any articles about its members, and all and any articles related to Cornell University for a time period of two years. They should also avoid editing the same articles with one another. Hopefully, they will continue to edit at wikipedia and in the process become more familiar with wiki policy and its propper implementation during that time. 4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's no allegations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or any other violation of wikipedia policies of conduct guidelines. If they were making money through collaboration instead of just advocating for a marginally notable set of topics they are jointly interested in, COI might be enough to justify a topic ban. The system must be robust enough to tolerate groups of people working in concert openly. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I broadly agree with Jclemens; however, this group had not been "working in concert openly" until just recently, so they might be in need of a little administrator supervision and/or guidance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (1) the misuse of sources, (2) failure to address concerns on the talk page and (3) conflict of interest/meatpuppetry warrant serious action. As for benefit, the Cornell Phi Kappa Psi webpage links to the "Irving Literary Society" Wikipedia article in several places in an attempt to use Wikipedia's endorsement of what is a fringe theory of Cornell history. It is a strange form of using unsourced puffing on Wikipedia to promote their membership recruitment efforts. If Phi Kappa Psi won't directly use John F. Kennedy Jr as their "poster child" on their own website, why should Wikipedia do it for them on the Wikipedia website? Racepacket (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with caveats This is way too draconian at this point, but unless more administrators keep an eye on this group of editors and their articles and/or attempt to make them understand the guidelines and policies which they continue to violate, this issue is going to end up at AN/I again. I also disagree with some of Jclemens's points above.

  Firstly, this group has not been "working in concert openly". None of the 5 who !voted "keep" in three recent AfDs (closed today, one as delete and two kept per "no consensus") declared their affiliation and/or conflict of interest in the discussions. One explicitly presented himself as having no COI [87], [88], [89]. Observe the following comments from the closing adminsistrator at the AfDs for Peter Shalvoy (all five "keeps" were from this group) and Aaron Raitiere (five of the six "keeps" were from this group, with 4 "deletes" from other editors). Ryan Neil Falcone was so blatantly non-notable that that even the five "keep" !votes from this group couldn't save it.

  Secondly, the leader of this group (supported by two others) has consistently misrepesented sources to support assertions which at best are dubious and sometimes completely spurious. Just read the talk pages for The Irving Literary Society (and its archive). The guidelines on verifiability and original research have been pointed out innumerable times to them The reaction is always "I didn't hear that". OK, so this is a small corner of Wikipedia, and the shenanigans are not financially motivated. But does this kind of stuff, especially vote-stacking at AfDs and deliberate misrepresentation of sources belong anywhere on Wikipedia, whatever the motivation? I don't think so. Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – SPI request opened, nothing left to do here. -Atmoz (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

95.143.195.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed a tag from this article for a requested move three times within the last several hours although there is an ongoing discussion in which they are not participating.[90] Since it does not appear to be a fixed IP, I am requesting semi-protection. TFD (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with TDC, the article needs semi-protection. There are also multiple reverts in the article by regular editors, in what looks like an edit war. The article is also making major progress so I do not see this as harmful. Inference by IPs and socks may however escalate the situation. P.S. – It bight be useful to check the IPs for open proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a remainder on the talk page. Some, including a registered editor and an ip editor, are dangerously close to a block. There are only three ips that have edited in the last few days so semi seems unneeded for now. I have watch listed the page and will be available to help. JodyB _talk 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT helpful: the remainder on the talk page will have no effect on IP editors or regular users editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny. As you said, the article is "dangerously close" to something. Semi-protection would help cool down the situation. I am afraid the article may otherwise end up being fully protected. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP is the correct forum. 3RR is a bright line, even though the IP keeps removing the merge notice it is a bad idea to keep reverting it back. But i think this is manageable w/o semi for the time being --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. But it is not just the move notice but the text in the lead - that is a content dispute. JodyB _talk 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (as 95.143.195.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 95.143.195.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has violated 3RR. Suggest a 24 hr block for the IP or a stern warning to cease edit warring. No need for semi unless other non-autoconfirmed editors join in or there is socking from the original IP. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a block would be ineffective, because the IP could just reboot their modem and get assigned a new IP address, which is why I recommended semi-protection. TFD (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning was placed on the article talk page for all. The ip is not alone here. There is some fine discussion underway but some are adamant about the lead and the template notice. JodyB _talk 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the IP is not alone in edit warring. But it is the only one that crossed the 3RR line. As they haven't edited (from an IP) since the warning, the block is probably not needed. Further edit warring by anyone on the article should be dealt with in the usual manner.

@TFD: As there is only 1 non-autoconfirmed user edit warring, semi is not appropriate. If the IP is blocked and then socks, we can be deal with then. -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO!, this is not a "content dispute", as JodyB suggests above. This is sock puppetry to avoid something. The IP address :95.143.195.64, geolocated to Sweden, is not controlled by some Swede, but is somehow compromised. Why else would the IP be spamming a Singapore free classified ads site with sex ads? ([91], [92]) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Please provide a diff of that spamming. JodyB _talk 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you are saying but this is about this encyclopedia. If you think there is a sock then prove it. But as it pertains to this article it is clearly a content dispute. JodyB _talk 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You misunderstood me. The IP is also used to "spam" other parts of the Internet – or at least provide anonymity by hiding the originator of the message. It is thus an open proxy. The implication is that this is not a content dispute between others and someone from Sweden, but someone using proxies to bypass 3RR and avoid scrutiny. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[93] [94] [95] [96] [97] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.195.64 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If you are correct that this is a Tor node then it needs to be blocked and that ends the problem. However that is not certain. There are others around here better equipped to check that. Maybe someone will look and let us know. However the original complaint was not about Tor's or open proxies. The history is clear that this ip editor and another are back and forth over the lead and the template. JodyB _talk 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked the small range, as almost certainly an anonymising proxy. The IP before it was probably also a proxy. No comment on the rest of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that handles it all and protection is not needed. Agreed? JodyB _talk 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not! If someone is "anonymously editing" using an anonymising proxy – quite possibly one of the regular editors, then what stops him from just using some other proxy in the TOR network. Besides, we also have these edits by 74.115.214.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe that 74.115.214.155 is also some kind of anonymizer. It geolocates to Crownsville, Maryland, yet it is being used by someone who claims to be in California! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will file an SPI request based on behavior as it appears to be clear who it is. However I am unfamiliar with how addresses work and request that you explain how we could know that the edit orginates from anywhere other than where geolocate states. TFD (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation information in itself does not automatically show that an IP is an open proxy. Through my work, depending upon which corporate network I connect, geolocation of my IP can show an address in either Germany, Netherlands, or the US (usually showing either California, Washington, or Maryland) - yet I am physically located in Washington. None of those are open proxies. More evidence than just geolocation is needed to prove an IP is an open proxy. --- Barek (talk) - 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an SPI request here. TFD (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as resolved. Nothing left to do here. -Atmoz (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies to Sandstein for not discussing it with him first, but I've unblocked MickMacNee.

I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable.

However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it/

Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him.

If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the discussion here[98] I believe you should have sought consensus for unblocking Scott. That said, I have not made up my mind either way as to whether I support this unblock or not. I recognize Mick's last comments as a step forward but not enough specifics were discussed for me to make my mind up immediately. As it stands I would support Sandstein's move to go to RfAr but if Mick can give concrete assurances I open to changing my mind--Cailil ^talk 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has indicated that he intends to edit in a way that will give no one cause to block. If he does that, great. If not, he'll be blocked. If the community wants a topic ban, let the community impose one. However, asking for "assurances" or him to suggest the sanctions is simply an attempt to demand contrition, that never works.--Scott Mac 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but I would have preferred a comment saying that he wont make anymore pointy afds and will avoid ad hominem remarks ie an acceptance of site policy not necessarily of wrong doing that's all--Cailil ^talk 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm all for second chances, and for second second chances, etc. But this... well, it may have been unwise. The fact that this was acknowledged in the discussion with Mickmacnee should probably give one pause. There is some support for the unblock in that discussion, though, so the thing to do would have been to bring it forward for discussion. I have no specific reason to object to the unblock, but the fact that I had no opportunity to do so before the unblock may be a source of drama. It may even be a source of DRAMA. But, as you say - if Mickmacnee edits in an acceptable manner, it's a net positive for the project. Ding. Woo. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From my superficial reading of the situation the block seems to have been a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and the same applies to the ban block discussion. To quote Sandstein, "This is not a ban, but a block, intended to prevent recurring disruption until such time as another equally effective measure to prevent further disruption is found." This was not a community ban, and Scott MacDonald did exactly the right thing. Mick MacNee appears to be sober now. If he can stay that way, great. If he can't, reblocking him is not a big deal. Where is the problem? Hans Adler 18:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has moved into 3 venues now; I'd stopped one and directed people to the other venue at the exact same time as Scott put this here. Well, I don't mind where this particular discussion happens, but if it's happening here, could someone please stop that discussion and move it here, or vice versa if it's still going to happen there? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No socks, no block. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as one of the editors who endorsed the provisional block in the original discussion, I think the resolution of ScottMac and MickMacNee is worth a try – Mick may not acknowledge the problematic nature of his edits, but he seems to understand the practical constraints of his current situation. I only wish this had been proposed, subject to rational debate, and concluded on by disinterested editors instead of the personal call of one. This is another instance of the disheartening trend of one administrator after another unilaterally taking action and then being overruled, without any calm, adult interaction between them. These practices are corrosive to our principles of collective decision-making. Skomorokh 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some admins were not so unhelpfully territorial when they make a block in a certain way in certain circumstances, then the major part of the problem is addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the major part of the problem would be addressed by not unblocking disruptive editors.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thank that is another significant issue, Ncmvocalist. If we could get away from "I've blocked X, no-one unblock without my say-so" and "I've unblocked X because I thought I should" to "let's, together, have a discussion on whether x should be blocked and come to a reasoned conclusion", dispute resolution would get a lot less dysfunctional and drama much reduced. Skomorokh 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with this approach. Preventative blocks are not suited to be the subject of a popularity contest, which is what any large community discussion of the sort you propose inevitably becomes. Blocks are the individual responsibility of administrators, and are only subject to community review after the fact. That is what admins are entrusted to do. That is why we do not have a long community discussion about every item on WP:AIV. The more discussions, the more opportunity for gaming and favoritism every which way.  Sandstein  19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except for elections, Wikipedia is not about popularity contests. I don't think I've ever interacted with MMN; if anything, one might think he's unpopular. The fact of the matter is you don't keep people blocked because they're unpopular (blocks which start out being preventative eventually become damaging). Similarly, you don't impose blocks as if you're getting a badge or trophy each time you do. Most admins are sensible and do the right thing; they aren't this alarmingly territorial over their actions and extend trust and good faith to their peers. You do nothing of the sort and assume that any block you make must be dealt with as if it was made at AE; reality check - that's not the way you interact with others on the project. The Community doesn't want to change what ALL administrators are entrusted with on the account of a few admins that act in this way; but if the few admins don't voluntarily adjust their approach after getting the hint, then we'll be stuck with less pleasant options for those admins. This is just one of the reasons why the Community is not going to endorse giving even more powers to admins - there's enough trouble with the use of existing "powers" or "tools". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a non-admin, you may not have the experience to understand that admin actions do not work on the same wiki principles as editing articles, but briefly: We have policies that say:

            "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." (WP:MOP)

            "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." (WP:BLOCK)

            I abide by these policies. Simply expecting other admins to do likewise, which Scott MacDonald failed to do here, is not being "territorial". I trust that Scott MacDonald acted in good faith, but that does not make up for his uncollegial conduct, not only with respect to me but also with respect to the several other admins that correctly declined to unblock MickMacNee until effective restrictions were agreed upon. Any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility.  Sandstein  08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • Firstly, I did not directly undo your block. Your block was discussed and those discussing it declined to lift it without assurances. At that point it becomes a community decision not to unblock. I interpreted that discussion to mean that the community required some assurance that unblocking wouldn't just take us back to square one, and the community was sceptical that such an assurance would be forthcoming. I have a history of animosity with Mick, but I thought I'd test that conclusion. If he'd told me to "fuck off" then that would have been that. To my surprise, Mick gave what I interpreted as appropriate reassurances that he understood what was required to remain an editor and had the intention to meet those requirements. I interpreted that as enough to satisfy the community's requirements. I'm not stupid, I knew that not everyone would agree - and I presumed you wouldn't. However, given concerns expressed over the original block, and this movement on Mick's part, I judged that the conditions that had endorsed the block no longer applied - and thus I could exercise my judgement. Had I asked you first, what difference would it have made? You say "any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility". I have no idea what that means. If Mick doesn't make an effort to conform to the necessary norm, I'll be disappointed and I'll have egg on my face, certainly. I'll also support a reblock. But I've never offered any guarantee of anything - how could I? There is a risk here. If the consensus is that we shouldn't take that risk (and I don't see that consensus), then someone should reblock now and I'll not object. No editor can be "responsible" for another. It sounds good and dramatic, but what on earth would that actual mean in practice?--Scott Mac 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • What difference would it have made to ask me? Well, you would have displayed common courtesy, to begin with (but I seem to have been mistaken in believing that this might matter to you, so I'm sorry to bother you with such trivia). More importantly, we might have reached, in discussion, a better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now.

                As you say, there was a community decision not to unblock. This means that the community ought to have determined whether the assurances given by MickMacNee were sufficient – they are not – and not you acting on a whim and against admin policy.

                In practice, you being responsible means that if MickMacNee continues to disrupt Wikipedia (as he almost certainly will, given his record and his practice of editing while drunk) it is only your unblock that will have enabled him to do so. You took that unnecessary risk on your own, without consulting anybody, so you alone are responsible to the community (and possibly to the ArbCom) for any continued disruption, which it would have been your duty to help prevent instead. That, and respect for collegiality and process, not – to paraphrase your comment below – your pride in your "negotiation" skills ought to have been your priority.  Sandstein  12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

                • That we would have reached a "better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now" is nonsense. Either Mick will edit within acceptable limits, or he will not. The only "more stable" situation is a permanent ban - which is obviously the only thing you'd have agreed to. (Other than a grovelling apology, which no Wikipedian ever gives.) I've no idea what the rest of this means. If there's a consensus to reblock, fine. If not, then we will see what Mick does. I've offered no guarantees as to his future behaviour - I have no more idea than anyone else. We're taking a gamble - you think arbcom will want to punish me, in some unspecified way, if the gamble doesn't pay off? You're posturing.--Scott Mac 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh is correct. The problem, Hans Adler, is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock. As I said on Scott Mac's talk page, I believe that he was entirely mistaken to unilaterally undo a routine block that is still needed to prevent disruption, in the face of clear (if subsequent) community consensus for the block, and without discussing his action with the blocking admin first. The discussion that is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee clearly indicates that if MickMacNee should ever be unblocked, then only with stringent restrictions that effectively prevent continued disruption. But no such restrictions are currently in place, and MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked. Indeed his contributions while blocked are limited to blaming others for his predicament ([99] et seq.) and he has continued to act disruptively while blocked (edit summary: "fuck off you idiotic moron. is that clear enough for you you fucking special retard?"). In the absence of any recognition that he even knows what his own misconduct was, any assurances on his part are not credible.

We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia. We remove them from the project until they convince us that they comply with our norms and stop wasting our time. This applies to longtime contributors as well as to run-of-the-mill vandalism-only accounts. This ill-considered unblock has all but ensured that more valuable volunteer time will be wasted containing the disruption generated by MickMacNee.

Unless this discussion results in agreement that the unblock was worth a try after all under these conditions, I intend to request that the issue be resolved by arbitration, because it would then be clear that the community cannot handle the recurring disruption by MickMacNee on its own.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem [...] is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock." Is that a threat? Do you think that's appropriate? You blocked an editor indefinitely, which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies. At the moment the only cause for disruption is your ill-considered opposition to the unblock. Hans Adler 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No threat, just a prediction. About which I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.  Sandstein  20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies - could you perhaps point out where the admin satisfied themselves? I've read Mick's Talk page - nothing there as far as I can see. Was another discussion carried out elsewhere? Private emails? --HighKing (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically you can't expect much more than what Mick promised. The last sentence in this diff is pretty good as a promise, and he seems sincere. Also note the section heading in the diff and take into account that Scott is apparently not exactly a fan of Mick. In some sense this is a pro-forma unblock (because the previous ANI discussion had very much the character of a lynching, which makes it defective and could have led to a lot of drama), complete with an invitation to other admins to get the next block right. (And I don't understand one of Sandstein's comments. I don't think Scott would insist that he must be asked before the next independently justified block. But it should really have a more solid reason than an indefinite block for post-tempblock talk page venting.) In the unlikely event that Mick manages to avoid that, as he promised – everybody wins. So what is the problem? Hans Adler 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like asking a smoker to go cold turkey, or an alcoholic to just stop drinking. Hard enough if a problem is acknowledged - nearly impossible if still in denial. Please dilute my melodramatic example to the appropriate concentration. The problem we now have is that Mick has no structure or terms of reference in which to self-moderate. I agree with Sandstein - there's a certain inevitability about what is most probable to happen in the future. Mick's interests would have been better served with a more structured (normal) approach. But hopefully that won't happen, and Mick will find the right balance, hopefully with a little help from his friends too. --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, "We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia" - I assume you are not using the royal "we", it's rather hard to know. Rather than focus your attentions on McNee perhaps you ought to look at the greater picture of establishing a more fair, logical and peaceful system of justice than is acheived amid the noise here on ANI. In my view, taking this to Arbitration before McNee has a chance to prove his newly found intent to improve looks like a fit of pique on your part.  Giacomo  19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, since when did "stringent restrictions" ever "effectively prevent continued disruption"? The only thing that prevents that it a user conforming to the necessary norms - or being physically prevented from disruption by banning. You say we are "not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia". Yes, we bloody well are. If that negotiation means that the person understands what's expected then that's what it is all about. Now, it is quite clear, either Mick will wish to work as part of this project, in which case (whether he likes it or not) he'll modify his behaviour, or he won't and we'll reblock him. The simplest thing now is to take him at his word and hope for the best. Your wounded pride's vindication is not a priority.--Scott Mac 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would absolutely agree with you that this would be the way to proceed if this was the first, or second, or even third block of MickMacNee. It is, however, not. "Hope for the best"? Yeah, sure.  Sandstein  19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, all right, this is not worth our time. Let's try it your way - with the understanding that you will be available to reimpose the block in the event of any disruption whatsoever on the part of MickMacNee.  Sandstein  19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• * As a convenience: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe Mick's block was harsh and too wide in scope, but overall acceptable as it addressed a systematic problem that was getting worse. But also for the record, I disagree with the unblock. There was a *clear* consensus for the block. The community blocked Mick until we got to the point where Mick would recognize and address the concerns voiced by the community. He's now unblocked. Hmmmm. Could someone please point out to me where Mick has:

1. Acknowledged the specific parts of his behaviour that are causing a problem
2. Indicated if he agrees or disagrees that his behaviour is problematic
3. Indicated which behaviour he intends to modify

The idea that Mick won't/can't/shouldn't admit mistakes (and that's acceptable?), or have a different code of behaviour when drunk (and that's acceptable? (if true?)), or that admitting anything is "climbing down" or "admitting defeat" is risible. In the absence of any acknowledgment or indications by Mick, he's effectively been given the green light to continue, and should he transgress again, there's nothing to indicate that the transgression falls within the scope of undesirable behaviour (since he's not acknowledged any wrongdoing, or indicated what behaviour changes we can expect). --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of when we transition from problematic user to banned user is an open one and addressed variably in each case. I AGF on everyone's participation on this topic, and even on Mick, ultimately.

I think we're approaching the point that a community ban poll might ban Mick, rendering admin discussions about where we are in the grey area moot. I hope Mick understands that and really does reform this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor unblock. The block had decent consensus, so there really should have been an unblock discussion regarding possible restrictions first. Now we have Mick on an effective one strike rule, with no restrictions. This did nether the community or Mick any favours. Courcelles 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally agree with Courcelles. This would have been better left untouched. There was no rush to unblock and an unblock undertaken with the knowledge that the original block was affirmed by the community (though not with any great vigor) is not a good step. That leaves some poor admin in the position of being the "third actor" which is the only person who can wheel war according to arbcom. However, what's done is done and i have no problem extending an nth chance, so long as everyone knows that is what is going on. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorsed the block, I tentatively endorse the unblock and the way it was done, and I recommend folks keep an eye on Mick for any further crossing of the line between emphatic and uncivil, which I accept is a difficult line to judge sometimes. I have a feeling that Mick will make more of an effort to fit in with our norms after this; if he doesn't, it is one click of a mouse to block him again. --John (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblocking an editor that was blocked by a different admin, without even apparently attempting to talk to that admin seems like a bad call to me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad unblock. Courcelles sums up my feelings on this nicely. AniMate 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unilateral unblocking is a breach of etiquette but it's not a rules violation. The unblocking admin is being extraordinarily generous, and if the editor in question throws egg in the admin's face by letting him down, he can expect to have it thrown back at him along with a lengthy reblock that will likely stick for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unblock as the reason for the block seems to have passed (and noting that MMN is walking on a tight rope). I just can't shake the feeling that a block isn't the best outcome for the project at this particular moment in time. (I neither endorsed nor opposed the original block). The Community was not ready to treat him as if he's banned when he's not. As Scott has said, the wounded pride of a blocking admin is really not the priority. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I never supported a block in the first place, and I'm glad to see it undone. My view was, and still is, that a block in this case seems to be more punitive than anything else. Like was noted by Scott, Mick doesn't always make it easy to see that his comments are in good faith, but they usually are, even if passionately worded. The original issue at ANI was a pretty blatant POINT violation, but that kind of disruption is the exception, not the rule. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I came here to say that unless MMN was willing to try to change going forward, an indef was a good outcome for the project. But this is a better outcome. Endorse unblock. Don't make a fool of Scott, please. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I've spent some time reviewing some of MickMacNee's recent contributions. I see three types of edit: contributions to article development; discussion related to article development; and some WP:pointed actions. The pointed actions are fairly few, but clearly unacceptable. The discussion ranges from the civil and reasonable, through the assertive and forthright, to the aggressive and confrontational. At the latter end, there are swearwords aplenty, but more importantly things that come across as insults and attacks. His original point may well be correct in many cases, but this fact is typically lost in the resulting drama. I am left overall with the impression of someone with a great passion for building an encyclopedia, and some skill in doing so, but who has trouble stepping back and walking away when that passion overwhelms good sense and becomes self-defeating.
• There's been a bit of drama about the way this block took place. It had the appearance of soliciting a community ban, but the timescale was short and the thread dying down. I'd classify it as a unilateral block with some attempt to solicit community feedback in advance, presumably in anticipation of controversy. Communication regarding the block could have been better, but that's true in most cases, and I think we should move on.
• As I'd hope we'd all agree, when considering blocks or other restrictions on editing, we must balance the goal of preventing disruption with that of building an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Being a valuable contributor does not give licence to poison the well for others, but we must take potential future productivity into account in dealing with all but the most recidivist vandal, and let people have a little rope.
• I'm glad to see that MickMacNee is now unblocked. I hope we can make this situation work out for the best for all of us, but I think it will require effort on both MickMacNee's part, and on ours. I think two maxims are relevant here: If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. and There is no deadline. When things get heated, when you find yourself about to post a comment in anger, take a break. Sleep on it. Let someone else edit for a while. Don't think of every point as a battle you have to win. It's better to leave an article with a minor deficiency for a few days than to escalate to disruption. Seek consensus and third opinions.
• That's my take on the situation. I hope it's helpful. Bovlb (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my comment. I find it rather difficult to chase these threads across all the places they're happening. Bovlb (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned on 31 October 2010 User:Ronald Wenonah over his/her editing of the article War of 1812. But since that request and warning Ronald Wenonah has continued to edit in similar text with no attempt to use the article talk page to discuss his/her difference of opinion over content with other editors of that article. It would be helpful if another administrator who has not edited the article would take a look at User:Ronald Wenonah and initiate some action. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User should have had a block for violating 3RR edit-warring in mid-October, is close to receiving one now. Edit warring final warning given, advised to use consensus and discussion before editing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{I misread the times, warning and/or blocks would be applicable for editing warring still, though not an actual 3RR violation yet S.G.^(GH) ping! 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

The problem is not the frequency of the edits it is the persistence, with the total lack of discussion. -- PBS (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence how the edit warring warning was still appropriate. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

Stewie1111111 (talk · contribs) - This user is blocked for 31 hours. This is a vandalism-only account. No good faith edits have occurred. Racial hatred is not acceptable. Dawnseeker2000 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the blocking admin. --Jayron32 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the blocking admin, and I have to say I agree that 31 hours is unacceptable. Indef is indicated. DuncanHill (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Duncan for notifying Rd232. Dawnseeker2000 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious that this is a vandalism only account. I've blocked them indefinitely. AniMate 08:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my logic was that it was a longer term unconstructive account; someone (probably very young) returning only very occasionally. Indef blocking just means they're likely to make a new account at some point, and possibly try harder to avoid detection. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah

 – No admin attention needed; content dispute. Fix it and/or discuss on talk page, please. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I want Administrators to pay attention to these tow article: Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah and List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters.They are articles about Indian sitcom.They are not properly written and have lots of misc. information.I discussed with some Wikipedians on Help desk long ago and finally trimmed the article.but, then after some days, it was made same.So, Administrator should take appropriate action.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the list of characters to the main article, because the main article contains a list of characters. I've got no real comment otherwise, though Max Viwe is right that there is a large amount of in-universe detail in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No longer dead. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Gurch, developer of Huggle, has disabled it at the meta level (and locally) for all wikis [100]. The reason is a non-urgent bug. There was no discussion. I attempted to turn it back on, but I was reverted. Since Huggle is one of the few things protecting us from rampant vandalism, I would appreciate it if we could agree to a temporary injunction to keep it on until we can discuss the problem. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Gurch is on IRC, so I have notified him there. He confirms that he has been duly notified. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-urgent bug" my ass. This was politically motivated. –MuZemike 06:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × ...)))))WP:IGLOO exists for a reason. And please respect WP:BEANS; if Hagger And Friends find out we're doomed. Access Denied – talk to me 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the bug? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly, that some users are lazy and don't check the revision they're reverting, so accidentally revert vandalism back in. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it needed a hug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Huggle devs are working on a fix at the moment. I wouldn't worry about it too much. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE: I have restored Huggle access globally. On the night of a US election, BLP vandalism is going to be high, and we need Huggle right now. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a version 0.9.11 available here. But, the meta has not been changed to reflect this new number, nor has the project config. By the way, what does “political” mean, MuZemike? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the version numbers. Also, by political, he was insinuating that gurch may have had political reasons for disabling Huggle on the night of a US general election (allowing BLP violations to slip through). The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not AGFing as I should, but I find it awfully convenient that Huggle gets disabled for something minor on the night of a major U.S. election. –MuZemike 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to think that someone who was so dedicated to ridding Wikipedia of vandalism that s/he developed such a super tool as Huggle would not do that. Perhaps, s/he’s just tired of maintaining the beast and people, perhaps, blaming HG for their not reverting to the right version? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Gurch was "responding" to my bug report about Huggle partially undoing my reversions of vandalism. A constructive response to the report (assuming the problem is indeed operator error) would have been modifying the software to raise a warning dialog before reverting an edit by a whitelisted editor to a revision by a non-whitelisted user. Immediately disabling the software, then blaming his actions on my bug report [101], was grossly inappropriate, disruptive, and WP:POINTy. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is an example of a BLP violation that slipped through while Huggle was down. I'm sure there are dozens of others. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also be sure to check changes related to the election for other pages that no doubt have problems. --slakr^\ talk / 07:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. The few hours that it was down probably caused massive damage to our BLPs, we should take care to fix it all. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to take the time to apologize for my less-than-civil remark last night. I still think at the least the timing behind taking Huggle offline like that was rather poor, but emotions were running high with the election results coming in and everything. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. –MuZemike 18:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a temporary measure during any similar emergencies

Editors reverting vandalism can using something like User:Peter Karlsen/vector.js. Please copy the text, rather than importing my vector.js file. This uses Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool, plus a custom invocation of Twinkle to issue warnings after rollbacks (all editors using Huggle will have rollback rights.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle does not work in Internet Explorer. — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Firefox is available for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, and will run Twinkle on any of them. The software is free of charge, and free as in freedom (much like Huggle itself, if it weren't tied to the Windows platform. AutoWikiBrowser is another example of Wikipedia's free software with a similar limitation.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO offense intended, but anyone still using IE is in the dark ages. (IMO) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to write of 90% of our readers. You do recall that we're here to serve them, and not vice versa? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Browser_usage_on_wikimedia_Sep_2010.png Not quite that much :P It's incredibly important to maintain compatibility with internet explorer for the reader, and for the editor, although it's not an unreasonable assumption that if one really wants to do vandalism work that they could get firefox, just as they got huggle. I'm not sure why twinkle doesn't work in IE, but there must be some. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who want to use Twinkle or Huggle are by definition not readers. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, wrong. I READ Wikipedia almost every day. Just yesterday afternoon I was looking up the facts in the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit. Without it I would be spending a lot of time looking up template names. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are using IE against their will (ie, on a work computer). shoy (reactions) 12:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this. It's a portable version of Firefox that you can install onto a flash drive, and run it anywhere. [102] The sock that should not be (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who don't like Vector are welcome to use my monobook.js, which also has Lupin's and TW (you may or may not like the aesthetics). You may/may not need some customization to make it happen, but it's worked mostly flawlessly for me since early 2006. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle is great, if the situation ( I hesitate to call it a bug) where you examine one version and between your brain telling your hand and the software recieveing the message, a later revison pops up, and hence gets reverted, is resolved, that is fantastic. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But did it have to be last night? I get that the fix is a handy one, but I can't imagine a worse time for dealing with the issue. I don't know where you live, Rich, but yesterday was Election Day here in the States. And last night was when the results were coming in.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 12:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is why I've urged that 'bot source code be open source and under public configuration management. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. Except for 'bots and some tools, which are private. This can be a problem. All new 'bots, at least, should be required to be under source control and under a Wikipedia-compatible license. That's how the Wikimedia code itself is managed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Huggle is open source. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling Huggle down during a U.S. election is an interesting call. As someone who has used Huggle to stop vandals, I'd call it a major tool in the (sadly) ongoing war. It does have to be operated with good intent and care, of course. There may be need to discuss this in some other venue besides here. Just a thought. Jusdafax 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered here on BritishWatcher's talk page, an IP had revealed his E-mail address (I think deliberatly) and so it should be removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is allowed to reveal their own email address if they want to; as you point out, it was indeed deliberate! (Incidentally, in general, if you think that personal information needs removing, WP:RFO is the way to go – posting it here merely exposes it more!) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm bringing this to ANI to get a review on the action... I've removed Twinkle access for this user, as he's consistently been mistagging pages with CSD. His talk history is full of requests to slow down: a look through the archives should prove as much - please also note the user has removed notifications as well ([103] [104] [105]). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable choice to me. A little more time to familiarize himself with the criteria may help him tag more productively and in the meanwhile removing the tool might help limit the impulse to use it inappropriately. He's showing a lot of interesting in helping out, and I'd hope that with some time he may become very good at it, but he isn't there yet. (Note: I have commented on his talk page previously about mistagging copyvios, which is how I noticed this conversation. His talk page is still on my watchlist.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Removal. While I'm positive TCNSV has good intentions at heart, his recent level of tagging errors have been unacceptably high. Since repeated warnings are failing to get the message across, hopefully this will. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm not sure how a talk page-full of warnings doesn't get the message across, but hopefully this will. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - At some point actions have consequences, and that point is now. Jusdafax 07:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, block for 48h In addition, track record at simplewiki shows incompetence and severe maturity issues along with what seems to be an occasional desire to cause disruption. Access Denied – talk to me 09:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Doesn't appear to be a WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL violation; "bad language" in itself isn't an issue. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable for an admin to use foul language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins#vandalism. Factocop (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be acceptable. No doubt administrators (rightly/wrongly) get alot of foul language thrown at them. Besides, colourful honesty is better then polite dishonesty. Furthermore, the f-word was used on that administrator's talkpage; so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ this. Wikipedia is not censored. He didn't call you a fucker or a whiner directly. Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agree. Furthermore, it seems that a raised voice is required to get the attention of the combatants. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duty obliges me to look sternly in the virtual direction of Bwilkins for using colorful language towards editors in connection with possible administrative actions by him. Naughty! That said, he is entirely correct in the substance of his admonition, so you are well advised to heed it.  Sandstein  12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok great, ive been holding back on foul language, thinking it may be deemed offensive, so this is great news. I'll be swearing like a trooper from now on.Factocop (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure your language fits the situation. If you're reverting vandalism and tell a new user that "their fucking edits are shit", you're probably going to end up with a WQA. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or an immediate block for a personal attack, which is not how the naughty word was used in the diff above.  Frank  |  talk  13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, in the future, when I feel like swearing, Ill just ask Bwilkins, as he has a knack of when to use his colourful language at the right times.Factocop (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Would this be an appropriate time for a colorful metaphor?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factocop, if there's anything about the message that is unclear due to the language in which it is couched, I am sure BWilkins will explain it to you. If not, you should drop this.  pablo 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop it. Its just a shame, however that certain people are above the law.Factocop (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "law", you need to notify someone you bring to AN/I. I have done this... Doc talk 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one's above the law; if you said the exact same thing, no one would blink an eye. --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Factocop (talk · contribs) has now been blocked for 72 hours by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Bencherlite^Talk 13:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity and crude jargon should be discouraged or banned. There is no need for it and it is quite unnecessary. The English language contains a rich vocabulary and it should be used if editors wish to express themselves. Unrefined rants and words which are deemed to be offensive should not be tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. It lowers the tone and is quite frankly, immature behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED. Fact is, what is considered "foul" or "vulgar" language varies from culture to culture. The only language that's going to get discouraged or banned is personal attacks or blatant incivility. Anything else is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see more AN/I energy devoted to halting edit warriors and POV-pushing partisans than time spent acting like a bunch of Mary Whitehouse acolytes. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rich vocabulary indeed; and Bwilkins used his to good effect in the original message which was assertive, clear and unambiguous. Factocop is/was trolling here. pablo 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for throwing AGF out the window. --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who me? I don't consider it necessary to indefinitely assume that an editor is acting in good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.  pablo 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn't advise this personally, if Factocop wanted to throw some humor into the situation he could always tell Bwilkins to "Watch your fucking God damn language! =)" (exactly as in the quotes, including the smiley face)...but that would go down best if followed immediately in the same post by an apology for whatever actions warrented the swearing in the first place. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose simple courtesy and respect for other people enter into the equation anywhere. Oops, I forgot. We're on the Internet. Never mind. Neutron (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one's take on foul language, please do not quote WP:NOTCENSORED which has no relevance here whatsoever. WP:NOTCENSORED means that we won't limit proper encyclopaedic content out of regard for sensibilities, it also states that, since Wikipedia is open, we can't guarantee that you will not see improper things (vandalism) on wikipedia. It might serve as a warning to those who unreasonably expect they will never encounter foul language, but it is certainly not a shield for potty-mouths to hide behind. If we're a collaborative project, then without being over-sensitive, we should all do our bit to avoid vocabulary which is likely to give unnecessary offence. Besides which, an overuse of expletives tends to betray a lack of imagination, and a poor vocabularic range. But back to my main point, you may argue that admins using expletives are not a problem, you may not argue that WP:NOTCENSORED supports that contention in any way shape or form. Indeed, NOTCENSORED is perhaps the most misused of all wikipedia policies.--Scott Mac 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I recommend that Factocop confine any use of profanity to the Irish language equivalents. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Factocop has started this discussion, they are now no doubt aware of the issue of civility. Having ignored the advice being offered here, they have also ignored it here and the intention behind the advice which prompted this discussion. This discussion is going down hill fast and a civility check is called for. Another editor has already been blocked, based on Bwilkins advice, which should have acted as a wake up call, especially having just been unblocked --Domer48_'fenian' 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "foul language" is a cop-out. The same kind that lets you get by with saying "crap" instead of "shit." Same meaning but, because one word is "dirty," we aren't supposed to use it. And yes, WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles, but it also gives newbies a good understanding of where Wikipedia stands. We aren't here to gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world. I'm fine with restricting our language when it's abusive, but no one is going to agree on what words are too "foul" to use in common conversation. Oh, and the "lack of imagination" is an insult. Choosing to use those words doesn't imply any such thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is abject nonsense. Whatever one's view of the use of inarticulate scatology, it isn't that ""WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles" - it is that WP:NOTCEN has nothing to do with the issue of language in inter-user posts whatsoever. It simply doesn't address the issue in any way, shape, or form, technically, literally, or in spirit. It is about something else altogether different - and far, far, far, more important. No we are not here to "gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world", that indeed is the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, but one does not advance that cause one iota by saying we're not going to "fucking gloss over the (sometimes fucking unpleasant) facts of the fucking bloody world". One then is simply misusing a fundamental principle to justify low-class cussing - and showing one is incapable of reading a key policy page to boot (inarticulacy and illiteracy are often connected). By all means make the case that we should avoid prudish moral witch-hunts over language - I tend to agree. But don't pretend that using such indicates some form of free-speech nobility, that advances human knowledge - that's a bit like using the Magna Carta to wipe your fucking arse.--Scott Mac 18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that policies exist as a record of how the community defines that editors should act, not the other way round. The fact that so many mistakenly cite WP:NOTCENSORED is perhaps good indication that someone should propose expanding it to cover censorship of language outside of mainspace, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Given that Factocop appeared to be asking a straight question "is it OK to use this sort of language?" and hasn't indicated what sort of admin action they feel is required here, I'm almost inclined to suggest this is actually more of a WP:Help desk question. Either way, it appears admin attention isn't required here since Bwilkins has made neither a personal attack nor an uncivil comment despite their choice of diction, so I'm marking as resolved since the question has been answered. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 18:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Secret ^account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what to do about this edit [106], so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss it. Cluebot NG reverted it as potential vandalism, but the "vandal" is complaining about being an abused child, so I have no clue what to do. These are his other edits [107] and [108], which both appear to be editing tests. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I have my doubts that any abused child would seek help by editing Werewolf to leave a message. The IP's next edit, a few minutes later, was reverted as vandalism, which also reduces my faith in the validity of the claim. Bencherlite^Talk 12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my feeling too, I was just unsure. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI, considering the first edit from the IP was vandalism ten minutes before that post. Yelling is not abuse either really and I'd beat my brother up to if he were and epic failure at Halo: Reach. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "please help me because i am abused child and everybody in my family is always yelling at me i also get bashed by my brother because i am not good at halo reach. PLEASE HELP ME." sounds to me like a typical irritating kid brother. Wait and see if he keeps the claims up and see if they get worse - then reconsider.  Giacomo  12:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to see the abused child edit when I go to Werewolf, although it was reverted. I've refreshed the page several times and I still see it. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Pending Changes; that edit wasn't reverted by a user with Reviewer status (I don't think the bot has it). I went ahead and undid it. –MuZemike 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I no longer see the vandalism in the page, but I don't see you in the history of the page. Is there some bug in the system? It seems strange that a user would need some special status in order to be able to revert vandalism from an IP. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's the wonders of the flagged revisions, What I gather happened he untagged the edit as reviewed so it shows up unreviewed and so removed from public view, an action that doesn't appear in edit histories and someone else saw it and removed it. I personally am surprised that theres still some articles that have it as the trial was supposed to have ended in August. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, resolved. Secret ^account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the same category as the old one about opening a fortune cookie and finding, "Help! I'm a prisoner in a Chinese bakery!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This, this and this are grossly unacceptable for BLP articles. This user should have been blocked months ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, indefinite block, plenty of warnings have been given and behaviour continues. I have also notified the user of this thread. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a case where both of us former admin tools would have been acceptable, indef needed. Secret ^account 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also looked back and found other BLP violations and some disruptive, slightly abusive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT talk page messages. The onus is now on the user to prove his or her worth to the 'pedia with an unblock message. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His unblock request amused me. Almost wished I hadn't been the blocking admin so I could answer it! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And My9dreamkey (talk · contribs)'s unblock request has been declined by someone else, with talk page access revoked. We're done here. Bencherlite^Talk 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realcopt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Father Athanasios Henein multiple times, and the submission has been rejected every time due to POV, tone, and the fact the subject fails WP:N. Every time we reject the submission, he relists within hours or minutes without really doing anything to address the issues (primarially statements that cannot reasonably be backed up at all, or could be but don't have references that satisfy WP:V). Contributors at AFC, myself and several other editors included have made clear attempts to explain what he needs to do, but he continues to relist... most recently, he not only cleared the decline notice [109] but also added [110] [111] two other AFC submission tags, whereas nobody had edited the page since he removed the decline notice.

His talk page seriously makes me wonder if there's a conflict of interest, that or he simply feels very strongly about the individual from a religious standpoint, and is using a Wikipedia article to advance his views regardless of whether the article meets WP:N, WP:V, or our other standards. Would appreciate some input on the matter. Thanks! 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted as a copyvio. I'd be inclined to see what happens next. Bencherlite^Talk 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

for now, I guess. I've watch listed his talk page and I'll keep an eye out for him at Articles for Creation. 2 says you, says two 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account-holder has repeatedly and in a considered way trashed the page Halifax Explosion (check the history) he also trashed the Oxymoron page, again check the history of that page. This person could be mentally ill or have some kind of grudge against wikipedia, but he has vandalised the wiki repeatedly. This IP address needs to be banned, at least for a cool-off period of a week.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a school account. I have blocked for a short period and we can reevaluate the block if needed. The Oxymoron vandalism was almost three years ago (January 2007). JodyB _talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – seems to be pretty wrapped up, user should not be unblocked without first discussing with Arbcom as per FloNight's comments. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit on the talk page of a blocked user appears to be a legal threat. Another editor cautioned the editor about no legal threats.[112] TFD (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a legal threat, commenting that you will seek legal advice is not a legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are precedences either way, I agree with O2RR that no action is necessary now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording is "I am waiting one week, if by then the crap linking my name to porn websites and criminal gangs is not scrubbed i will seek legal advice on how to have that achieved." TFD (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, quite clearly, a legal threat.--Scott Mac 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite rich for TFD to come here and complain about it, after it was his and Petri Krohn's actions - the smearing of Mark's name, and committing various egregious BLP violations - which initiated the whole affair. Mark is quite within his rights to demand that all the garbage Petri posted to the SPI (the SPI which, btw, cleared Mark), which then TFD tried to make excuses for, be removed and over sighted. Perhaps Mark's not going about it in an optimal way, but usually when you've had something like that done to you, you are understandably emotional and angry. Probably what makes matter worse is that nothing is being done about this kind of despicable "strategy" - the smearing worked where the specious SPI failed in that these two appear to have now successfully driven Mark off Wikipedia.radek (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of what you wrote. The situation at the SPI is complex and the material that TFD and in particular PK posted is valuable in digging out serious disruptions. However, it is very likely that Mark is not involved. This has, by now, been repeatedly stated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Thus, there is no "smearing of his name" or "egregious BLP violations", although the user seems to think so, and has indeed reacted less than optimally in more than one way. However, I see no credible legal threat, and since the user currently is blocked anyways, there is no need to escalate this. However, TDF, Radeksz and Mark (and others) are all involved in a hot content dispute at Holodomor and Communist terrorism, and I have the impression that this dispute has lead to an undesirable polarization that now shows in other venues. I'd strongly suggest that all involved editors step back for 24 hours, refrain from commenting on each other on any noticeboard or similar page, and reconsider the actions and comments of the others in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not involved in anything on Communist terrorism. On Holodomor I am participating in the discussion, but even there I believe my involvement came after the SPI was filed (and one edit aside, it's limited to the talk page). I also believe that Mark is only tangentially involved in that discussion and his problems with Petri and TFD arise from other venues. The crux of the matter is not any content dispute but the obvious harassment that Mark was subject to during the SPI - and it is a scary form of harassment (which is why I just got my username changed). In terms of AGF, the thing is that Petri at least has been blocked for precisely these kinds of attacks previously, once for a year for making implied death threats [113] and once for another year by the ArbCom [114]. So his behavior at Mark's SPI is really just a continuation of an established pattern. Under those circumstances, it's very very hard to assume good faith, as several other editors noted at the SPI ([115], [116]), including checkusers, bureaucrats and even editors that Mark has had conflicts with in the past.radek (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add: it's true that the material may be valuable in terms of busting some sock puppet ring. But that wasn't the venue to do it, particularly after Petri and TFD were repeatedly told by others that the IPs were not Mark. And it most certainly wasn't the proper way to do it.radek (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clearly a legal threat. However, I'm fed up with blocking people for these and not asking "are we doing something bad, which justifies people making these?". There's lots of eyes on the threat now, but how many on the issue he's referring to. Can someone point us to the pages with the underlying problem so we can investigate that, before bannhammering the user for legal threats. (links would be nice.)--Scott Mac 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[117] would be one example. It has since been redacted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A summary of events so far. A number of IP editors have made editors of a similar POV to a blocked editor, resulting in an SPI. The investigation turned up an enormous number of proxies and unsavory sites associated with these proxies. The blocked user's "legal threat" relates to the understandable desire not to have the unsavory sites linked to the proxies associated with an SPI with his name on it, given that the SPI has not connected the proxies to his accounts. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire thread that included the incivil remarks, legal threat, etc. BWilkins has indeffed and removed talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "resolved" when the behavior that led to Mark's response has not been addressed? Great job rewarding harassment here.radek (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Telling an editor who just told a blocked editor to post on a page he can't actually post to to GFH would seem to fall under the heading of "justified venting", generally.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened. A long-time user has asserted he's been libelled. Until we are crystal clear that he's not been, this issue is not resolved.--Scott Mac 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is really a mess. A real messy SPI that is still not resolved, a half hearted legal threat from a user that was feeling very attacked and linked to rape comments and rape your sister comments and sex sites and the like, and it being his real name, its no wonder he was upset. It would have been easy to remove his talkpage access and let the SPI outcome be resolved first. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is that way->. This thread is about the legal threat that grew into a civil issue as well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an idiot, sir.--Scott Mac 21:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacDonald, that is absolutely unacceptable language coming from an administrator. Are you no longer content with enabling others to disrupt Wikipedia – see the discussion about your unilateral unblock of MickMacNee above – but are now actively seek to emulate them? This becomes ever more concerning.  Sandstein  06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Marknutley edits using his real name, the (apparently discredited) attempts on the SPI page to link him to racism, sex sites, and possibly running a botnet - see the comments of oversighter Alison here - could arguably rise to the level of libel, at least under UK law. Thparkth (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a pretty low grade legal threat and as I can see he removed it prior to the block extension, so hes not been blocked for that has he? He has been indefd for telling a user to f off on his talkpage, a user that Mark has told not to post on his talkpage .. really its a bit much in punishment for his wiki crimes... can we wind it back in to the original block and work the actual issue out which is the SPI and the quite extraordinary claims there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remark he made on his talk page was definitely a personal attack and quite inexcusable - but it should be forgivable given the provocation he was under. An indefinite block seems disproportionate, and seems like a victory for those who provoked him. Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored his talk page editing. That was disproportionate given the unresolved complaint he's made. I've left the indefblock as less important until the SPI issues are resolved (he blocked anyway).--Scott Mac 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - The sockpuppet investigation that started all this has been closed as no action, I would like to suggest that under the circumstances we cut Mark a bit of slack and accept he was under undue stress and did actually withdraw the comment about the legal threat and we return his block clock to where it was before this whole mess began. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Something's borked along the way there; he was originally blocked until the 9th, Bwilkins' reblock kept that expiry but locked his talk page; Scott Mac's re-reblock to open the talk page went to indef... that probably needs fixed. And I agree with the reopening of the talk page and interpretation of the legal issues as being relatively less than requiring an indef. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The indef was for telling Four Duces to "Go fuck yourself you sick twisted sack of shite" but as we've seen here, WP:Civil is obsolete, so hey, why not unblock the charming chap. We need more of that, right Scott? Toddst1 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the case at issue, but I note that this is the second time in a row that Scott MacDonald unilaterally and controversially undoes another admin's action simply because he knows better. I'm considerably less surprised this time around, though.  Sandstein  06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to a message on my talk page: Speaking as a checkuser who has been in contact with Marknutley and ArbCom, I have reblocked as indefinite as an agreed upon way to close the SPI for now. If and when Mn decides to resume editing he knows to contact ArbCom to discuss the SPI. I made the note in the block log to make it clear to admins, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing that up FloNight. I think under the circumstances that there is nothing else to do here. If Mark wishes to edit in the future he should contact Arbcom and work it out with them. I will boldly close this thread . Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Not sure if I should post here or at WP:AN but a requested move about New York and NYC has been open for two weeks now, and it's probably time to close. DC T•C 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed by John. Please note that WP:AN is the right place for reuests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DC T•C 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Use WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate some help with Albanian nationalism page as a number of editors are not allowed to edit there. The page could be considered POV by any standards as it is offensive to an entire ethnicity.

- This is an actual line from the article: These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons who are not only nationalists but criminals[56] and terrorists[57][58][59][60][61] involved[62] in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit.[63]

On his side (and as administrator) User:Dbachmann does not allow any edits by editors who are Albanians as according to him they are redneck nationalists.

Here are some of his lasts comments and edits:

• Edit: Removing POV tags. 09:24, 3 November 2010
• Edit: Making his own edit while supporting another RV. 09:26, 3 November 2010
• Comment: Pushing his own ideas. 10:19, 30 October 2010
• Comment: More suggestions based on his own ideas Albanian nationalism attaches the greatest importance to the Illyrian scenario, while it couldn't care less about the Thracian one—where did he find this. 10:13, 3 November 2010
• Comment: What you guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article, on the contrary it is distracting people from sitting down and working on it. 09:22, 3 November 2010

The article clearly needs to be viewed by other editors as, it seems, two contrary groups of editors cannot reach an agreement. RfC was called for the article, and User:Askari Mark offered help. But his suggestions were not taken into consideration.

Moreover, the article is not based on it's own references. Some reference are misinterpreted while others are false completely. For example this one: Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability (Central and Eastern European) by Miranda Vickers, 2004 such book does not exist. There is a similar document that is in total contradiction as it claims there is no threat from pan-Albanianism.

It would be very helpful if someone would read the article and check for these issues. Also, it would be helpful if someone could check User:Dbachmann and have a look at his behaviors toward Albanian related articles. I understand that he is a very valuable editor, but in certain ethnic issues (especially Albanian) he seems to be holding an agenda. Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This report is misplaced. For assistance with ethno-nationalist conflicts please use WP:CCN, for arbitration enforcement WP:AE.

The report also appears to be without foundation. You not only misquote but also falsely represent the words "backward redneck ideologists" as Dbachmann's opinion at [118], while it seems he was characterizing your own opinion as having the effect of (falsely) branding Albanians as such. I see nothing immediately wrong with the other diffs you cite. As such, I see no need for admin action here.  Sandstein  19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Dbachmann has acted only as an editor and not as an administrator, and has expressly stated that as an involved editor he would not act administratively, so this is really just an ordinary content dispute at this point. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor [119]. I have no idea why there is an ISBN number, it is an article at [120]. Before attacking people you really need to check that your facts are right. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you responded so quickly. I asked you to look closely at all this. I claim that User:Dbachmann was WP:OWNing. It could be that the report is misplaced.

As for backward redneck ideologists, please read the entire comment carefully. Also read what did that respond to. The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor, but he is defending the article as sourced The article is based on decent sources and stays on topic while the Pan-Albanian source clearly shows that is not so. It would really be very helpful if you would check everything once again with more care. Also, I am aware that User:Dbachmann stated his edits were made as an editor, not as an administrator. But, what am I supposed to do, edit-war? Talking does not seem to work, as what we guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Dougweller I would beg you to read my comment carefully. There IS such a report, I have read it. The report clearly states there is no such thing as Pan-Albanianism contrary to the Albanian nationalism article. And it is not written by Miranda Vickers as cited in the article. And that served only as an illustration to what is happening. There are other sources that are misleading. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Image has been replaced by a high resolution version, with proper cropping to remove the random unidentified person from the photo. SnottyWong ^babble 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.219.46.156 added a photo to Nicola Blackwood: [121], which was uploaed on Commons a high-res pic called "Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg" by a new commons user 'Tysteele'.

The IP has now replaced this with the same photo, re-uploaded as a poor-quality png (but with no content removed) by new Commons user ' James1234'. He is warring to include the poor-quality image 'Nicola Blackwood MP in Westminister Hall.png', rather than the high-res 'Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg', saying 'Tysteele did not want to be identified with the article any longer'. I reverted this, and a brand new 'Tysteele' user reverted it. I can't quite understand what's going on, anyone care to investigate, I think the user is a bit clueless? Sumbuddi (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new image isn't "low resolution" or "poor quality". It is the same image, just cropped a bit tighter. Same resolution, same quality, different cropping. Tysteele (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't want to be linked to the article anymore for some reason. Why that is, I have no idea and don't really care. Exactly what administrative action were you looking to have happen? If you have a problem with the photo, discuss it with the user or on the talk page of the article. Also, you didn't notify either User:Tysteele or User:90.219.46.156 of this discussion, which is required. Anyone who is accusing other users of being clueless should know that. I will notify them now. SnottyWong ^chat 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you've gotten pretty damn close to breaking the 3rr over an 'almost identical' photo... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? There's no reason to link to the low-res image, and there's no reason to take the word for all these different anon IPs/user as gospel. A good image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which the uploader on Commons hasn't repudiated, but somebody else, who may or may not be the same person, claims that an image with identical content but low-res, and a slightly different name should be replaced. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question. Why doesn't someone just crop out the other person and reupload it? Courcelles 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That would be reasonable, the other person in the picture doesn't add anything. But note that the anon IPs are not trying to remove the other person, they are trying to change to a low-res image with a different name, so that really wasn't the point here, the point is the anon IPs are determined to change to a crappy low-res image when the high-res image is still there. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped the image and re-uploaded, but it doesn't change the fact that whatever this person/people is trying to achieve/hide/whatever, I don't think it's happened. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, image 1 is 4,416 × 3,312 pixels, image 2 is 558 × 575 pixels. That's a big difference. The colour is also out of whack on the downscaled image. You seriously can't see the difference?

Also 'Tysteele' doesn't exist, except for uploading this image. Debasing the image and reuploading it under a different name achieves nothing.

BTW, I have contacted Tysteele, as you would have seen. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You contacted Tysteele, but didn't inform him/her of this discussion about them (which is required). You're right that the images are of different resolutions, I missed that. I don't see any difference in the colors though. Also, since the images are being scaled down to thumbnail size on the article, it hardly makes a difference if the original is 600x600 or 6 million x 6 million. The thumbnail is not going to appear any different. Again, you brought this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, what administrative action would you like to see with regard to this issue? It appears that you're edit warring with Tysteele and you're looking for someone to revert him/her again so that you don't cross the line into 3RR. From the talk page of this article, it's clear that you're not a stranger to edit wars. I'd suggest you discuss the issue with Tysteele and figure out why s/he no longer wants to be identified with the article, and perhaps you'll find an easier way to sort it out. You started this ANI thread at 19:00 UTC, and then started trying to engage Tysteele in a discussion 3.5 hours later. It should have been the other way around. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead1 left a warning template on my talkpage just before I was due to go out at 19:00UTC complaining that I was reverting from the crappy low-res image to the substantively identical high-res one. So I started a thread here, having been threatened for (entirely reasonably IMO) reverting from the debased image to the original one, primarily as a response to the the threat by eraserhead1, but also with a hope that someone here would be able to address what this anon(s) is trying to achieve by doing this. I certainly didn't have time to work out which of these new accounts and IPs I was supposed to be dealing with here (yes I know, I could have identified all of them, like I said, I was due at my destination at 19:00 UTC, so I was late leaving, let alone arriving, so I wasn't exactly able to resolve all of this.)

It's ridiculous to say that it doesn't make any difference because the thumbnail is the same, when the loss of detail is quite apparent to my eyes in the thumbnail, in colour, shadows, and other aspects, and besides this, linking to the high-resolution image is useful for those that might require a high-res image, for publication, or whatever.

As you note, there have been some disruptive anons warring on this page before, I don't think it's unreasonable therefore for me to flag this issue up. There is no link that can be made between these new accounts without checkuser or similar administrative input, so all that I can see here is an attempt to link to a debased image over a high-quality one, or in plain Wikipedish 'vandalism', which I'm entitled to revert without being threatened (I'm only too aware of the effects of wikilawyering, so I'll make no apologies for explaining my behaviour in advance of someone blocking me (I was previously blocked for reverting spam, and I have no intention of going through the tedious process again, in fact I'd sooner leave, than repeat that tedious nonsense)Sumbuddi (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Hammersoft's olive branch results in total silence

Saruha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Today, I removed a number of non-free content violations from Rudolf-Harbig-Stadium. Non-free images were being used as icons (failing WP:NFCC) #8, being used in galleries (failing WP:NFG), and being used without rationales (failing WP:NFCC #10c). In the process, I discovered that the person responsible for much of this work, User:Saruha, had uploaded a large number of problematic images and used them in problematic ways. For example, claiming that this image was his, when it clearly was not. I went through his contributions cleaning up a great many of these problems, and notified him on his talk page of all of these problems, along with giving him a general warning regarding image uploads and usage (see User_talk:Saruha#Image_upload_problems). He has made the decision to undo all of my edits, and his work to do so is proceeding. He continues to remove warning templates for messages without fixing the underlying problems (example), and continues to push galleries of non-free images onto articles (example). I've attempted to get him to stop, warning him multiple times without effect. I even placed a great big whopping stop hand on his talk page (User_talk:Saruha#STOP). It's all fallen on deaf ears, and he refuses to cooperate or discuss in any manner, instead choosing to edit war. Help, please. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown this user the door until he expresses a willingness to comply with image policy. Some help reverting would be appreciated. Rodhullandemu 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything he's done today has been reverted. Thanks everyone. Now, to attempt to engage him in discussion (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a block for anonymous user 95.19.138.163. This anonymous user keeps adding a website to this article, which, on itself, isn't reason to be alarmed. This website, however, is represented as Ian Somerhalder's personal website (being put in the lead-in of the article). It is not. It is a Spanish-language fan site (the user has refered to it him/herself, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Somerhalder&diff=386688967&oldid=386687896 . Ian Somerhalder seems in no way affiliated with this website. Perhaps some people would include these sites as a source, but I highly doubt there is anyone on Wikipedia who might reckon a fansite a site of a celebrity (unless specifically affiliated with the relevant person). If a blocking of anonymous user 95.19.138.163 is not reachable, then I would like to request a (semi-)protection. Best regards, Robster1983 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP range 86.176.0.0/16 blocked for 24h. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contributions, blocked for block evasion, has responded by making threats of harm unless unblocked. As a result, I've removed their ability to edit their talk page, but thought I'd report it here for further discussion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, any connection to the legal threat that was dealt with a few sections above this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection. This sounds like normal trolling. But on the minute chance there might be something to it - they speak of causing harm to a "small child" - an editor in the UK might want to inform the police of Southampton, which is the geolocation of the IP.  Sandstein  20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not. But this IPs edits starts out with a clear intent of vengeance for some earlier grievance it seems. It seems to be a sock of someone. The first edit being a threat of vandalism made on the talk page of another editor, the next a statement of intent of legal action, as well as various others. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blocking me and perhaps we can discuss this without the small claims action :) If not I might have to login with sockpuppets :( 86.176.164.140 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rangeblock time? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea if possible. WP:RBI sounds good here. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threat of harm is not credible, but the user's being unreasonable and offensive to the point of demanding some sort of response. Problem is, it's a BT pair of contiguous /17 ranges (form a /16 together). We can block that sized range, but do we want to?.. I'm checking range contributions now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; according to the range contributions tool, most of what has come out of those IP ranges in the last 24 hrs is this extended IP vandalism/threats incident. Accordingly, I have blocked the range (86.176.0.0/16) for 24 hrs. A couple of legit content editors are going to get caught by that according to the contribution history, which is regrettable, but this persistent guy has created a sufficiently annoying incident to require intervention, from at least 6 IPs that I see now spread across the range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Zero tolerance for threats. Jusdafax 07:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:Sensitive_IP_addresses#Addresses_of_organizations_with_a_responsive_IRT it's suggested that BT "has demonstrated willingness and ability to be responsive to reports of abuse at the source (the user)". Elsewhere and more recently, it's been suggested that they tend to be non-responsive. Given that we presumably have a selection of IP/timestamp pairs for one of their customers, the customer in question is making (admittedly non-credible) threats of harm and legal threats and causing other disruption, and given that we believe a block at our end will negatively impact some of their other customers, is it worth asking them to take action on this one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness2005 (talk · contribs) has been editing since April 2008 yet has never engaged in discussion with anyone. The editor's talk page is filled with numerous messages that especially question the contributions made. This has persisted ever since, and I am wondering if action needs to be taken to actually get the editor to respond to the rest of the community. Is there a course of action that can be taken here? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) [EDIT: For what it's worth, this editor reminds me of this discussion. Could similar action be taken to foster communication? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Many of his gnome like updates are valuable but on other occasions they are very idiosyncratic and systematically so, demanding time-consuming reverts. I understand that he cannot be forced to respond to other editors, but if a way could be found to persuade him to use edit summaries it would make understanding his intention less frustrating. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Erik's sentiments, this editor has become problematic. I believe many of his edits are sincere, but he displays a casual disregard for guidelines and policy. One of the more worrying aspects is that he often replaces sourced information with IMDB data, which isn't even accepted as a reliable source and then it doesn't match up with the supplied reference. Editors try to enter into discussion with him but the lack of acknowledgement means the issues don't get addressed and he continues in the same vein. Since he won't respond to comments on his talk page, people just tend to leave template messages now and nothing is going to get resolved that way. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu had already left a message notifying the user of the likelihood of being blocked if the editor didn't engage before editing more, and they still refused to do so. Given the clear unlikelihood of anything else succeeding, at this point I've blocked the editor indefinitely. "Indefinite" isn't by any means "permanent" here—I'm happy to have anyone reverse the block if they indicate they understand the problem and will correct it going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that; it seems clear to me that the editor is competent in the English language, but ploughing one's own furrow here without regard to concerns of other editors is just unacceptable. Hopefully the block will concentrate the mind. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable block. I have watchlisted his talk page as well, but at some point enough is enough. After 2.5 years, you'd think he'd have figured out how his talk page worked. --Jayron32 04:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, regarding the OP's concern over connections to the earlier user, I have reviewed the contributions of both users, and the connection appears to be purely coincidental. A quick check of the recent contributions of that prior user will confirm that. --Jayron32 04:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor(s) using very similar IP addresses have been adding coatrack and fringe junk to the 1Malaysia page. The page has already been semi-protected once, I have placed a POV tag in the section at question (which they promptly deleted!), and reverted their edits when I have the time to do so. This problem is really getting serious and I think something should be done. Monkeyassault (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the behavior of these IPs is very similar to Roman888. Please also not that the IP addresses do not make edits to any other articles, do not engage on talk, and constantly switch to new addresses.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the NPOV/POV tag is as a tool to help the community create good balanced articles. I'd just like to point out that the POV tag was apparently issued to justify the removal of the whole section. Granted some items edit-warred (mainly the One-Israel section) might appear fringe, but other parts containing responses and reactions by the ex-prime minister of Malaysia (predecessor of the current prime minister who initiated the policy in question) and notable political organizations should remain. Just because the policy was not positively received by them does not mean that any negative response automatically constitutes a COATRACK. IT merely provides a balanced article (as another editor pointed out, the article was beginning to look like a PR whitewash). Whatever so called "negative wording" is due to the content being quoted, which has already been properly attributed to the sources as per wiki requirements. Blocking the IPs of offenders will fix the problem of socks, but using the situation as an excuse to remove a whole section is overkill and only leads to an unbalanced article. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me address the issue of the allegations of fringe and coatrack that have been brought up in the 1Malaysia article. All the information regarding the interpretation, Perkasa and OneIsrael have valid references and have been reported in the media in Malaysia. Even the OneIsrael sub-topic has been brought up in the Malaysian parliament with evidence presented to the online media by Anwar Ibrahim himself. (this was reported widely with the exception of the Malaysian mass media which is under the thumb of Malaysian government) Now the continued whitewashing of the information is not only irresponsible, but alludes that the person doing it has an ulterior motive. The 1Malaysia page was semi-protected previously because of some misguided information given to the moderator involved who did not understand the full situation. Agreed with what Zhanzhao said above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.153.217.92 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was semi-protected because you engage in coatracking. Your talk of general style of writing, mentions of "whitewashing", and argument that media mentions alone justify including content seem incredibly similar to Roman888. In fact, I am 99% sure you are one in the same. Would you care to explain why you are circumventing your block?Monkeyassault (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm probably involved) So we have continued edit-warring by Melbourne-based IPs after two uninvolved editors (one an administrator the other a former admin) considered the content inserted by the IP to be inappropriate. Protection didn't work, so guess what comes next.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must first be made clear that there are a few points which are mentioned in the section in question. For a response by the Ex-prime minister and the political organization, it was misunderstood that the content was of dubious notability. After I provided a few more links from sources including mainstream news agencies, the editor did not raise further issue with its notability. Also another reason given by the editor for it being inappropriate was the editor considered it to lean more towards news than being encyclopedic, forwhich there isn't a clear guideline to follow. What I am worried about is that the POV tag is applied to the whole "response" section rather than the subsection which is being contested, the part about One-Israel. I would move the tag to only refer to the One-Israel subsection rather than have it apply to the higher-level response section. Alternatively, the POV tag could arguably be tagged to the whole article. As I said, the reporting editor is using the tag as a justification for the removal of the whole section. Does that mean the whole article would be up for deletion? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved in this dispute. I don't see how this is an issue for ANI. If there are concerns about sockpuppets it's better to file reports at SPI. This looks like a routine content dispute to me. The repeated blanket removal of material reported by reliable sources like Reuters needs to stop though. That is potentially an issue for ANI to deal with if it carries on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being sourced, in and of itself, cannot possibly justify keeping content that violates policy. Take a look at the policy on coatracks. We have IP editors here that do not respect Wikipedia policy or process and just do what they want regardless of what anyone else says. This sounds exactly like the kind of behavior that should be discussed here. Monkeyassault (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be explicitly clear on which point you are exactly pointing out as the alleged COATRACK. As mentioned repeatedly, there are a number of points/subsections mentioned under the response section, and you keep alleging COATRACK without specifying which point you are referring to. There are rules defining what exactly is a COATRACK, and it does not apply to everything in that section. To claim that any reported negative reaction to a public policy as COATRACK is just plain wikilawyering and definitely not in the spirit on which the rules were created. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the entire section but only the One Israel section can be fairly categorized as a coatrack. FYI insisting that rules be followed, especially when the result makes practical sense, is not "Wikilawyering". I am not here making technical arguments supporting an absurd outcome that violates the spirit of the rules as you seem to imply. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using COATRACK as a justification to remove a a whole section of an article, when you yourself admit that you can only "fairly categorize" one particular part as COATRACK, is exactly "making technical arguments supporting an absurd outcome that violates the spirit of the rules". Either that or its WP:BATHWATER, which isn't any better. DanS76 (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the policy of COATRACK, it says there should be an element of bias involved that overwhelms the article. Whereas we have 3/4 of the article discussing the advantages and merits of 1Malaysia (which by itself goes against NPOV rules). Sorry to burst your bubble, but Monkey is also cherry picking stuff in the article and removing the negative elements which goes against one of the tenets of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.140.40.212 (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately mischaracterizing the content of the article and the policy on coatracking. This is classic Roman888 behavior. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl (talk · contribs) manufactured a rape allegation that he added to the Air Rhodesia Flight 825 article. The content was removed by others, but he immediately re-added it. The (real-world) author who he claimed to quote was outraged enough to contact Wikipedia (OTRS 2010102910008463) to have the content taken down. I feel that this incident is serious enough to attract some sort of sanction. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]